Advertisement

Using Quotations: Their Argumentative Uses and Their Manipulations

  • Fabrizio Macagno
  • Douglas Walton
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 14)

Abstract

Quotations are selections of an Original Speaker’s words that can be used for different argumentative purposes, such as supporting a viewpoint through the authority of an expert source, or attacking the interlocutor by confronting him with his past commitments. However, quotations can be also distorted for pursuing different goals. In this chapter, we will outline the various strategies for selecting the quoted part of a speech strategically or even for distorting a quotation. We will show how quotations and misquotations can be closely related to other dialogical tactics, such as, in particular, making explicit or implicit attacks on an opposing position or even on the interlocutor himself. The various strategies of selective quotation point out how it is difficult to draw a clear line between quoting and misquoting. Any quotation is itself a selection, which can be used strategically. Some distortion is inevitable. What is crucial is to understand what “significant” distortion amounts to. We point out how this notion can be assessed by determining the conclusion the quotation is alleged to support, and the conclusion that the original utterance was aiming at backing or leading to. We explain how it is possible to evaluate distortions in quotations beginning with comparing the alleged and actual conclusions of an argument.

Keywords

Quotation Pragmatics Straw man Argumentation Dialectics Commitments 

References

  1. Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
  2. Boller, P. (1967). Quotemanship: The use and abuse of quotations for polemical and other purposes. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brendel, E., Meibauer, J., & Steinbach, M. (2011). Exploring the meaning of quotation. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation (pp. 1–33). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cicero, M. T. (1977). In D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Ed.), Epistulae ad familiares. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764. http://doi.org/10.2307/414729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Copi, I., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Coulmas, F. (1986). Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 1–28). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dascal, M. (1979). Conversational relevance. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use (pp. 153–174). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeSantillana, G. (1962). The crime of Galileo. New York: Time.Google Scholar
  10. Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  11. Forde, K. (2005). How Masson v. New Yorker has shaped the legal landscape of narrative journalism. Communication Law and Policy, 10, 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godden, D. M., & Walton, D. (2006). Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: Critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Ratio Juris, 19(3), 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  14. Holdcroft, D. (1987). Conversational relevance. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 477–495). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jowett, B. (2010). Dialogues of Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Macagno, F. (2013). Strategies of character attack. Argumentation, 27(4), 369–401. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1
  18. Macagno, F. (2014). Manipulating emotions. Value-based reasoning and emotive language. Argumentation & Advocacy, 51(2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702
  20. Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation, 30(4), 399–422. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5
  21. Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2012). Character attacks as complex strategies of legal argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 2(3), 59–117.Google Scholar
  22. Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014). Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776
  23. Mackenzie, J., & Staines, P. (1999). Hamblin’s case for commitment: A reply to Johnson. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 32(1), 14–39.Google Scholar
  24. Meibauer, J. (2014). Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, M. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x
  26. Padgett, G. (2006). New directions in diversity. Portland: Marion Street Press.Google Scholar
  27. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1951). Act and person in argument. Ethics, 61(4), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollock, J. (1970). The structure of epistemic justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4, 62–78.Google Scholar
  29. Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4), 481–518. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.011
  30. Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Saka, P. (2013). Quotation. Philosophy Compass, 8(10), 935–949. http://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12069
  32. Schipper, E. W., & Schuh, E. (1964). First course in modern logic. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  33. Stevenson, C. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, XLVI(181), 14–31. http://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVI.181.14
  34. Stevenson, C. (1938). Persuasive definitions. Mind, 47, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevenson, C. (1944). Ethics and language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tzanne, A. (2000). Talking at cross-purposes: The dynamics of miscommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wade, E., & Clark, H. H. (1993). Reproduction and demonstration in quotations. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 805–819. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1040
  38. Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  39. Walton, D. (2002). Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Walton, D. (2010). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Walton, D. (2015). Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316340554
  42. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2016). Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic, 36(4), 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034
  45. Yamanashi, M. (2001). Speech-act constructions, illocutionary forces, and conventionality. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp. 225–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Macagno
    • 1
  • Douglas Walton
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e HumanasUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations