BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Adams, 1954] E. M. Adams. The Fundamentals ofGeneral Logic. Longmans ,Green & Co., New York, 1954.

[Allport, 1958] Gordon W. Allport. The Nature ofPrejudice. Doubleday An­chor Books, Garden City, New York" 1958.

[Atherton, 1993] Catherine Atherton. The Stoics on Ambiguity. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1993.

[Atlas, 1989] Jay David Atlas. Philosophy Without Ambiguity: A Logico­Linguistic Essay. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.

[Barth and Krabbe, 1982] E. M. Barth and E. C. W. Krabbe. From Axiom toDialogue. De Gruyter, New York, 1982.

[Barth and Martens, 1977] E. M. Barth and J. L. Martens. Argumentum AdHominem : From chaos to formal dialectic. Logique et Analyse, 77-78:76­96, 1977.

[Beardsley, 1950] Monroe C. Beardsley. Practical Logic. Prentice-Hall, NewYork,1950.

[Beardsley, 1956] Monroe C. Beardsley. Thinking Straight. Prentice-Hall, En­glewood Cliffs, 1956.

[Bentham, 1969] Jeremy Bentham. The book of fallacies (1824) . In Mary P.Mack, editor, A Bentham Reader, pages 331-358. Pegasus, New York, 1969.

[Bertin, 1995] Oliver Bertin . Poor communication cited in ship mishaps . TheGlobe and Mail, B2, 18 October 1995.

[Black, 1946] Max Black . Critical Thinking . Prentice-Hall, New York, 1946.[Blair, 1988] J. Anthony Blair. What is bias? In Trudy Govier, editor, Selected

Issues in Logic and Communication, pages 93-103. Wadsworth , Belmont,1988.

[Brinton, 1986] Alan Brinton. Ethotic argument. History ofPhilosophy Quar­terly, 3:245-257, 1986.

[Broad and Wade, 1982] William Broad and Nicholas Wade. Betrayers of theTruth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Simon & Schuster, NewYork,1982.

281

282 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Burtt, 1931] Edwin Arthur Burtt. Principles and Problems ofRight Thinking,.Harper & Brothers, New York, 1931.

[Campbell, 1974] Stephen K. Campbell. Flaws and Fallacies in StatisticalThinking . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1974.

[Castell, 1935] Alburey Castell. A College Logic. The Macmillan Co., NewYork,1935.

[Cederblom and Paulsen, 1982] Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen . Crit­ical Reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1982.

[Copi and Burgess-Jackson, 1992] Irving M. Copi and Keith Burgess-Jackson.Informal Logic. Macmillan, New York, 2nd edition, 1992.

[Copi and Cohen, 1990] Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen . Introduction toLogic. Macmillan, New York, 8th edition, 1990.

[Creighton,1904] James E. Creighton. An Introductory Logic. Macmillan,London, 1904.

[Cresswell, 1973] M.1. Cresswell. Logics and Languages. Methuen, London,1973.

[Cushing, 1994] Steven Cushing. Fatal Words: Communication Clashes andAircraft Crashes. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1994.

[Darner, 1980] T. Edward Darner. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth,Belmont, 1980. Second edition, 1987.

[Delvlorgan, 1847] Augustus DeMorgan. Formal Logic. Taylor and Walton,London , 1847.

[Donohue , 1978] William A. Donohue. An empirical framework for exam­ining negotiation processes and outcomes. Communication Monographs,45:247-257,1978.

[Donohue, 1981] William A. Donohue. Development of a model of rule use innegotiation interaction. Communication Monographs, 48: 106-120, 1981.

[Edlow, 1977] Robert Blair Edlow. Galen on Language and Ambiguity . E. J.Brill, Leiden, 1977.

[Eisenberg, 1984] Eric M. Eisenberg. Ambiguity as strategy in organizationalcommunication. Communication Monographs, 51:227-242,1984.

[Engel, 1982] S. Morris Engel. With Good Reason: An Introduction to Infor­mal Fallacies. St. Martin's Press, New York, 2nd edition, 1982.

[Engel,1989] S. Morris Engel. The many faces of amphiboly. Metaphiloso­phy, 20:347-355, 1989.

