Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part IV (Language)

-->

Language

Not only what one says counts, but how one says it.

The language in which something is expressed can mean the difference between truth and falsehood, between boredom and fascination, between pique and persuasion, between failure and success.

Linguistic matters which affect argument.  Chief among these is the twisting of meanings in order to doctor results.

If the  central purpose of reasoning is to establish useful fact, then good reasoning will be clear, and it will be objective: what can’t be followed can’t lead anyone to fact; what is unobjective leads away from fact.  An arguers style conveys that clarity and objectivity.

Clarity - presenting a case well means not only stating the case but also caring that the case be grasped: clarity is an indication of the arguers good faith.

Though being clear is a skill of detail, it is helpful to cultivate the following habits: needle details, seek simplicity, expose structure.

Needle details - redundancy turns dedicated servants into bureaucrats.  Force logic into the details of argument language.

Many absurdities pass as cliches eg. “track record” “very real” “nature” “characteristic”  “time frame” “at that point in time” etc.

Many terms work against a stated or implied standard.  With that standard omitted the words lose their meaning  eg.  “very” “quite” “extremely” “rather”.

Failure to notice omitted standards accounts for a whole family of current expressions  eg.  “prepackaged” 

“prepaid” “prerecorded”  “advance planning” etc.

Seek simplicity - in persuasion, less is more.  The use of “jawbreakers” (big words) rarely gets a conclusion across effectively.

Forthright, plain terms convince, not jawbreakers.

Not only do four letter words say it better, they are democratic.  They do not talk down, and they do not hide the truth.

Scientism, the feeling that nothing counts unless couched as science, clouds much writing.

Expose structure - good argument, like good architecture, reveals its structural elements so that what is being said and how it is being supported lie open to the consideration of all.  By revealing duplication and omission, structure forces an arguer to be simple and complete.

Objectivity - a well argued case not only persuades its friends but also attracts the uncommitted and unfriendly. 

Many words in themselves convey approval or disapproval - they have a positive or negative connotation - and they need to be wielded carefully.

Connotation: certain terms, called pejorative, tend to trigger aversion or avoidance.  Others, called honorific or commendatory, tend to evoke favourable responses.

Euphemisms replace pejoratives or offensive plain terms.

Pejorative and honorific terms fit in careful arguing only where their use is justified: ie. in conclusions or derivations from conclusions.

Euphemism is a valuable ingredient in all  parts of argument.  Like social pleasantries, euphemism lubricates the wheels of society,  eg. Teachers do not tell parents that their kids are stupid or brats.

Euphemisms allow the robust, the plainspoken, and the rude to interact with the sensitive, the innocent, and the genteel without anyone going off in a huff.

Honestly used, euphemisms, like white lies, promote objectivity by quashing disagreement over trivia in order that attention may be focused on significant business.

Parasitising connotation: Whatever is “natural”, “organic”, “analytical”, or “structured” is usually being commended.  We like what is “new”, “creative”, “dynamic”, “real”, “positive”, “objective”, “clear”, “precise”, “scientific”.

Sometimes the approval implied in such terms gets transferred to topics and conclusions where it does not belong.  One of these ways is the creation of an “ism” or “ology”  from a commendatory term.

Commendatory terms sometimes play a related trick.  Though normally occurring as approval, none has to occur as approval.  The trick involves transferring to approval to where it does not belong eg.  generally it is good to behave rationally, but it might be right to criticise a participant and behaving rationally in an encounter group for not opening up.

“natural” does not always equal “good”

Another technique for parasitising connotation involves smuggling in a viewpoint by means of the language in which something is expressed - “framework” language, eg. “consciousness raising” suggests a direction up from better to worse.  Yet what is described as “consciousness raising” may or may not raise consciousness.  That is a matter to be decided by observation or insight - by argument - not by terminology alone.  The same could be said for “progress”, “liberation”, “development” and others.

Notice that the positiveness or negativity depends on the observers point of view.

A favourite trick to avoid commitment consists in using framework comparative terms while neglecting to supply any basis in relation to which the comparatives compare eg. to “move forward and not turn back” are fine depending upon one’s orientation, “forward” or “back” could be any direction.

The trick seems to be especially effective when worded with a “sandwich” of pejorative comparative terms - two excesses enclosing what, by contrast, looks like the golden mean.

“we mustn’t overreact, but there again neither must we do nothing”