Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

It includes
both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study
of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how
conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of
arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal
logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking,
and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments
expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal
language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers
to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system.
Logic plays a central role in many fields, such
as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that

leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the
premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work"
leading to the conclusion "I don't have to work." [1] Premises and
conclusions express propositions or claims that can be true or false.
An important feature of propositions is their internal structure. For
example, complex propositions are made up of simpler propositions
linked by logical vocabulary like
(and) or
(if...then). Simple propositions also have parts, like "Sunday" or
"work" in the example. The truth of a proposition usually depends
on the meanings of all of its parts. However, this is not the case for
logically true propositions. They are true only because of their
logical structure independent of the specific meanings of the
individual parts.

Arguments can be either correct or incorrect. An argument is correct

if its premises support its conclusion. Deductive arguments have the
strongest form of support: if their premises are true then their
conclusion must also be true. This is not the case
for ampliative arguments, which arrive at genuinely new information
not found in the premises. Many arguments in everyday discourse
and the sciences are ampliative arguments. They are divided
into inductive and abductive arguments. Inductive arguments are
statistical generalizations, such as inferring that all ravens are black
based on many individual observations of black ravens. [2] Abductive
arguments are inferences to the best explanation, for example,
when a doctor concludes that a patient has a certain disease which
explains the symptoms they suffer.[3] Arguments that fall short of
the standards of correct reasoning often embody fallacies. Systems
of logic are theoretical frameworks for assessing the correctness of
arguments.

Logic has been studied since antiquity. Early approaches

include Aristotelian logic, Stoic logic, Nyaya, and Mohism.
Aristotelian logic focuses on reasoning in the form of syllogisms. It
was considered the main system of logic in the Western world until
it was replaced by modern formal logic, which has its roots in the
work of late 19th-century mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege.
Today, the most commonly used system is classical logic. It consists
of propositional logic and first-order logic. Propositional logic only
considers logical relations between full propositions. First-order logic
also takes the internal parts of propositions into account,
like predicates and quantifiers. Extended logics accept the basic
intuitions behind classical logic and apply it to other fields, such
as metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Deviant logics, on the
other hand, reject certain classical intuitions and provide alternative
explanations of the basic laws of logic.

Definition
[edit]
The word "logic" originates from the Greek word logos, which has a
variety of translations, such as reason, discourse, or languages. Logic
is traditionally defined as the study of the laws of thought or correct
reasoning, and is usually understood in terms
of inferences or arguments. Reasoning is the activity of drawing
inferences. Arguments are the outward expression of inferences. An
argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion. Logic is
interested in whether arguments are correct, i.e. whether their
premises support the conclusion. These general characterizations
apply to logic in the widest sense, i.e., to both formal and informal
logic since they are both concerned with assessing the correctness
of arguments. Formal logic is the traditionally dominant field, and
some logicians restrict logic to formal logic.

logic is often seen as a cold study that is unrelated to the life of people, but in order
to interpret and use logic, one has to grasp the meaning of what is being said. And
while logic tries to rationalize and show truth, meaning is always there, along with it.
Logic analyses meaning and this is the sole reason why it cannot be perceived as
unrelated to the life of people, because no one else apart from man is able to
rationalise. Moreover, logic is developed from the ability to conclude and to be able
to accomplish this, one must have knowledge about the topic that is analyzed. And
more often than not, man is not even aware of his doing, since it comes so naturally
that he does not even think about it. To explain this further, a synonym for logic such
as reasonable and rational should be used to show that there are more words which
can be used in everyday speech to replace the words logic and logical in order to
deal with the meaning of units of discourse.

The study of logic is needed to understand the nature of things and among these
things, language can be found. And concerning the logic of a language, it is important
to grasp the reality of sense relations such as synonymy and entailment which are
both a huge part in semantics.
One should also understand that meaning and logic are not only to be observed in
science, but also in everyday life, one example would be connotation or implied
meaning. Connotations are culturally defined and can be associated with the
speaker’s tone. They can be positive, negative or neutral and it is upon the listener to
decipher the meaning of it. Therefore, the listener needs to use logic to translate the
meaning of a connotation.

