(Innocent?) Bias in Argumentation
Résumé
We are used to consider 'argumentation' as an attempt to convince. People present reasons to believe (or disbelieve) a number of argumentative targets (aka 'claims'). In this talk I claim (sic) that argumentation is pervasive in everyday language under the form of information selection, even though, in some cases, the speaker explicitly refrains from defending any claim. Actually, this form of (weak?) argumentation derives from some strong constraints on communication, in particular elementary Bayesian effects and tradeoffs between novelty of information and processing cost, familiar from relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson) or game-theoretical pragmatics.
Origine | Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s) |
---|