[Fearnside and Holther, 1959] W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther.Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,N.J., 1959.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 283

[Fischer, 1970] David Hackett Fischer. Historians ' Fallacies. Harper & Row,New York, 1970.

[Flowers et al. , 1982] Margot Flowers, Rod McGuire, and Lawrence Birn­baum. Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks, pages 275­294. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982.

[Fraunce, 1588] Abraham Fraunce. The Lawier 'sLogike. William Howe, Lon­don, 1588.

[Freeman, 1988] James B. Freeman . Thinking Logically. Prentice-Hall, En­glewood Cliffs, 1988.

[Gair, 1992] Bain Gair. Pizza promotions often pie-in-the-sky: Two-for-oneoffers not what they seem. Winnipeg Free Press, pages 1-2, 1992.

[Gibson , 1908J W. R. Boyce Gibson. The Problem of Logic. Adam Black,London, 1908.

[Gillon, 1990] Brendan S. Gillon . Ambiguity, generality and indeterminacy:Tests and definitions. Synthese , 85:391--416, 1990.

[Glare, 1982] P. G. W. Glare, editor. Oxford Latin Dictionary. The ClarendonPress, Oxford, 1982.

[Graham, 19771 Michael H. Graham. Impeaching the professional expert wit­ness by a showing of financial interest. Indiana Law Journal, 53:35-53,1977.

[Grice, 1975] H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Donald Davidson andGilbert Harman, editors, The Logic of Grammar, pages 64-75. DickensonPublishing Co., Encino, California, 1975.

[Hamblin , 1970] Charles L. Hamblin . Fallacies. Methuen, London, 1970.Reprinted by Vale Press, Newport News, Virginia, 1986.

[Hamblin, 1971] Charles L. Hamblin . Mathematical models of dialogue.Theoria, 37:130-155,1971.

[Hansen , 1990] Hans V. Hansen. An informal logic bibliography,. InformalLogic , 12:155-184, 1990.

[Hastings, 1962] Arthur Hastings. A Reformulation ofthe Modes ofReason ingin Argumentation. PhD thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinoi s,1962.

[Henry W. Johnstone, 1981l Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. Towards an ethics ofrhetoric. Communication, 6:305-314, 1981.

[Hibben , 1906] John Grier Hibben . Logic, Deductive and Inductive. CharlesScribner's Sons, New York, 1906.

[Hinman, 1982J Lawrence M. Hinman . The case for ad hominem arguments .Australasian Journal ofPhilosophy, 60:338-345, 1982.

284 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Hintikka, 1959] Jaakko Hintikka. Aristotle and the ambiguity of ambiguity.Inquiry, 2:137-151,1959.

[Hintikka, 1971] Jaakko Hintikka. Different kinds of equivocation in aristotle.Journal ofthe History ofPhilosophy, 9:368-372, 1971.

[Hintikka, 1981] Jaakko Hintikka. The logic of information-seeking dia­logues : A model. In Werner Becker and Wilhelm K. Essler, editors,Konzepte der Dialektik, pages 212-231. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt amMain, 1981.

[Huby, 1994] Pamela Huby. Aristotle. In Douglas Walton and Alan Brinton,editors, Historical Foundations ofInformal Logic. To appear, 1994.

[Hughes and Cresswell, 1968] G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. An Introduc­tion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London, 1968.

[Hurley, 1991] Patrick J. Hurley. Logic. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 4thedition, 1991.

[Jacobs and Jackson, 1983] Scott Jacobs and Sally Jackson. Speech act struc­ture in conversation. In Robert T.Craig and Karen Tracy, editors , Conversa­tional Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy, pages 47-66. Sage, Bev­erly Hills, 1983.

[James, 1907] William James. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Waysof Thinking . Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1907.

[Jevons, 1883] W. Stanley Jevons. The Elements ofLogic. Sheldon and Co.,New York, 1883.

[Johnson and Blair, 1983] Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. LogicalSelf-Defense. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, 1983.

[Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988] Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin. TheAbuse of Causistry. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988.

[Joseph, 1916] H. W. B. Joseph . An Introduction to Logic. The ClarendonPress, Oxford, 2nd edition, 1916.

[Keynes, 1887] John Neville Keynes. Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic.Macmillan and Co., London, 1887.

[Kilgore, 1968] William J. Kilgore. An Introductory Logic. Holt, Rinehart andWinston , New York, 1968.