The ‘love’ between meaning and logic knows no boundaries, so when meaning dies,
there is no universe in which logic can exist without it.there is no logical thinking if
there is no meaning behind the thought.

The Functions of Language (i.e., its purpose; what it does; its uses)
1. Informative language function: essentially, the communication of information.
a. The informative function affirms or denies propositions, as in science or the
statement of a fact..
b. This function is used to describe the world or reason about it (e.g.., whether a state
of affairs has occurred or not or what might have led to it).
c. These sentences have a truth value; that is, the sentences are either true or false
(recognizing, of course, that we might not know what that truth value is). Hence, they
are important for logic.
2. Expressive language function: reports feelings or attitudes of the writer (or
speaker), or of the subject, or evokes feelings in the reader (or listener).
a) Poetry and literature are among the best examples, but much of,
perhaps most of, ordinary language discourse is the expression of
emotions, feelings or attitudes.
b) Two main aspects of this function are generally noted: (1) evoking
certain feelings and (2) expressing feelings.
c) Expressive discourse, qua expressive discourse, is best regarded as
neither true or false. E.g., Shakespeare's King Lear's lament,
"Ripeness is all!" or Dickens' "It was the best of times, it was the
worst of times; it was the age of wisdom; it was the age of
foolishness…" Even so, the "logic" of "fictional statements" is an
interesting area of inquiry.
3. Directive language function: language used for the purpose of causing (or
preventing) overt action.
A. The directive function is most commonly found in commands and
requests.
B. Directive language is not normally considered true or false
(although various logics of commands have been developed).
C. Example of this function: "Close the windows." The sentence
"You're smoking in a nonsmoking area," although declarative, can be
used to mean "Do not smoke in this area."

Cognative and emotive

Types of Meanings14
Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information
and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own
beliefs (your emotions). These relate back to the discussion of
subjective and objective claims back in Chapter 2, but they are not
the same thing. For example, you might want to say,

Coconut is disgusting.

This is a claim phrased as an objective claim (it’s declarative and

is subject to being true or false) and has cognitive meaning since it
is communicating information. When someone says this, what they
actually mean is something like this,

I believe that coconut is disgusting.

This claim is now phrased as a subjective claim with emotive

meaning since the truth value of it is based upon the reality of
whether or not I actually believe this and it is conveying my own
feelings on the topic. Additionally, it is cognitive because it is
conveying information. Every single emotive statement will also be
cognitive because anything that is said conveys at least a minimal
amount of information. The issue then is when something also (or
only) conveys emotive meaning.

Why does this matter? Because if we’re using a lot of emotive

meaning, we might be muddling up the facts and the importance of
what we’re trying to say. For example, if I say, “those people are
mean jerks,” I might not be as convincing as if I say, “those people
were just bullying that person in a wheelchair, which is not a nice
thing to do.” The hope is that we avoid emotive meaning as much
as we can, but it’s unavoidable in any argument: by taking a side
and defending it, you will be using your own beliefs and emotions.
That’s just fine, but your goal should be to be as impartial and fair in
your claims as you can be, remembering to defend each and every
belief you have as much as is necessary to convince your reader
that your viewpoint is justified.

Emotive words can be used as dialectical instruments of manipulation.

They can hide reality or conceal the controversial nature of a definition. In
both cases, the interlocutor is prevented from judging a classification and
challenging it. Dialectical strategies of hiding facts or meaning can explain
the force and the danger of arguments from classification, and help in ana-
lyzing the pragmatic dimension of definitions.

