Upload
fabrizio-macagno
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
1/21
Presupposing redefinitions
Definitions in argumentation
Words, and in particular ethical or emotive terms (Stevenson 1937: 18-19), are
etremel! po"er#ul instruments$ %he! can &e used to modi#! our &elie#s, our 'no"lede
and our perspective on realit!, &ut also to conceal #acts and ualities$ *t the same time,
"ords can descri&e and hide realit! (Schiappa +3) to in#luence our udments and
decisions$ .or this reason, "ords can &e the most innocent and mischievous tools o#
persuasion and deceit$ Words can &e used to purposel! select in#ormation in order to
omit characteristics o# a state o# a##airs that can &e relevant and crucial #or the udment
or the decision to &e made$ /o"ever, sometimes the! are not simpl! used to select, &ut
to distort realit!$ 0assacres and human traedies are called paci#ications2
dictatorships are usti#ied &ecause the! are democracies2 (4r"ell 1956)$ Wars arepraised as acts o# #reedom2 (o!le Sam&anis +6: 1) drone &om&ins are
nelected i# called non-hostile operations2$ %he su&tle di##erence &et"een selectin
and distortin, persuadin and manipulatin lies in the essential #eature o# "ords, their
meanin$ ! chanin the meanin o# a "ord it is possi&le to modi#! the "a! realit! is
perceived &! our interlocutor, creatin an am&iuit! that is eploited to redirect his
values and alter his udments$
are#s'! (1998) and Schiappa (+3: 111-11+ 13) pointed out the implicit
dimension o# this act o# namin realit!, "hich the! call arument &! de#inition$ ;nstead
o# puttin #or"ard a classi#ication and support it &! a de#initional reason, the spea'er
simpl! names realit!, leavin the de#inition unepressed$ ;nstead o# statin or advancin
a de#inition, he simpl! ta'es it #or ranted, considerin it as part o# the interlocutors)$ /o"ever, dependin
on "hether the spea'er is assessin a speci#ic course o# action or considerin a oal, the
t!pe o# reasonin can have di##erent #orms$ %he #irst and simpler #orm o# arument is
the arument #rom conseuences (Walton, Ceed 0acano +8: 33+)
DC?0;S? 1: ;#Ais &rouht a&out, ood (&ad) conseuences "ill plausi&l! occur$DC?0;S? +: What leads to ood (&ad) conseuences shall &e (not) &rouht a&out$
N4JNKS;4J: %here#oreAshould &e &rouht a&out$
.or instance, classi#!in an operation as an act o# peace2 or as a paci#ication2 can
trier a reasonin #rom positive conseuences: since the operation leads to peace, and
peace is desira&le, the operation shall &e supported$ %he other #orm o# reasonin, called
practical reasonin, proceeds #rom a value to the means that can possi&l! &rin it a&out
(Walton, Ceed 0acano +8: 3+3):
DC?0;S? 1: ; (an aent) have a oal A$
DC?0;S? +: Narr!in out this action * is a means to reali=e A$N4JNKS;4J: %here#ore, ; ouht to (practicall! spea'in) carr! out this action *$
.or instance, #reein people #rom "ant and need in countries overned &! dictators can
&e rearded as hihl! desira&le, and can usti#! some #orms o# intervention presented as
the onl! means to achieve such a oal$
#motions and definitions
Stevenson pointed out ho" "ords can &e used to a##ect the interlocutor
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
8/21
*s seen a&ove, de#initions can &e considered as the premises o# classi#icator! reasonin,
"hich are o#ten ta'en #or ranted &ecause the! are part o# the common round$
/o"ever, "hen a ne" de#inition is advanced, it &ecomes a standpoint that needs to &e
supported &! reasons i# not accepted &! the interlocutor$ * de#inition, or a rede#inition,
is an implicit claim in #avour o# a ne" use o# an eistin "ord (Schiappa +3), and
needs to &e open to challene$ We can conceive a rede#inition as a standpointcon#lictin "ith the shared opinion on a "ord use and #or this reason it is presumed not
to &e accepted$ %here is nothin "ron "ith rede#inin a "ord the crucial pro&lem is
ho" a rede#inition is introduced$ .or instance, "e can consider ho" 4&ama rede#ined
the concept o# @hostilit!< to classi#! *merican airstri'es in Ki&!a$ ;n order to avoid
Nonress authori=ation to continue the hostilities, 4&ama adapted the meanin o# such
"ord to eclude &om&ins and operations conducted &! unmanned aircra#ts (Obama
Administration letter to $ongress %ustifying &ibya engagement, Fune 1>th, +11, p$ +>):
Implicit redefinition: Hostilities
%he Dresident is o# the vie" that the current $S$ militar! operations in Ki&!a are
