power of words
denying the antecedent, if x then y, not x, therefore not y
affirming the consequent, if x then y, y, therefore x,
is ought fallacy
perfectionist fallacy
ad hominem
appeal to ignorance: must be false because it cannot be proved/disproved
appeal to authority
post hoc ergo propter hoc: B came after A, so A must have caused B
mistaken correlation
arguments from analogy: if two or more things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in more respects
slippery slope
red herring: drawing a conclusion on the basis of an irrelevant premise
lexical ambiguity
structural ambiguity: you can read the sentence in multiple ways
straw man fallacy: argue against a misrepresentation of the position
begging the question, circular argument
false dilemma
module 3:
inference: conclusions based on what is said/seen
entailements: john is a bachelor; john is a man, john is unmarried. Literal meaning of what is said. Based on semantics
implicature: a: where is john? B: not in his room. Inference: b does not know where john is. Based on pragmatics
conventional implicatures:
handy to know but not part of the truth of an item. And/but
conversational implicatues:
A conversational implicature occurs when a speaker implies something beyond what is explicitly stated, relying on shared knowledge and conversational norms for the listener to infer the intended meaning.
Maxims; rules for cooperation
Quantity maxim: contributions need to have the right amount of information
Quality maxim: contributions should be true or have evidence
Manner maxim: Contributions should be clear, unambiguous, brief, and orderly
Relation maxim: contributions have to be relevant.
Grice distinguishes four ways in which the maxims can be violated:
1. Quietly (misleading)
2. The speaker may opt out from the cooperation (“I cannot say more”)
3. The speaker may be faced with a clash between the maxims; unable to
fulfill one maxim without violating another.
4. The speaker may blatantly fail to fulfill a maxim, with the idea that the
hearer will recognize this.
In cases 1 & 2, a maxim is violated and the person is being uncooperative.
In cases 3 & 4, a maxim is violated but the speaker is still observing the cooperative principle.
This leads to Conversational Implicature
Flouting a maxim purposefully, with the intent that the hearer will notice this, co-operative, in order to imply some other meaning.
Eg:
A: Where is John?
B: Not in his room.
Maxim flouted: Quantity, it doesn’t provide enough information
Implicature: B does not know where John is.
• A assumes that B is cooperative, but B violates the maxim of quantity. He wants to hear something more informative, for example, (1) “John is in the kitchen”
• A still wants to explain the utterance as cooperative
• The only way in which A can explain the behaviour as cooperative is by assuming that the reason why B does not give the required information is that if B gave this information he would violate the maxim of quality, and be misleading
• So A reasons: that means that B must not have adequate evidence for uttering (1)
• In other words, B does not know where exactly John is.
Computability: can it be explained with the griceran reasoning
Cancelability: you can cancel an implication by adding the negation of it without creating a contradiction, in literal meanings this is impossible.
Non-detachability: The concept of non-detachability in conversational implicatures means that the implicature is tied to the meaning of what is said, not to the specific words or phrasing used. In other words, changing the words but keeping the meaning intact does not eliminate the implicature.
jointly working towards a shared goal
of mutually understandable, beneficial conversation (can be acheived
by following the four maxims)
Module 4
A speech act is essentially the ‘act’ or what we ‘do’ with our utterances
For Grice: the primary purpose of communication is a maximally effective exchange of
information
For Austin: there is more action in communication than just information exchange.
Constative utterances
• describe the world
• express a proposition that can be true or false
• their meaning can be given by providing truth conditions
Performative utterances: However, most of the utterances in the world do describe the state of the world, but are meant as something more, they are not false or true. These utterances change the world.
By saying a performative utterance, you are not only saying what you are doing, but you are actually doing it. You are performing an act.
The Verification Principle: A statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically
verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the
meanings of its terms)
Austin’s reaction to this principle: this truth/false idea does not apply to performance utterances. They can not be validified based on truth, but they can based on felicity conditions. It can be satisfactory or not.
Prototypical Performatives are:
Social acts
Describe what they do
Conventional feel
1st person
Present tense
Paraphraseable with hereby
The line between constative and performative is impossible, as constative utterances also perform something.
Now why if the line is blurred would austin even make up the set of rules about performative acts?: it proves that we really do change the world with our utterances, because of its clarity.
- Constative utterances: statements that describe or report facts about the
world (we can talk about truth conditions).
