Argumentative abduction in the interpretation process: A pragma-dialectical study of an ironic utterance

  1. Duarte, Antonio
Liburua:
From argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild : a variety of contributions to Argumentation Theory
  1. Frans H. van Eemeren (coord.)

Argitaletxea: Springer Cham

ISSN: 1566-7650,  2215-1907

ISBN: 9783030283667,  9783030283674

Argitalpen urtea: 2019

Orrialdeak: 205-221

Mota: Liburuko kapitulua

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_13 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

In deviations of intent, from that expressed by the standard or ordinary use of language, abductive reasoning necessarily plays an important role. In such cases, to cause the desired effect in the audience, the speaker usually utters some “mysterious” words and relies on the hearer’s abductive ability to solve the enigma. This abductive ability is mostly based on the interlocutors’ knowledge of the common dialogic framework, and both speaker and listener have to apply this reasoning to arrive at successful communication. Understanding this exchange as an argumentative process, this kind of “guessing” can be evaluated in a reasoned way. As a practical case, in this contribution, I analyze an ironic utterance from a pragma-dialectical perspective. By doing so, I propose that these kinds of hypotheses that are drawn up in the interpretation process could be evaluated in an argumentative way, as answering certain critical questions regarding the theoretical norms of extended pragma-dialectics.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826.
  • Clark, H., & Gerrig, J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–126.
  • Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce’s theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  • García-Carpintero, M. (2008). Las palabras, las ideas y las cosas. Una presentación de la filosofía del lenguaje [Words, ideas and things. An introduction to philosophy of language]. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel.
  • Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115(1), 3–15.
  • Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1991). Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(6), 523–530.
  • Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
  • Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 241–257.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
  • Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 113–117). New York: Academic Press.
  • Hintikka, J. (1998). What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 34(3), 503–534.
  • Houtlosser, P. (2001). Points of view. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2013). Implicatures as forms of argument. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy (pp. 203–224). Berlin/New York: Springer.
  • Martínez Fabregat, S. (2014). La ironía como estrategia argumentativa [Irony as an argumentative strategy]. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación, 8, 1–15.
  • Olgoso, A. (1999). Cuentos de otro mundo [Tales of another world]. Valladolid: Caja España.
  • Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction through grammar, critic, and methodeutic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 40(2), 245–270.
  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. W. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers, vols. 1–8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (CP).
  • Raccah, P.-Y. (2014). Linguistic argumentation as a shortcut for the empirical study of argumentative strategies. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of 8th Conference of The International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Online publication: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-linguistic-argumentation-as-a-shortcut-for-the-empirical-study-of-argumentative-strategies/ .
  • Saul, J. M. (2002). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 347–372.
  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). Nueva York: Academic Press.
  • Tindale, C. W. (2015). The philosophy of argument and audience reception. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in communicative discussions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1, 283–301.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14, 293–305.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2009). Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
  • West, D. E. (2016). The abductive character of Peirce’s virtual habit. Semiotics, Semiotics 2016: Archaeology of Concepts, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5840/cpsem20165 .
  • Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743.
  • Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance Theory. In L. R. Horn & D. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.