How Can Modifications of Meaning Influence Argumentation? The Concept and Typology of Semantic Arguments
- PDF / 885,185 Bytes
- 26 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 104 Downloads / 188 Views
How Can Modifications of Meaning Influence Argumentation? The Concept and Typology of Semantic Arguments Jakub Pruś1 Accepted: 13 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract The aim of this article is to show how modifications of meaning can influence argumentation. I present the basic concept of so-called ‘semantic argumentation,’ its definition, and its different variants. I analyse the various kinds of argument in which meanings of terms are modified in support of a persuasive goal. The analysis of different semantic arguments reveals certain structures and patterns that are needed to construct a typology of such arguments. I thus outline a basic concept of argumentation based on modifications of meaning, before presenting various examples of such arguments together with an analysis of their structures, and then, finally, constructing a typology for them. Keywords Argument from verbal classification · Argument from definition · Semantic argument · No true Scotsman fallacy · Persuasive definition
1 Introduction The notion of semantic arguments continues to receive only a limited degree of acknowledgement in argumentation theory. Some scholars seek to analyse only the influence of emotional language upon argumentation, yet there has been scant research into the role of definition, redefinition and classification in this area— whether it be manifested in political debates or advertisements, or in academic or legal discourse. However, the concept of semantic arguments is much broader than manipulating emotions by using the right words in the discussion. The arguments modifying the meaning to support the persuasion goal are very common and powerful. This work analyses various examples of such arguments, taken from legal, political and ethical discourses, and shows that semantic arguments have different * Jakub Pruś [email protected] 1
Philosophy Department, Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow, Cracow, Poland
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
J. Pruś
types, which can be distinguished and carefully described. The present paper is an attempt to introduce the concept of semantic arguments in a more or less systematic fashion, and to construct a typology of such arguments. The latter task is arguably crucial to further investigative work on semantic arguments, such as evaluating the logical and/or ethical significance of such arguments. Therefore, this research is another step in systematizing the concept of semantic argument, which is necessary for providing criteria of correctness of such arguments. The significance of this task is great, for—as it will be showed—semantic argument is a common and powerful type of argument, which could also be used in a rational discourse. Therefore, it is also a need of society to know how such arguments are built and how to evaluate them. Thus, it is our task to describe the various types of semantic arguments and to provide some critical tools for dealing with semantic arguments. This paper aims to construct a typology of such arguments, to which in future we will be able
Data Loading...
