Affiliation:
1. Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University; National Research University Higher School of Economics
2. National Research University Higher School of Economics
Abstract
By de re propositional attitude ascription for rhetorical purposes, we will understand uttering a modal statement wherein the speaker deliberately uses a description of the attitude’s object which she knows to be unavailable to the attitude holder. As the existence of rhetorical de re is revealed, it gives rise to two questions that will be the primary concern of the present paper. (1) Using a rhetorical de re ascription, does the speaker utter something false in the model-theoretic sense? (2) Would it be justified to classify rhetorical de re as a rhetorical ploy designed to, or naturally predisposed to, mislead the addressee? This paper argues that the first question can be answered positively but the second one should receive a negative answer. We show that the question of whether a certain instance of rhetorical de re is a ploy or act of manipulation should be answered depending not on whether the statement is clearly false for the speaker but on whether it is clearly unacceptable for the speaker. In case the speaker herself considers the argument made by means of the statement acceptable, there is no reason to denounce such a communicative act as a ploy or manipulation irrespective of which model-theoretic truth-value the statement has. There are therefore reasons to incorporate rhetorical considerations into the modelling of how attitude reports are interpreted, in addition to considerations of truth and epistemological aspects, championed by Frege.
Publisher
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Language and Linguistics
Reference25 articles.
1. Aloni, M., 2001. Quantification under conceptual covers. PhD thesis. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
2. Bach, K., 1997. Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, pp. 215—241.
3. Blumberg, K. and Lederman, Н., 2021. Revisionist Reporting. Philosophical Studies, 178, pp. 755—783, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01457-4.
4. Bowell, T., Cowan, R. and Kemp, G., 2020. Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. 5th ed. Routledge.
5. Demirok, Ö., 2019. Scope Theory Revisited: Lessons from pied-piping in wh-questions. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.