consistent "ith the War Do"ers Cesolution and do not under that la" reuire #urtherconressional authori=ation, &ecause $S$ militar! operations are distinct #rom the 'ind
o# hostilities contemplated &! the Cesolution 19>+ Qarttunen, 1973 Qempson, 197> Wilson, 197> Qeenan,
1971)$ %his pramatic vie" etends the notion o# presupposition to several phenomena
o# meanin#ulness constraints (*ustin 196+: 35 >1), such as selectional restrictions,
coherence relations and #elicit! conditions$ Several phenomena are la&eled as
presuppositions, includin the controversial semantic presuppositions and the "ider
class o# #elicit! conditions o# speech acts and coherence relations$ %he common
characteristic o# all these phenomena is that a propositionpis presupposed "hen it is
ta'en #or ranted in per#ormin a speech act, "hose #elicit! depends on the
interlocutor
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
9/21
propositional attitude, "hich can &e interpreted as an action o# a 'ind (Stalna'er, ++:
71)$ *s Qempson put it (197>: 19), presupposin amounts to treatin a proposition as
part o# the common round:
%he spea'er &elieves that the hearer 'no"s (and 'no"s that the spea'er 'no"s) a
certain &od! o# propositions (i$e$ there is a Dramatic niverse o# iscourse) and inma'in a certain utterance @V'p< he &elieves that the hearer, 'no"in the conventions
o# the lanuae and hence the conditions #or the truth o# the proposition in uestion,
"ill reconise a su&set o# those conditions as &ein part o# that Dramatic niverse o#
iscourse and hence neither asserti&le, denia&le or ueria&le LUM
;n particular #or the purpose o# this paper a speci#ic t!pe o# pramatic presupposition
needs to &e inuired into, the presupposition o# de#initional sentences$ .or this reason, it
is necessar! to investiate ho" de#initions can &e presupposed in discourse, or rather
ho" the! can &e triered$
Presuppositions of discourse relations
e#initions, &ein the implicit premises o# a classi#icator! arument, need to &e inuired
into ta'in into consideration the linuistic structure o# discourse relations, or rather
connectives$ Qarttunen (1973: 176) descri&ed ho" presuppositions can &e triered &!
predicates o# hiher level, the connectives, "hose linuistic aruments are discourse
seuences$ Nonnectives lin' seuences and presuppose speci#ic relations &et"een them$
.or instance, "e can consider the #ollo"in #amous case (Ka'o##, 1971: 133):
1$ Fohn is tall, &ut he is no ood at &as'et&all$
Ka'o## notices that (1) is composed o# an assertion (Fohn is tall, and he is no ood at&as'et&all) and a presupposition (;# someone is tall, then one "ould epect him to &e
ood at &as'et&all)$ %he e##ect is a denial o# epectation, "hich "as descri&ed &!
ucrot as the contradiction &! the second conunct o# a presupposed conclusion (in this
case, Fohn is ood at &as'et&all) (ucrot, 1978)$ Similarl!, the connective @and: 16+)$ ;n coordination, an eplicit or implicit
predicate hides a deeper relationship (allard, Nonrad Konacre, 1971) that needs to
&e reconstructed in order to understand the role and the conditions o# the discourse
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
10/21
sements or seuences$ .or instance, coordination can epress temporal, causal,
eplanation relations, imposin speci#ic reuirements on their seuences, such as a
causal or temporal order o# the seuences$ ;n all cases, ho"ever, a hih level notion
(/o&&s 198>) connects the propositions epressed &! the clause such a notion, or
predicate, can &e epressed or not, and speci#ied or not$ ;n all cases, the sentences or
clauses are connected &! an a&stract, hih level and eneric semantic relation thatimposes speci#ic reuirements on its aruments$ %here can &e several hih-level
relations: eplanation, narration, contrast, etc$ (see /o&&s, 198> Kascarides *sher,
1993) ho"ever, "e "ill consider one o# such relations, motivation or support$ We can
anal!se the #ollo"in interpretation and reconstruction o# the a#orementioned arument
used &! 4&ama to classi#! the airstri'es in Ki&!a:
(*) 4ur operations do not involve the presence o# $S$ round troops$ ()
(therefore) 4ur operations are not @hostilities
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
11/21
Figure : Presuppositions of !therefore"
%he a&stract relation o# coherence (/o&&s 1979, *sher Kascarides +3, chap$ 7), in