[Knapp, 1981] Mark L. Knapp. Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory andresearch on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research,5:270-285, 1981.

[Krabbe and Walton, 1993] Erik C. W. Krabbe and Douglas Walton. It's allvery well for you to talk! Informal Logic, 15:79-91,1993.

[Krabbe, 1990] Erik C. W. Krabbe . Inconsistent commitment and commitmentto inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 12:33-42, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 285

[Kreyche, 196 I] Robert 1. Kreyche . Logicfor Undergraduates. Holt, Rinehartand Winston, New York, 1961.

[Latta and MacBeath, 1956] Robert Latta and Alexander MacBeath. The Ele­ments ofLogic. Macmillan & Co., London, 1956.

[Lepenies, 1992] Wolf Lepenies. Sombre mood of france 's darkest years. TheTimes Higher, page 14, 1992.

[Little et al., 1955] Winston W.Little, W. Harold Wilson, and W. Edgar Moore.Applied Logic. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1955.

[Lutz, 1989] William Lutz . Doublespeak. Harper & Row, New York, 1989.[Mackenzie, 1981] 1. D. Mackenzie. The dialectics of logic . Logique et Anal­

yse, 94:159-177, 1981.[Mackenzie, 1988] 1. D. Mackenzie. Distinguo: The response to equivocation.

Argumentation, 2:465-482, 1988.[Mackie, 1967] J. L. Mackie. Fallacies. In Paul Edwards, editor, Encyclopedia

ofPhilosophy. 1967.[Manicas and Kruger, 1968] Peter T. Manicas and Arthur N. Kruger. Essen ­

tials ofLogic. American Book Co., New York, 1968.[Mellone, 1913] Sydney Herbert Mellone. An Introductory Text-Book ofLogic.

William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1913.[Michalos, 1970] Alex C. Michalos. Improving Your Reasoning. Prentice­

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970.[Mill , 1970] John Stuart Mill . A System ofLogic. Longmans, London, 1970.

First published in 1843.[Moore, 1965] G. E. Moore. Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, 1965.[Parker and Veatch, 1959] Francis H. Parker and Henry B. Veatch. Logic as a

Human Instrument. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1959.[Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969] Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts­

Tyteca. The New Rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame,1969. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver.

[Reiter, 1987] Raymond Reiter. Nonmonotonic reasoning. Annual Review ofComputer Science, 2:147-186,1987.

[Rescher, 1964] Nicholas Rescher. Introduction to Logic. St. Martin's Press,New York, 1964.

[Rescher, 1976] Nicholas Rescher. Plausible Reasoning. Van Gorcum, Assen­Amsterdam, 1976.

[Rescher, 1977] Nicholas Rescher. Dialectics. State University of New YorkPress, Albany, 1977.

[Roberts, 1984] Lawrence D. Roberts . Ambiguity vs. generality: Removal ofa logical confusion. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 14:295-313, 1984.

286 FALLACIES ARISINGFROM AMBIGUITY

[Robinson,1941] Richard Robinson. Ambiguity. Mind, 50 :140-155,1941.

[Robinson, 1947] Daniel Sommer Robinson. The Principles of Reasoning .Appleton-Century Co., New York, 1947.

[Ruby, 1950] Lionel Ruby. Logic: An Introduction . 1. B. Lippincott Co.,Chicago, 1950.

[Runes, 1964] Dagobert D. Runes. Dictionary of Philosophy. Littlefield,Adams & Co. , Paterson, 15th edition, 1964.

[Ryle, 1971] Gilbert Ryle. Collected Papers , volume 2 of Collected Papers.Hutchinson, London, 1971.

[Salmon, 1984] Wesley C. Salmon. Logic. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,3rd edition, 1984.

[Scheffler, 1979] Israel Scheffler. Beyond the Letter: A Philosophical In­quiry into Ambiguity, Vagueness and Metaphor in Language. Routledge andKegan Paul, London, 1979.

[Schiller, 1912] F. C. S. Schiller. Formal Logic . Macmillan & Co., London,1912.

[Schipper and Schuh, 1959] Edith W. Schipper and Edward W. Schuh. A FirstCourse in Modem Logic. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1959.

[Scriven, 1976] Michael Scriven. Reasoning. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.

