Semantics and Rhetoric

1
Semantics and Rhetoric
2
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       
3
    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  
4
     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?
5
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.
6
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.)
7
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
8
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.)
9
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).
10
A. Lexical Definitions   Definitions which
report current, conventional meanings for terms
11
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.
12
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."
13
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
14
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!'
15
Assuring Presenting reasons that are "assuredly
true" ... to convince a disbelieving audience.  
by citing authority as an assurance E.g. "Econ
omists 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)
16
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
17
Guarding Presenting reasons that are suitably
weakened by ...   restricting scope or extent
of claims - less general E.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 ..."
18
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
19
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               Historic
ally 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)
20
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       
21
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.
22
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'
23
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.
24
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