Semantics and Rhetoric

Ambiguity - multiple meanings

1. An utterance, word or phrase is ambiguous1 if and only if it has more than one meaning.

  E.g. 'bank'; 'found by some cows'; etc.   2. An utterance, word or phrase is ambiguous2 in a given

context C if and only if it is misleading or potentially misleading because it is difficult to tell which of a

number of possible meanings is intended in context C.   E.g. the term 'person' in a debate on abortion; 'family' in public funding debates       

    — pronouns       E.g. 'John is still sick so he will be charged'             Does 'he' refer to 'John' or someone else? E.g. is the argument:        John is still sick                  or John is still sick                  John will be charged John's doctor will be charged  

     — scope of claim        E.g. 1 'The early deaths of Joplin and Hendrix show how

really dangerous drugs are'     

Is this argument:  

Joplin and Hendrix died early (from drug-overdose)    or   Joplin and Hendrix ...

Some drugs are really dangerous                             All drugs are ...

     E.g. 2 'Judges voted Volkswagen the best car of 2001'             

Did all judges vote in this way or just some?

1.          Verbal or Semantic Ambiguity (Lexical Ambiguity)  Fallacy of Equivocation (again)   Exploits the different meanings of a word in different parts of the argument.   E.g.   A simple, clear example from the Text is:             Six is an odd number of legs for a horse           Odd numbers cannot be divided by two              Six cannot be divided by two.   The word 'odd' is used in two senses — odd1 = unusual; odd2 = not even — and the

argument gains any strength it has by ignoring this. The argument might be clarified as follows:

  Six is an odd1 number of legs for a horse           Odd2 numbers cannot be divided by two    Six cannot be divided by two.                         OR   Six is an odd2 number of legs for a horse Odd2 numbers cannot be divided by two  Six cannot be divided by two.

E.g.   Less obviously, consider the following argument, seemingly implicit in remarks by a recent Prime Minister, in defence of the particular way spending cuts were distributed in a recent Budget. Cuts were made equally across all   (A) I cannot be criticised for fairly distributing a necessary

burden (B) The budget cuts were a necessary burden fairly distributed  

I cannot be criticised for the budget cuts  

The notion of a 'fair distribution' is ambiguous, meaning: 1. distributed equally across all 2. distributed across all according to their capacity.

General Strategy for Diagnosis   Where one suspects equivocation within an argument:  (a) spell out the various senses of the term involved  (b) restate the argument so that no equivocation occurs  (c) evaluate each clarified argument. (If there is a fallacy of equivocation, none will be compelling.)

Grammatical or Syntactic Ambiguity (Amphiboly)          A phrase can be ambiguous due to the structure of the phrase. Such cases are referred to as cases of syntactic ambiguity or amphiboly.   Wartime poster: SAVE SOAP AND WASTE

PAPER   Definition of anthropology: THE SCIENCE OF MAN

EMBRACING WOMAN   Newspaper headlines: FLYING PLANES CAN BE

DANGEROUS  Philosophy: EVERYTHING MUST HAVE

SOME CAUSE

Fallacy of Amphiboly   apparent strength rests on reading a syntactically ambiguous phrase in the

premises in one sense to ensure their truth and another sense to support the conclusion.

  E.g.1 He was found in the ditch by some cows         

Cows can find people.                           

E.g.2   Everything must have some cause          Some one thing must be the cause of everything

General Strategy for Diagnosis  Where one suspects amphiboly within an argument:  (a) spell out the various senses of the syntactically ambiguous phrase

involved  (b) restate the argument so that no equivocation occurs  (c) evaluate each clarified argument. (If there is a fallacy of amphiboly,

none will be compelling.)

jargon - unknown meaning

Arguments often involve jargon-terms — that is, terms with specialised meaning in a particular area.   E.g.      'materialism' as used by philosophers means something quite specialised and something different from another common use of the term to describe someone who likes material comforts.   E.g.     The notion of 'clear and distinct understanding' as used by Descartes means something quite specialised (scholarship is required to discern meaning).

A. Lexical Definitions  

Definitions which report current, conventional meanings for terms

1. Dictionary Definitions   Such definitions generally provide statements of conventionally accepted meanings of words which, though suitable for everyday purposes, are somewhat loose, inexact or incomplete.   [See Cederblom, p. 199 for inadequacies of such definitions.]   2. Denotative or Ostensive Definitions   Giving the collection or class of things to which the term may be correctly applied.   E.g. By Eucalypts I mean Red Gums, Coolibahs, etc. (listing eucalypts)

By mental events I mean things like desires and beliefs.   3. Logical Definitions   Giving the set of conditions met by all and only those objects to which the term applies.   E.g. By a square I mean any equal sided rectangle.

Something is a square if and only if it is an equal sided rectangle.

B. Stipulative Definitions  

Attaching unconventional, new meaning to a term.   E.g. (a) "For the purposes of this debate let us use democracy to mean ..."

(b) "Let bleen be that property that something has just if it is blue until the year 2000 and green thereafter."