this case motivation, is #urther speci#ied accordin to the three levels o# anal!sis o# the
sentences$ %he last step is the speci#ication o# the presupposition, "hich in this case
corresponds to a de#initional principle o# @hostilit!: 19)
that the interlocutor &elieves thatpis true and reconi=es that the spea'er is ma'in this
assumption (Stalna'er, 1975: +)$ .rom this account o# pramatic presupposition, t"ocrucial elements emere: 1$ Dresupposition can &e considered as a decision to treat a
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
12/21
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
13/21
interlocutor$ .rom a pramatic perspective, the possi&ilit! o# presupposin in#ormation
not shared, or not 'no"n to &e shared, needs to &e accounted #or$ 4n Ke"isE perspective
(Ke"is 1979), the hearer reconstructs the presupposed and not shared propositions in
order to avoid communicative #ailure (Ton .intel +8) in other "ords, he
accommodates the missin and necessar! in#ormation (Ke"is 1979: 35):
;# at time tsomethin is said that reuires presuppositionPto &e accepta&le and i#Pis
not presupposed ust &e#ore t, then Z ceteris paribusand "ithin certain limits Z
presuppositionPcomes into eistence at t$
%he crucial pro&lem o# this vie" is to determine ho" a presupposition can come into
eistence, and &e added to the shared propositions$ 4n Soames< vie", accommodation
is possi&le "hen no o&ections are raised, namel! the interlocutor has alread! accepted
the proposition (it is part o# the common round) or it is not con#lictin "ith it (Soames,
198+: 586):
tterance Dresupposition *n utterance presupposes D (at t) i## one can reasona&l!in#er #rom that the spea'er S accepts D and reards it as uncontroversial, either
&ecause
a$ S thin's that it is alread! part o# the conversational contet at t, or &ecause
&$ S thin's that the audience is prepared to add it, "ithout o&ection, to the contet
aainst "hich is evaluated$
Soames eplains the phenomenon o# accommodation in terms o# the spea'er
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
14/21
presuppositions (the de#inition o# [at\]ma and the re#erent o# the!2) cannot &e
accommodated, cannot &e reconstructed, as the! are not rhetoricall! &ound to the
contet (*sher Kascarides 1998: +77), nor the! are related to propositions presumed
to &e 'no"n$ ;n this case, the process o# reconstruction sho"n in #iure + can #ail at
level 1 or +, as the spea'er ma! not understand the meanin o# the seuences connected
and there#ore retrieve their relationship, or he can understand their relationship &utcannot reconstruct the de#initor! statement$ Ceconstruction is not the onl! process
"hich needs to &e considered #or anal!sin presuppositions, as () does not represent
the onl! case in "hich the speech act is in#elicitous &ecause o# presuppositional #ailure$
;n N and the hearer can understand the nature o# the proposition ta'en #or ranted (a
de#initor! statement) and connect it "ith his or her &ac'round 'no"lede$ /o"ever, in
N the hearer cannot accept that the propert! o# &ein nice and "ell done2 is a
de#inition o# an action (hostilities)$ ;n this case, the process o# presupposition
reconstruction represented in #iure + a&ove #ails at level +$ ;n , the presupposition can
&e reconstructed and its nature o# de#initor! statement accepted$ /o"ever, no
conressmen and presuma&l! no ?nlish spea'er can accept that coo'in o# potatoes2
is a de#inition o# @hostilit!
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
15/21
&et"een the spea'er
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
16/21
evidence, or provin a proposition, onto the other part!$ .or instance, the #undamental
leal presumption is the innocence o# the de#endant$ %his does not mean that the
de#endant is innocent, &ut simpl! that he is considered as such until he is proved uilt!
(&e!ond a speci#ic standard o# proo#)$ %he other part!, the prosecution (or in civil cases
the plainti##) has to provide evidence to re&ut this presumptive conclusion$
%he leal #rame"or' provides a eneral idea o# the structure o# this reasonin inever!da! arumentation$ Dresumptions "or' to move the dialoue #urther "hen
'no"lede is lac'in$ %heir role is to shi#t the &urden o# proo# onto the other part!, "ho
can reect the proposition onl! &! providin contrar! aruments or positive #acts leadin
to a contrar! conclusion$ ;# not re&utted, the spea'er can consider it as tentativel!