[Sidgwick,1914] Alfred Sidgwick. Elementary Logic. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1914.

[Soccio and Barry, 1992] Douglas J. Soccio and Vincent E. Barry. PracticalLogic. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, 4th edition, 1992.

[Taylor, 1966] Richard Taylor. Deliberation and foreknowledge. In BernardBerofsky, editor, Free Willand Determinism, pages 277-293. Harper & Row,New York, 1966.

[Thomas, 1970] Stephen N. Thomas. A modal muddle. In Gerald Dworkin,editor, Free Will and Moral Responsibility, pages 141-148. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970.

[Thouless, 1930] Robert H. Thouless. Straight and Crooked Thinking . EnglishUniversities Press , London, 1930.

l'Ioulmin et aI., 1979] Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. AnIntroduction to Reasoning. Macmillan, New York, 1979.

[Ullman-Margalit,1983] Edna Ullman-Margalit. On Presumption, The Jour­nal ofPhilosophy, 80:143-163, 1983.

[van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo ­tendorst. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Foris, Dordrecht, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 287

[van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo­tendorst. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1:283­301,1987.

[van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo­tendorst. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1992.

[van Eemeren and Kruiger, 1987] Frans H. van Eemeren and Tjark Kruiger.Identifying argumentation schemes. In Frans H. van Eemeren et al. , editor,Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, pages 70-81. Foris Publica­tions, Dordrecht and Providence, 1987.

[Waller, 1988] Bruce N. Waller. Critical Thinking. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, 1988.

[Walton and Krabbe, 1995] Douglas N. Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe. Com­mitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1995.

[Walton, 1985] Douglas N. Walton. Arguer's Position . Greenwood Press, NewYork, 1985.

[Walton, 1987] Douglas N. Walton. Informal Fallacie s: Towards a Theory ofArgument Criticisms. John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987.

[Walton, 1988] Douglas N. Walton. Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2:233­254, 1988.

[Walton, 1989a] Douglas N. Walton. Informal Logic . Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1989.

[Walton, 1989b] Douglas N. Walton. Question-Reply Argumentation. Green­wood Press, New York, 1989.

[Walton, 1990aJ Douglas N. Walton. Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven,Knowledg e-Based, Action- Guiding Argumentation. Rowman and Little­field, Savage, Maryland, 1990.

[Walton, 1990b] Douglas N. Walton. What is reasoning ? what is an argument ?The Journal of Philosophy, 87:399-419,1990.

[Walton, 1991al Douglas Walton. Bias, critical doubt and fallacies. Argumen­tation and Advocacy, 28: 1-22, 1991.

[Walton, 1991bl Douglas N. Walton. Begging the Question : Circular Reason­ing as a Tactic ofArgumentation. Greenwood Press, New York, 1991.

[Walton, 1992aJ Douglas N. Walton. Nonfallacious arguments from igno­rance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29:381-387,1992.

[Walton, 1992bJ Douglas N. Walton. The Place ofEmotion in Argument. ThePennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1992.

[Walton, 1992cJ Douglas N. Walton. Plausible Argument in Everyday Conver­sation . State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.

288 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Walton, 1992d] Douglas N. Walton. Slippery Slope Arguments. ClarendonPress, Oxford , 1992.

[Walton,1995] Douglas N. Walton. A Pragmatic Theory ofFallacy . Univer­sity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1995.

[Walton, 1996] Douglas N. Walton. Arguments from Ignorance. The Pennsyl­vania State University Press, University Park, PA, 1996.

[Ward, 1980] Philip Ward. A Dictionary of Common Fallacies. PrometheusBrooks, Buffalo, New York, 1980.

[Werier, 1993] ValWerier. Keep it simple and we'll understand. Winnipeg FreePress, page A6, 1993.

[Werkmeister, 1948] William H. Werkmeister. An Introduction to CriticalThinking . Johnson Publishing Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, 1948.

[Whately, 1836] Richard Whately. Elements ofLogic. William Jackson , NewYork,1836.

[Whately, 1963] Richard Whately. Elements ofRhetoric. In Douglas Ehninger,editor, Reprint of the seventh British edition published by John W. Parkerin London, 1846. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Ed­wardsville, 1963.

