Allocating Voice

Part of conversation consists in allocating voice—that is, determining who has standing to demand responses from us within the conversation and who has not. For example, we must decide which questions we are warranted in ignoring (for example, if they derail the conversation, if they change topic in an authoritarian way, etc.). "From early Greece to present-day researchers in communication, the belief is strong that the concepts the members of an audience hold of a speaker do affect how they respond to what is being said." (Cripe 1985: 348) In general, if a speaker has standing, she has the responsibility of displaying (and sometimes, even signaling) such standing and the hearers have the responsibility of recognize her standing.

But, of course, we are fallible and non-ideal philosophy of language needs to account to how and why this happens, including who has the responsibility of each of these things happening. This includes distinguishing implicit and explicit evaluations of standing. In conversation, we usually say that we do not believe or trust other participants in the conversation, or question their actions within the conversation. This is explicit evaluation of standing. But we also do it implicitly; mostly, by ignoring certain contributions and not others. 

Explicit evaluations may also be argued for within the conversation. We may not only say that we do not trust other participants, but also say why we do; we may not only question their actions within the conversation, but also give reasons for our suspicions.

Consider the following exchange, a dialogue from the Argentinean film "Nueve Reinas":

Juan: Escucháme una cosa, yo no soy ni el más vivo, ni el más rápido, pero conozco lo suficiente la calle como para saber que nadie regala nada, y menos un tipo como vos. ¿Qué querés?

Marcos: Ya te dije.

Juan: Probá decirme la verdad.

Juan: Listen to me—I’m not the sharpest or the quickest guy around, but I know the streets well enough to know that nobody gives anything away for free, especially a guy like you. What do you want?

Marcos: I already told you.

Juan: Try telling me the truth. 

Unfortunately, these argumentations can easily become or be mistaken for ad-hominem fallacies. Posion-the-well arguments are a good example of this. This is the main point behind Stevens' work on these fallacies.