Phil 148

Chapter 3A

Violating Conversational Rules

• Often, violating a conversational rule draws attention to a specific use of language for a specific purpose.

Rhetoric

• To some extent, Rhetoric is a part of all good writing and persuasion, but failing to recognize rhetoric is a failure of critical thinking.

• In general, when the word ‘rhetorical’ is added to another word, (e.g. ‘question’) what results is something that isn’t just what the word ‘rhetorical’ is paired with. A rhetorical question is not just a question. Likewise, a rhetorical analogy is not just an analogy.

Rhetorical Questions• Rhetorical questions get their force from defying the

cooperative principle, namely the rule of Quantity, because a rhetorical question typically asks for obvious information.

• This is why a rhetorical question is typically one that does not require an answer (which makes it not, strictly speaking, a question).

• Is then answering a rhetorical question itself rhetorical?

• Sometimes, one must answer a rhetorical question

Overstatement/Understatement

• Over/Under-statement is a way to make a conversational exchange interactive by intentionally using too weak or too strong language to describe something. This invites the other parties to the conversation to insert a more appropriate descriptor in their minds.

• Overstating is a violation of Quality, Understating is a violation of Quantity.

Irony/Sarcasm

• Either indicated by tone of voice, or by violating rule of Quality in some obvious way.

Metaphor/Simile

• Are violations of Quality because they are not to be taken literally

• Aristotle: a good metaphor is like a puzzle…good metaphor?

• Metaphor can be enlightening, but also misleading:

Deception

• is not always direct falsehood. Sometimes it is saying something true that implies something false.

• Bronston v. US is an example

Premise/Conclusion Markers

• Premise:– Since…– Because…– For…– As…– Seeing that…– In light of…

• Conclusion– Therefore– Hence– Then– Thus– So– Ergo– Accordingly– QED

Standard Form

• Premise…• Premise…• :. Conclusion

Unstated (implied) premises

• Often times an unstated premise is obvious, but it is important to fill in the right one.

• Smoking is bad for you, so you should stop• That jacket looks tattered, I’d say it’s time to

get a new one

Implied conclusions

• …but it hurts every time I push that button…• The store’s closed after 5, and it’s already 6

Conditionals:

• Antecedent– The part after the ‘if’ and

before the ‘then’– The ‘cause’ if you will

• Consequent– The part after the ‘then’– The ‘effect’ if you will

Conditionals vs. Arguments• When people use conditionals, they make no commitment to

whether the antecedent of the conditional is true, so a conditional by itself can never be an argument

• Whenever someone makes a commitment to a conditional being true and also to the antecedent being true, they must commit to holding the consequent to be true (this is an argument pattern called Modus Ponens)

• If someone were to commit to the falsity of the consequent, then they must commit themselves to the falsity of the antecedent (provided they commit themselves to the truth of the conditional)

• Sometimes the truth of the antecedent or falsehood of the consequent is conversationally implied