- Performative utterances: a type of speech act in which saying something is
doing something (we can only talk about felicity conditions)
Searle: speech act categorasiation
A Speech Act:
• presents information and performs an action
• is a social act
• form the basic units of communication
• depends on its context
• relies on speaker intention
1. Locutionary act: the act of uttering, actually saying the words
2. Illocutionary act: (or ‘illocutionary force’) the act performed through uttering, e.g.
ordering, promising, reporting, thanking
3. Perlocutionary act: the effect/outcome produced on others, e.g. inspiring,
motivating, frightening
Together, they constitute a speech act.
Types of speech acts by Searle:
1. Directives: Attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (request,
question, command, dare, insist, invite)
E.g. “The coach won’t set off until everyone is sitting in their seats”
2. Commissives: Committing the speaker to some future course of action, offering
to do something (offer, promise, vow, pledge, undertake)
E.g. “I’ll make America great again”
3 . Assertives/Representatives: Committing the speaker to the truth of the expressed
proposition (conclude, assert, deny, report)
E.g. “The train to Utrecht is delayed”
4 . Expressives: Communicating the psychological state, attitude, or feelings of the speaker
(apologise, appreciate, deplore, detest, welcome, thanking)
E.g. “Congratulations on your exam results!
5 . Declarations: Bringing about immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs,
typically relying on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (christening, declaring war,
excommunicating, sentencing)
E.g. “I hereby pronounce you husband and wife”
Speech acts can be direct or indirect, based on if the form sentence and the type of speech act match. Eg, a question can serve as a directive: can you help me hold the ladder. The indirect one is often more prominent.
Multiliteracy: The ability to
comprehend different modes of communication
Module 5
Commitments
A speaker’s commitment to their own assertions
Commitments are social and normative, not the same as holding a belief, has to be public, committing to the truth of a notion. Normative because, Commitments contain what future actions (including speech acts) we are allowed to take, we are obliged to provide evidence for our commitments, the norm to commit to what you say.
We take on a commitment by performing certain kinds of speech acts:
A. Assertives commit the speaker to the truth of an expressed proposition
e.g. The earth is flat.
e.g. Immigration is the number one problem facing this country.
B. Commissives commit the speaker to a future action.
e.g. I promise to do the dishes tonight.
e.g. I’ll make America great again
We also take on commitments by choosing certain words:
• By making lexical choices, we commit ourselves to the appropriateness
of that term, in that context, with that referent
e.g. By labelling a household pet a “cat” you are committed to the appropriateness of
attaching that label to that object/concept
Slurs and hate speech are common examples of commitments de lingua. To choose to use a perjorative term commits you to the appropriateness of using that term in that context with that referent.
What if you don’t want to make a commitment to the appropriateness of a word? Then add quotation marks, “so-called”, language games? Like non fiction, songs.
- The Germans in those days wondered: `Didn't Hitler bring to reality
what Wilhelm II had only promised?’ direct discourse
- the Germans in those days wondered if Hitler didn't bring to reality what
Wilhelm II had only promised. indirect discourse
- Didn't Hitler bring to reality what Wilhelm II had only promised? free
indirect discourse
With our speech acts we can also bring commitment to others
In summary:
Speech acts are social acts that often bring about normative
commitments, e.g. speaker assertions shows commitment to the truth of
the proposition.
Commitments de lingua make speaker commitments on the basis of
lexical choice, e.g. speaker becomes committed to appropriateness of that
term in that context.
In communication we undertake commitments, attribute them to others,and we can also take steps to avoid them
Dog whistles: one utterance, designed to have intentionally two interpretations. One widely comprehended, and one private coded message.
Utterance: “Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and
idealism and faith of the American people.”
Interpretation A: There is strength and power in the attitudes and beliefs
of the American people
Interpretation B: a ‘fundamentalist' Christian will recognise the dog
whistle; ‘wonder-working power' is a phrase used to refer to the power of
Christ
Figleaves: a utterance or speech act whose function is to prevent a nearby bigoted
statement from being interpreted as bigoted
Framing: Evoking certain associations by lexical choices
Idiolect: the speech habits peculiar to a particular person
Familect: A familect or marriage language is a set of invented words or phrases
with meanings understood within members of a family or other small intimate
group
Ideological Squaring: To present the notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ in discourse