Suchergebnisse

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 EXPL/FERFIL/ 0276/2021 ; An argumentation profile is defined as a methodological instrument for analyzing argumentative discourse considering distinct and interrelated dimensions: the types of argument used, their quality, and the emotions triggered. Walton's theoretical contributions are developed as a coherent analytical and multifaceted toolbox for capturing these aspects. Argumentation schemes are used to detect and quantify the types of argument. Fallacy analysis and the assessment of the implicit premises retrieved through the schemes allow evaluating arguments. Finally, the frequency of emotive words signals the most common emotions aroused. This method is illustrated through a corpus of argumentative tweets of three politicians. ; publishersversion ; published

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- About the Authors -- Introduction: Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics - Theoretical Developments -- References -- Three Mistakes About Semantic Intentions -- Mistake (I): Intending to Refer -- Objection 1: Implausible Starting Point -- Objection 2: Incomplete -- Objection 3: Redundant -- Objection 4: Misleading -- Mistake (II): Intending to Communicate -- Mistake (III): Constraints on Intentions -- References -- Common-Knowledge-Based Pragmatics -- A Coordination Problem Model of Communication -- Two Problems with the Gricean Answer -- Common Knowledge Generators -- Generating Common Knowledge in Communication Coordination Problems -- Social Roles -- Context -- Common Knowledge-Based Pragmatics -- Appendix -- References -- The Primacy of Semantics and How to Understand It -- Introduction -- The Territorial Wars: Semantics Versus Pragmatics -- The Pragmaticist Proposal -- The Semanticists Strike Back: A Radical Proposal -- The Guidance Proposal -- The Isolation Strategy and Why It Is Misleading -- Anaphora and Guided Saturation -- Conclusion -- References -- 'Few', 'A Few', 'Only': Negative Quantifier Noun Phases and Negative Polarity Items - The Horn-Atlas Debate 1991-2018 -- Historical Introduction -- "Only Proper Name" and "Few N" Sentences: Entailments, Implicata, and Monotonicity -- Zwarts's (1996) De Morgan Taxonomy of Negative Noun Phrases -- "Only Proper Name": The Standard View (Geach 1962, Pre-2002 Horn) -- "Only Proper Name": The Stuttgart View (Atlas 1991, 1996) -- The Post-Horn (1996) Pragmatic View -- The Standard View of Few N: Chomsky (1972), Horn (1989, pp. 244-250), Zwarts (1996) -- The Atlas View of Few N -- Assertion and the Division of Semantic Labor -- Peter Geach's Account of "Only Proper Name" Sentences: Excluding Force -- What Are Geach's Options?.

Introduction (Macagno, M. & A. Capone) -- Chapter 1. Ceteris paribusiness: On the power of salient exceptions (Horn, L.) -- Chapter 2. I like you may actually implicate 'I love you': A reconsideration of some scalar implicatures (Huang, Y.) -- Chapter 3. Pragmatics and Grammar as Sources of Temporal Ordering in Discourse: The Case of "And" ( Jaszczolt, K. and Sileo, R.) -- Chapter 4. Presuppositions as pragmemes (the case of exemplification acts) (Capone, A.) -- Chapter 5. Categorization, memory and linguistic uses: what happens in the case of polysemy ( Basile, G.) -- Chapter 6. Inferential patterns of emotive meaning (Macagno, F., Rossi, MG.) -- Chapter 7. When both utterances and appearances are deceptive: Deception in multimodal film narrative ( Dynel, M.) -- Chapter 8. Navigating Narrative Subjectivity in Schizophrenia: A Deictic Network Analysis of Narrative Viewpoints of Self and Other (van Schuppen, L., Sanders, J. and van Krieken, K.) -- Chapter 9. Pragmatic perspective of literary texts for children (Tsapiv, A.) -- Chapter 10. Pragmatics of self-reference pronouns in capital trials (Chaemsaithong, K.) -- Chapter 11. How to Be Impolite (or Worse) in an Artificial Auxiliary Language ( Libert, A.).

UID/FIL/00183/2019 SFRH/BPD/115073/2016 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014 ; Donald Trump's speeches and messages are characterized by terms that are commonly referred to as "thick" or "emotive", meaning that they are characterized by a tendency to be used to generate emotive reactions. This paper investigates how emotive meaning is related to emotions, and how it is generated or manipulated. Emotive meaning is analyzed as an evaluative conclusion that results from inferences triggered by the use of a term, which can be represented and assessed using argumentation schemes. The evaluative inferences are regarded as part of the connotation of emotive words, which can be modified and stabilized by means of recontextualizations. The manipulative risks underlying the misuse and the redefinition of emotive words are accounted for in terms of presuppositions and implicit modifications of the interlocutors' commitments. ; publishersversion ; published