Linguistic Fallacies

Math Lair Home > Topics > Linguistic Fallacies

A linguistic fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that relates to a language-

related defect in an argument. Linguistic fallacies might involve using words or
sentences that have vague, unclear, or multiple meanings or other
inconsistencies. Such fallacies are also referred to as fallacies of ambiguity or
verbal fallacies.

Here is a list of linguistic fallacies:

Equivocation
One of the six linguistic fallacies listed by Aristotle. In English (as well as
other languages), many words have multiple meanings. One extreme
example is the word "cleave", which has two opposite meanings: to
adhere and to separate. An argument that uses one meaning of a word
in one part of the argument and another meaning of the word in another
part commits the fallacy of equivocation. For example:

 Teaching people logic teaches them how to argue. Because

people already argue too much, there is no need to teach logic.
 If someone breaks the law, they are acting irresponsibly.
Therefore, anyone who breaks the law is not responsible for his
actions; therefore, that person's actions aren't their fault.
 Scientific authorities state that smoking causes cancer, but I know
a lot of scientists who can't even control their own kids very well,
so what kind of authorities could they be?

Amphiboly
Amphiboly, sometimes referred to as amphibology in older texts, means
"double arrangement", and occurs when premises in an argument are
amphibolous, which means that they are ambiguous because of
careless or ungrammatical phrasing. While such ambiguous sentences
occur relatively frequently, they don't occur too often in arguments, and
hence the fallacy of amphiboly is quite rare. In On Sophistical
Refutations, Aristotle gave the example "Surely you insist on being what
 you insist on being. You insist on a stone being: therefore, you insist on
being a stone." In this argument, the phrase "you insist on being" is
interpreted both as "you assert the existence of," and "you assert that
you are." It isn't likely to fool too many people, though.
Accent
Like the fallacies above, this fallacy was also described by Aristotle. The
Greek language is a highly inflected language. Inflections are indicated
by accents on various syllables in the word, to denote things such as
which verb tense to use. During Aristotle's time, these accents were not
written; rather, the reader had to use his knowledge of spoken Greek to
interpret what accents were required. It was possible for the reader to
reinterpret what the writer meant to change the meaning of the
sentence. Obviously, this doesn't happen in English very much.
Probably the closest thing to it in English is that words such as "re-sent",
if written without the hyphen (as frequently occurs), can be
misinterpreted, in this example as "resent," but an actual argument that
hinges on this ambiguity would probably be quite rare. Due to the fallacy
being uncommon outside of Greek, some authors treat this fallacy as
including misplaced emphasis, although Aristotle did not include
misplaced emphasis in his definition of the fallacy.
Composition
Another fallacy described by Aristotle. This fallacy involves arguing that
a property shared by all members of a set must apply to that set, or that
a property shared by all parts of something must apply to the whole.
While this fallacy (as well as "Division", below) could also be classified
as a material fallacy, it can also be classified as a verbal fallacy in the
case where the words used to describe the property have different
meanings when applied to the parts than when applied to the whole. For
example: "All of the players on the team are good. Therefore the team
must be good." Used to describe a player, the word "good" relates to the
player's athletic skills, while when used to describe the team, it relates
to their ability to win games.
Division
Another fallacy described by Aristotle. The fallacy of division is the
opposite of the fallacy of composition. In other words, it involves
concluding that a property of something must apply to all its parts, or
that a property of a set must apply to all members of that set. For
example: "The team is good. Therefore all the players must be good."
Form of Expression or Figure of Speech
This is the last of Aristotle's six Fallacies dependent on Language. It
involves being misled by the structure or etymology of a word. The
 examples that Aristotle used (in Greek, different words may have
different cases or genders even though the word endings are the same)
don't occur too often in English. However, in English, it is possible to be
misled by interpreting a word literally when it was intended to be used
figuratively, or vice versa, or interpreting a word in a misleading way
based on its structure or etymology. Here is an example from J. S.
Mill's Utilitarianism:
The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that
people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that
people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like
manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that
anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it.

Mill is misled by the termination of the words; to say that something is

visible is to say that people can see it, while to say that something is
desirable is to say that it is worthy of desire.

Misplaced Emphasis
Changing the emphasis on syllables or words of an English sentence
can change the meaning of the sentence or suggest a different
meaning. For example, compare what is meant by
"We've never caught Debbie stealing anything."
versus
"We've never caught Debbie stealing anything."
Abstraction or Quoting Out of Context
This fallacy involves removing a passage from its surrounding context,
and possibly excerpting it or altering emphasis, so that the meaning of
the quotation becomes different from what the original author intended.
Argument from Innuendo
Innuendo is a veiled attack on character or reputation. For example, a
dean of students, asked whether a graduate had any disciplinary
problems, replied "No, we were never able to convict him of any
violations of college rules." The dean implicitly suggests that the
university had suspected and/or investigated disciplinary problems. The
fallacy of argument from innuendo consists of directing others to a
certain conclusion through a careful choice of words or sentences that
suggest but do not assert that conclusion. The use of innuendo is not
strictly fallacious (as in the example above); there's nothing inherently
fallacious about suggesting a conclusion implicitly without offering
evidence, and innuendo often occurs outside the context of an
argument. The fallacy arises in cases when such an argument is used
 to shift the burden of proof, making it similar to the fallacy of argument
from ignorance.

Sources used (see bibliography page for titles corresponding to

numbers): 6, 15, 18, 19.
Last updated March 19, 2020.
URL: https://mathlair.allfunandgames.ca/linguisticfallacies.php
For questions or comments, e-mail James Yolkowski ([email protected]).
Math Lair home page | All Fun and Games | Privacy policy

https://mathlair.allfunandgames.ca/linguisticfallacies.php