THE USES OF EMOTIVE LANGUAGE

Using these ancient theories it is possible to identify many
argument strategies concerning emotive language and the
related fallacies that are nowadays studied under the
labels of 'loaded words', 'question-begging epithets', and
'persuasive definitions'. An extremely interesting mapping
of the most frequent manipulative
strategies grounded upon the use of emotions is the
article by George Orwell (1946) “Politics and the English
Language”. Orwell highlights different types of fallacious
moves in which words are used to prevent the reader from
understanding the fragment of reality they refer to: they
become masks, instead of signs.
The first strategy is the use of metaphors or euphemisms
to conceal particular
concepts. Euphemisms and metaphors can refer to many
different concepts. For
instance, 'pacification' may refer to different types of
processes aimed at resolving
conflicts, including ones leading to war. A precise
representation of their meaning
cannot be often provided, and therefore an exact
evaluation of their referent may be
impossible. A second strategy is the use of indeterminate
words, such as 'Fascist',
'Communist', or 'der Wille des Volks' (the will of people)
(see also Rigotti, 2005). The
first two words are commonly negatively evaluated;
however, their meaning, when they
are used to classify present state of affairs or decisions, is
unclear and undetermined.
The will of people, on the contrary, is usually associated
with a positive state of affairs;
however, what actually is the will of people in a given
situation is indeterminate, and
often extremely hard to ascertain. The positive evaluation
the speakers usually
associated with such a concept is often directed towards
an unknown referent. The
third and subtlest strategy is the exploitation of definitions
for categorizing reality. This
technique is grounded on the fallacy of ambiguity: the
speaker introduces an ambiguity
Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1 (2010): 1-33

12. The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language.

MACAGNO & WALTON
by introducing a new, not shared definition of a concept.
Such ambiguity is then used to
direct the emotions usually associated to the old definition
towards the new referent of
the word. For instance, dictatorships often redefine the
concept of democracy to
classify their regime as ‘democratic’. The new definition
often clashes with the
commonly shared understanding of what a democracy is,
but the word, carrying a
positive evaluation, can be attributed to a form of
government that is usually
condemned. All these techniques show how emotive
language can be used to cover up
reality and lead the hearers or readers to evaluate a
situation they do not fully know.
However, important differences need to be drawn between
the different uses of
emotive language, in order to understand how emotions
are exploited in
argumentation.
3.1 Strategies of emotive language
Emotional language, in an argumentative perspective, is
the use of language
arousing certain emotions to lead the interlocutor to a
certain conclusion. Euphemisms,
for instance, are used to soften a harsh reality, but this
function is not generally
worrisome from an argumentative point of view.
Euphemisms in such cases assume a
precise conventional meaning: for instance, if a person
has 'passed away', nobody
would think that he is not dead (see Groarke & Tindale,
2004). However, euphemisms
can also be used to hide some aspects of reality, leading
the interlocutor to draw a
conclusion based on only a partial representation of the
situation. This hiding often
happens through the use of loaded words, namely words
presupposing facts not
accepted or shared by the interlocutors to support a value
judgment. For instance, we
can consider the following cases (Manicas & Kruger, 1968:
326):
Case 10
a) You cannot let this man go free because your sister or your wife
may be his next
victim.
b) Now, let’s consider some disadvantages of the immoral policy of
legalized gambling.
In the first case, the speaker assumes that the man
already killed a person; while in the
second sentence legalized gambling is presupposed as
something against morality.
Such assumptions do not need to be supported by
arguments, as already taken for
granted.
A third strategy is altering the interlocutor’s evaluation of
the situation not by
Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 1 (2010): 1-33

13. The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language.

MACAGNO & WALTON
altering or hiding the facts, but acting on how a person
may judge a state of affairs. For
instance we can consider the following case (Manicas &
Kruger, 2004: 85-86):
Case 11
When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that homosexuals must
be included under
Alberta’s human-rights legislation, a group calling itself Canada’s
Civilized Majority
attacked the court’s decision in a full-page advertisement in a
national newspaper. The
ad railed against ‘the barbaric agenda of militant homosexuals’ and
accused the
Supreme Court of imposing a ‘bathhouse morality’.
The words used have an extremely unclear meaning, but
which is commonly
understood as negative, and are used to lead the
interlocutor to the conclusion that
'who supported the law in favor of homosexuals is bad'.
Emotive language can be used in two basic fashions:
words can be used to
arouse emotions by presenting a state of affairs different
from reality; or terms
commonly associated with a negative or positive state of
affairs can be employed to
modify the evaluation of an already known situation. This
distinction is crucial for
understanding the relation between the meaning of a
word and the emotions it
Generates.