proved, and move the dialoue #urther$ Cescher outlined the structure o# this t!pe o#
in#erence as #ollo"s (Cescher +6: 33):
DC?0;S? 1: P(the proposition representin the presumption) o&tains "henever the
condition $o&tains unless and until the standard de#ault proviso+(to
the e##ect that countervailin evidence is at hand) o&tains ("ule)$
DC?0;S? +: Nondition $o&tains (Fact)$DC?0;S? 3: Droviso+does not o&tain (#xception)$
N4JNKS;4J:Po&tains$
%he"uleo# presumption lin's the accepta&ilit! o# a propositionP(#or instance, the
de#endant is innocent) to a condition $(#or instance, he denies the crime he is chared
"ith) until a speci#ic de#ault proviso+o&tains (#or instance, he is #ound uilt! &e!ond
reasona&le dou&t)$ ;# he denies the chare and is not #ound uilt! &e!ond reasona&le
dou&t, he is to &e #ound innocent$ %his t!pe o# reasonin can &e applied to the anal!sis
o# the conditions o# presuppositions to assess "hen and "hether the spea'er can
reasona&l! ta'e a proposition #or ranted$ %his pattern o# reasonin outlines the
structure o# the reasonin underl!in his &elie#2 or thin'in2 that the interlocutoraccepts or 'no"s the presupposed proposition$
Presumptions and redefinitions
%he structure o# presumptive reasonin mentioned a&ove can &e applied to the cases o#
rede#inition cited, and in particular the persuasive de#initions o# hostilities2 and
peace2$ ;n the #irst case, 4&ama too' advantae o# the a&sence o# an eplicit de#inition
in the War Do"ers Cesolution$ /o"ever, the a&sence o# an eplicit de#inition cannot
result in the accepta&ilit! o# an! de#inition$ We can reconstruct 4&ama
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
17/21
$onclusion:The audience should ,now that /hostilities0 means /presence of land
troops and sustained fighting0(D)$
;n this case, the crucial pro&lem "as not the a&sence o# a de#inition o# @hostilities6)$ Noncepts such as @art: 11) are the outcome o# previous dialoues, and represent thepropositions that the interlocutors have accepted or stated$ ;n a dialoue,
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
18/21
presuppositions are implicit activations o# dar' side commitments (see Nor&lin, ++):
the! re#er to propositions alread! accepted &! the parties to move the commitments
#urther$ Dresupposin unshared propositions is a t"o#old dialectical strate!$ 4n the one
hand, presuppositions are commitments: presupposin an unshared proposition means
committin the hearer to a vie" that he or she never accepted, and that has to &e denied
in order to &e deleted #rom the commitment store$ 4n the other hand, presuppositionsare the conclusions o# implicit presumptive reasonin, and there#ore their denial needs
to &e supported &! an arument that re&uts the presumption$
$onclusion
;mplicit rede#initions can &e crucial and danerous instruments o# persuasion and
manipulation$ Stevenson underscored ho" the! can &e used to redirect emotions and
a##ect udments and decisions$ ! modi#!in the meanin o# a "ord that triers
positive or neative udments, the spea'er can in#luence the hearer, +39-+99$
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
19/21
*ustin, F$(196+)$ /o" to o %hins With Words$ 4#ord: Nlarendon$
ach, Q$ (+3)$ Speech acts and pramatics$ ;n 0$ evitt and C$ /anle! (?ds$),
lac'"ell$ Auide to the Dhilosoph! o# Kanuae (pp$ 157-167)$ 4#ord: lac'"ell$
allard $, Nonrad, C$, Konacre, C$ (1971)$ %he eep and Sur#ace Arammar o#
;nterclausal Celations$ .oundations o# Kanuae, 7 (1), 7-118$
ierce, *$ (+)$ %he una&rided evil->5)$ Je" `or': /olt$
Qempson, C$ (197>)$ Dresupposition and the delimitations o# semantics$ Nam&ride:
Nam&ride niversit! Dress$
Ka'o##, A$ (1971)$ 4n Aenerative Semantics$ ;n $ Stein&er, K$ Fa'o&ovits (eds$),
Semantics: *n ;nterdisciplinar! Ceader in Dhilosoph!, Kinuistics and Ds!cholo! (pp$
+3+-+96), Nam&ride: Nam&ride niversit! Dress$
Kascarides, *$ *sher, J$ (1993)$ %emporal ;nterpretation, iscourse Celations and
Nommonsense ?ntailment$ Kinuistics and Dhilosoph! 16(>): 537-593$
Ke"is, $ (1979)$ Score'eepin in a Kanuae Aame$ Fournal o# Dhilosophical Koic, 8,
339Z3>9$
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
20/21
8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final
21/21