Revisiting the Relationship between Arguing and Convincing: Towards a New Pragmatic Account

Eugen Octav Popa*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    16 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    How do individuals change their minds as a result of argumentation? It is generally assumed the speech act of argumentation can trigger a change of mind in the other party—the perlocutionary act of convincing. This means that a discussant changes her commitment relative to the proposition under scrutiny when the other party presents argumentation that is in some way convincing or persuasive. I challenge this received view by showing that argumentation cannot trigger this change of commitment in the way that scholars commonly assume. Convincing cannot be triggered by assertives that are already in the listener’s commitment set, nor can it be triggered by assertives that are newly introduced in the discussion. Using the notion of “joint commitment” I propose an alternative account according to which change of mind is the result of two speakers jointly experiencing facts as stipulated by a joint commitment. I conclude the paper by sketching the impact of such an approach in the study of argumentation and provide suggestions for further developments.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number227
    JournalLanguages
    Volume7
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2022

    Keywords

    • argumentation
    • convincing
    • joint commitment
    • rational persuasion

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Revisiting the Relationship between Arguing and Convincing: Towards a New Pragmatic Account'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this