Argumentation Jun 2021 Open Access

“Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment

Ronny Boogaart Leiden University ; Henrike Jansen Leiden University ; Maarten van Leeuwen Leiden University

Abstract

AbstractIn response to an accusation of having said something inappropriate, the accused may exploit the difference between the explicit contents of their utterance and its implicatures. Widely discussed in the pragmatics literature are those cases in which arguers accept accountability only for the explicit contents of what they said while denying commitment to the (alleged) implicature (“Those are your words, not mine!”). In this paper, we sketch a fuller picture of commitment denial. We do so, first, by including in our discussion not just denial of implicatures, but also the mirror strategy of denying commitment to literal meaning (e.g. “I was being ironic!”) and, second, by classifying strategies for commitment denial in terms of classical rhetorical status theory (distinguishing between denial, redefinition, an appeal to ‘external circumstances’ or to a ‘wrong judge’). In addition to providing a systematic categorization of our data, this approach offers some clues to determine when such a defence strategy is a reasonable one and when it is not.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2021-06-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-020-09521-3
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis editorial matter
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Hoppmann (2022)
    Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse
    Argumentation

References (37) · 2 in this index

  1. P Bakema (1993)
    Bakema, P., P. Defour, and D. Geeraerts. 1993. The semantic structure of the diminutive. Forum der Letteren 3…
    Forum der Letteren
  2. BJ Birner (2013)
    Introduction to pragmatics
  3. R Boogaart (2020)
    From argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild: A variety of contributions …
     ↗
  4. A Braet (2007)
    Reasonableness in classical rhetoric
  5. Branum, J. K. 2018. “We spoke with a certain amount of hyperbole”: Strategic manoeuvring, deception and derai…
Show all 37 →
  1. P Bull (2014)
    Bull, P., and A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2014. Equivocation and doublespeak in far rightwing discourse: An anal…
    Text and Talk  ↗
  2. A Capone (2018)
    Capone, A., and A. Bucca. 2018. Why did Trump say “I hope you can let Flynn go” to Comey? Pragmemes and socio…
    Pragmatics and Society  ↗
  3. Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
  4. R Carston (2002)
    Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication
     ↗
  5. L de Saussure (2009)
    de Saussure, L., and S. Oswald. 2009. Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: Pour un point de vue subjectiv…
    Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française
  6. M Dynel (2018)
    Irony, deception and humour. Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness
     ↗
  7. J Engel (2013)
    Analysing fascist discourse. European fascism in talk and text
  8. D Galasinski (2002)
    The language of deception: A discourse analytical study
  9. HP Grice (1975)
    Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts
  10. N Hatakka (2017)
    Hatakka, N., M.K. Niemi, and M. Valimaki. 2017. Confrontational yet submissive: Calculated ambivalence and po…
    Discourse and Society  ↗
  11. M Haugh (2013)
    Haugh, M. 2013. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48: 41–56.
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  12. LR Horn (2009)
    Horn, L.R. 2009. WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 3–34.
    International Review of Pragmatics  ↗
  13. Jackson, S., Jacobs, S., & Zhang, X. (to appear). Standpoints and commitments as products of argumentative wo…
  14. H Jansen (2008)
    Jansen, H. 2008. In view of an express regulation: Considering the scope and soundness of a contrario reasoni…
    Informal Logic  ↗
  15. Kienpointner (1997)
    On the Art of Finding Arguments: What Ancient and Modern Masters of Invention H…
    Argumentation
  16. JJ Lee (2010)
    Lee, J.J., and S. Pinker. 2010. Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psycholo…
    Psychological Review  ↗
  17. AD Leeman (1987)
    Classical rhetoric
  18. SC Levinson (2000)
    Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature
     ↗
  19. D Mazzarella (2018)
    Mazzarella, D., R. Reinecke, I. Noveck, and H. Mercier. 2018. Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragm…
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  20. J Meibauer (2014)
    Meibauer, J. 2014. A truth that’s told with bad intent. Lying and implicit content. Belgian journal of lingui…
    Belgian journal of linguistics  ↗
  21. J Moeschler (2013)
    Moeschler, J. 2013. Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment?…
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  22. P Morency (2008)
    Morency, P., S. Oswald, and L. de Saussure. 2008. Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A co…
    Belgian Journal of Linguistics  ↗
  23. Oswald, S. 2010. Pragmatics of uncooperative and manipulative communication. Dissertation, Université de Neuchâtel.
  24. J Saul (2012)
    Lying, misleading, and what is said. An exploration in philosophy of language and in ethics
     ↗
  25. JR Searle (1975)
    Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts
  26. AF Snoeck Henkemans (2017)
    Contextualizing pragma-dialectics
     ↗
  27. Time. 2016. Full transcript of Donald Trump’s ‘Second Amendment Speech’. https://time.com/4445813/donald-trum…
  28. C van Bree (2003)
    Language in use. An introduction in linguistics
  29. FH van Eemeren (1992)
    Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective
  30. T van Haaften (2019)
    van Haaften, T. 2019. Argumentative strategies and stylistic devices. Informal Logic 39: 301–328.
    Informal Logic  ↗
  31. Walton (1996)
    Plausible deniability and evasion of burden of proof
    Argumentation
  32. B Weissman (2018)
    Weissman, B., and M. Terkourafi. 2018. Are false implicatures lies? An empirical investigation. Mind and Lang…
    Mind and Language  ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 24 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Philosophy & Rhetoric Oct 2025
    The Intellectual and Cultural Origins of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric Project: Commentaries on and Translations of Seven Foundational Articles, 1933–1958 ↗
    Christopher W. Tindale
    classical rhetoric modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism genre theory discourse analysis revision argument collaborative writing editorial matter
  2. Rhetoric & Public Affairs Sep 2024
    Populist Rhetorics Case Studies and a Minimalist Definition ↗
    Arthur E. Walzer
    classical rhetoric modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument digital rhetoric social media disability studies public rhetoric editorial matter
  3. Philosophy & Rhetoric Dec 2023
    Guest Editor’s Introduction: A Moment for Kairos ↗
    Tina Skouen
    classical rhetoric modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism discourse analysis african american rhetorics argument race and writing editorial matter
  4. Rhetoric & Public Affairs Sep 2022
    Arguing with Numbers: The Intersection of Rhetoric and Mathematics ↗
    Christopher Tindale
    classical rhetoric modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism discourse analysis writing pedagogy argument qualitative research gender and writing book reviews editorial matter
  5. Philosophy & Rhetoric Jun 2022
    The Chattering Mind: A Conceptual History of Everyday Talk ↗
    G. Thomas Goodnight
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis social media editorial matter