[Wheelwright,1962] Philip Wheelwright. Valid Thinking : An Introduction toLogic. The Odyssey Press, New York, 1962.

[Williams and Goss, 1975] M. Lee Williams and Blaine Goss. Equivocation:Character insurance. Human Communication Research, 1:265- 270, 1975.

[Woods and Walton, 1977] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Compositionand division. Studia Logica, 36:381-406,1977. Reprinted in [Woods andWalton, 1989, pp. 93-1191

[Woods and Walton, 1979] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Equivocationand practical logic. Ratio , 21:31-43, 1979. Reprinted in Woods and Wal­ton, 1989,pp. 195-207.

[Woods and Walton, 1989] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Fallacies: Se­lected Papers 1972-1982. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 1989.

[Woolf, 1974] Henry Bosley Woolf, editor. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Simon & Schuster, New York, Pocket Books, 1974.

[Zwicky and Sadock, 1975] Arnold M. Zwicky and Jerrold M; Sadock. Am­biguity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and Semantics, pages 1-36, 1975.

[Zwicky and Sadock, 1987] Arnold M. Zwicky and Jerrold M. Sadock. A non­test for ambiguity. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 17:185-188, 1987.

Index

'abusive' ad hominem, 228ad populum fallacy, 175apparentia or seeming-correctness,

180contra attitude, 247pro attitude, 247

absence of knowledge, 240accusatory questions, 199ad baculum, 141advertising, 115advice, 94

advice-giving dialogue, 70advice-giving exchange, 97

aggressive, 248ambiguity arising from stress or ac-

centuation, 256ambiguity of a question, 128ambiguous headline, 70ambiguous inflexion, 163amphibolous sentence, 88analogical reasoning, 171anatomically correct dolls, 199apparentia, 65argument by innuendo, 185argument from testimony, 20 I, 202argument requirement, 78, 269argumentation schemes, 223argumentum ad baculum, 214argumentum ad hominem, 213, 228

289

argumentum ad ignorantiam, 196,207

argumentum ad verecundiam, 204arousing suspicions, 187attitude, 245

bad character for veracity, 201balance in argumentation, 243balanced reporting, 227Be clear, 271bearing, 72bias, 222

bad bias, 136, 242bias type of ad hominem, 230

biased questions, 236bite, 72blunder, 66, 150browbeat, 248burden of proof, 72, 217business transactions, 115

capability to deceive, 68case of the Oracle at Delphi, 93charges of equivocation, 271circumstantial ad hominem argument,

228cognitive dissonance, 68commitment store, 152,251complex questions, 216confusion, 80

290 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

confusions in argumentation, 99connotative meaning, 183contracts, 275conversational maxims, 105creating misgivings, 189criminal trial, 196critical discussion, 209,224critical doubt, 243, 245critical questions, 201critical thinking, 115criticisms of bias, 251

dark-side commitments, 114deceptive ambiguity, 74deceptive argumentation, 119deep deception, 74defeasible, 209deliberation, 88, 209Delphic Oracles, 97dialectical, 221

dialectical bias, 249dialectical shift, 225, 251

dogmatic, 247dogmatic approach, 235

doublespeak, 176dyslogistic, 183

dyslogistic terms, 278

empathy, 244, 250emphasis, 121, 127

emphasis in a written text, 128emphatic ambiguity, 261eristic dialogue, 227error, 66

error of communication, 150error ofreasoning, 74, 216

escaping commitment, 150, 218ethos, 231etymological derivation , 168

etymology, 167eulogistic, 183eulogistic terms, 278evading commitment, 94evidence reactivity, 245expert advice-giving, 114expert consultation, 235expert consultation dialogue, 227expert opinion, 203explicit denial innuendo, 195

fabrication of data, 226failure of communicatin, 111, 176fallacy 'within language', 143fallacy dependent on language, 253fallacy of ambiguity, 70, 72, 256fallacy of ambiguous middle, 84fallacy of biased statistics, 235fallacy of composition of and divi-

sion, 274fallacy of figure of speech, 274fallacy of figures, 178fallacy of four terms, 84fallacy of gobbledygook, 182fallacy of hypostatization, 171fallacy of obfuscation, 175fallacy of paronymous words, 165fallacy of relative terms, 54fallacy of special pleading, 134,274false rumours, 188figurative language, 178figurative use of language, 256financial interest, 250flexibility of commitment, 244formal fallacy, 99, 103fraud,226

generalization, 239genetic fallacy, 181

A PRAGMATIC SYNTHESIS 291

gobbledygook, 176good bias, 242gossip, 195,209grammatical ambiguity, 140,256grammatical form, 159Gricean co-operativeness principle,