Denotative or Ostensive Definitions  

(see above)   Logical Definitions  

(see above)   Persuasive Definition   Attaching a different literal meaning to a word while preserving its old emotional or evaluative impact.   E.g. Defining the "true" Australian as someone who cares about the plight of farmers;

or defining "right-thinking people" as those against fluoridation of drinking water.   Sometimes, rather than eliminating ambiguity, this type of definition reintroduces it, leading to the problem of redefinition.   E.g. All right-thinking people are against fluoridation

Reasonable people are right-thinking                           Reasonable people are against fluoridation

Irrelevancies

a. going off on tangents to gain argumentative advantage.   This often appears upon closer examination to be merely excessive verbiage.   E.g. Q: 'Should the government's tax changes be accepted?'

A: 'The government has a lousy record on tax change. These changes are unnecessary because […]'

  The argument is simply:

  […]                                                            The government's tax changes are unnecessary

  b.                 repetition   E.g. '… because it is wrong; it's immoral; it's obscene!'

Assuring

Presenting reasons that are "assuredly true" ... to convince a disbelieving audience.

  — by citing authority as an assuranceE.g. "Economists agree that ..."   — by showing you yourself accept them           E.g. "There is no doubt that ..."

(conversationally implying there are reasons)   — by citing obviousness                              E.g. "Clearly ..."

(implying that disbelief amounts to ignorance)

Irrelevant assuring

E.g. 'You obviously cannot play golf in Alaska in January so there's no point in bringing your clubs'

  You cannot play golf in Alaska in January There's no point in bringing your clubs

  But assuring is not always irrelevant.   E.g. 'You obviously cannot play golf in Alaska in January so

there should be no thought of your bringing your clubs'  

You obviously cannot play golf in Alaska in January There should be no thought of you bringing your clubs

Guarding

Presenting reasons that are suitably weakened by ...   — restricting scope or extent of claims

- less generalE.g. "Some ..." instead of "All ..."   — retreating from certain claims to merely probable claims

- less certain             E.g. "Evidence suggests that ..." instead of "It is plainly the case

that ..."   — retreating from knowledge-claims to belief-claims

- less dogmatic E.g. "I now think that ..." instead of "I know that ..."

Irrelevant guarding

E.g. 'I think Miranda is at home so we can meet her there'                                   Miranda is at home                          We can meet her there   But guarding is not always irrelevant to the argument.   E.g. 'I think Miranda is at home so I don't expect to see her at

University today'                           I think Miranda is at home                                        I don't expect to see her at University today

Discounting

Dispelling doubts surrounding reasons by citing possible criticism only to discount it.   E.g. 'Since historically public debt leads to inflation, I maintain

that, despite recent trends, inflation will return' 

The argument is simply:               Historically public debt leads to inflation               Inflation will return   E.g. The ring is beautiful but expensive

[… so let's not buy it.]      (Discounting its beauty) The ring is expensive but beautiful [… so let's buy it.]      (Discounting the expense)

A but B                            A although B       (i)      asserts A                      (v)      asserts A       (ii)     asserts B                      (vi)      asserts B       (iii)    suggests A/B opposition     (vii)      suggests A/B opposition       (iv)    A discounted by B               (viii)      B discounted by A               Discounting A                     Discounting B               A but B                                  A although B             A however B                         A (even) though B             A nonetheless B                    A even if B       

Discounting is useful for:           (a)          pre-empting moves by opponent           (b)          blocking conversational implication           (c)          avoiding side issues or tangents   Discounting can be abused by:           (a)          pre-empting easy objections to hide or bury

difficult ones           (b)          using it to imply that opponent holds some crazy

view (by means of (iii) above - the suggested opposition)

E.g. I agree that pollution is bad but stopping all industry won't work.

Evaluative Language (vs Descriptive)

The use of evaluative language is often important in pushing an argument through and for that reason we must be aware of its use.   Evaluative terms like 'good', 'proper', 'efficient' or 'beautiful' are typically said to invoke (positive, virtuous) standards against which "things" (e.g. objects, events, etc.) can be evaluated.   The standards of evaluation can be vague, and may vary culturally but imprecision and variation do not show that there are no shared standards, that it is merely a matter of taste.   Recognising evaluative use of language is important but can be difficult.   Test: Does the use mean something is good or bad; right or wrong; ought be done or ought not.   E.g. 'homicide' vs 'murder'

'refugee' vs 'illegal immigrant' 'removed' vs 'stolen'

Euphemism and Spin Doctoring

Euphemism — The use of language to describe something in more gentle or favourable terms.

E.g. "It's only downsizing, so it's not anything to be concerned about."   The euphemism should in many cases be scrutinised.

Figurative Language

Language is not always used in its literal sense but metaphorically.

E.g. a glaring mistake   Arguments may sometimes contain figurative language where the conclusion is backed up by reliance on some metaphor.

E.g.      The High Court is a court of autocratic kings              We can and should ignore their decisions   Criticism naturally focuses on the appropriateness of the metaphor