117Gricean implicature, 117, 130, 211Gricean maxim of clarity, 255Gricean maxims ofcommunication,

202

Hamblin's slippery slide, 130harmful type of bias, 227hasty generalization, 238hedging, 110hypostatization, 159, 182

ignorance, 82impartiality, 223imperative, 71improperly rendering an expert opin -

ion, 132inconsistency of commitment, 219indirect speech acts, 194inference, 81inflection, 181inflective ambiguity, 261information-seeking dialogue, 209,

226inquiry, 226intersubjective testing procedure, 234intimidation tactics, 141intonation, 121irony, 147

joke, 137

lack of balance, 250lack of clarity, 176

legal argumentation, 272legal dialogues, 115lexical ambiguity, 256, 260linguistic fallacy, 103linguistic usage, 163literal meaning, 57logical form, 155Lorenzen formal dialogue, 230lying, 72lynch mob syndrome, 197

maxim of clarity, 265miscommunication, 72misleading advertising, 118, 121misleading conclusion, 126misleading headlines, 130misleading implicature, 140misleading quotation, 131misleading use of language, 95misquoting of sources, 124mistaken inferences, 99misuse of etymology, 167, 169, 181,

182multiplex, 263

multiplex categories, 262multiplex doctrine, 262

negative point of view, 242negotiation, 116, 223negotiation dialogue, 226neutral attitude, 247non-ambiguous advice, 115non-declarative expressions, 258nonmonotonic reasoning, 240normative, 221

normative concept, 251

obscure (unclear) language, 182obstructive bias, 250omissions of context, 132

292 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

one-sided presentation, 133open-mindedness, 245Oracle case, 96overlooking qualifications (secundum

quid), 139

partisan dialogue, 253parts, 99permissive dialogues, 114plausible deniability, 94plausible reading, 99political debates, 115positive point of view, 242potentially ambiguous sentence, 149PPD,266pragmatic, 221

pragmatic ambiguity, 94, 260pragmatic fallacy, 144

prejudice, 238presumption, 205probative function, 270problem of deep deception, 62problem of evaluation, 140problem of indentification, 142propaganda, 244public opinion, 196public pressure, 199

quarrelling, 224quaternio terminorum, 84questioning, 217quibbling, 53quotation of a whole passage out of

context, 131

Raymond of Pennafort, 71realistic deception, 72refutation, 74relevant evidence, 187reputation, 195

retraction, 190retraction of commitment, 194

rhetorical element of verbal presen-tation, 152

rigorous dialogues, 114RPD,266rumour, 195, 209

scaremongering tactics, 141scientific argumentation, 226scope of the modal operator, 99secundum quid, 238, 241selective quotation, 142semantic ambiguity, 260seriousness requirement, 78, 97shades of spoken intonation, 152shift, 55slanted discourse, 144slanted point of view, 133small print, 121, 129smoking example, 230sophism, 74sophistical deception, 150sophistical tactic, 11 0speech act, 206staining effect of innuendo, 195staining or sticking effect of gossip,

190standard treatment, 71, 155stereotypes, 239stipulative definition, 75stipulative versus real definitions, 54stress, 121, 125structurally ambiguous sentences, 79style of presentation, 177substantive dispute, 74subtle changes of emphasis, 132suggestion, 121,217suggestive ambiguity, 262

A PRAGMATIC SYNTHESIS

suppression of evidence, 121, 139suspension, 245syntactic ambiguity, 260

tacit inferences, 93technical bias , 236test for ambiguity, 255, 258tolerant of ambiguity, 113tricky tactic , 94tutiorism, 195type of dialogue, 113

uncertainty, 75unfounded charges , 187

vagueness, 54, 55verbal agreement, 75, 275verbal confusion, 128verbal stress , 125

Whately's rule of paronymous words,165

wholes , 99wrenching from context, 121wrong inference, 92, 93, 97

zero point of view, 241, 242

293