Abstract
In naturally occuring argumentation, words which play a crucial role in the argument often acquire different meanings on subsequent occasions of use. Traditionally, such semantic shifts have been dealt with by the ‘fallacy of equivocation’. In my paper, I would like to show that there is considerably more to semantic shifts during arguments than their potentially being fallacious. Based on an analysis of a debate on environmental policy, I will argue that shifts in meaning are produced by a principle I call ‘local semantic elaboration’. I will go on to show that semantic shifts in the meaning of a word, the position advocated by a party, and the questions that the parties raise during an argumentative process are neatly tailored to one another, but can be incommensurable to the opponent's views. Semantic shifts thus may have a dissociative impact on a critical discussion. By linking the structure of argumentation to its pragmatics, however, it may be revealed that there are two practices that account for a higher order of coherence of the debate. The first practice is a general preference for disagreeing with the opponent, the second practice is the interpretation of local speech acts in terms of an overall ideological stance that is attributed to the speaker. Because of these practices, parties do not criticize divergent semantic conceptions as disruptive, but they treat them as characteristic and sometimes even metonymic reflections of the parties' positions.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aristotle: 1955, On Sophistical Refutations, Heinemann, London.
Attardo, S.: 1994, Linguistic Theories of Humour, de Gruyter, New York.
Bilmes, J.: 1991, ‘Toward a Theory of Argument in Conversation: The Preference for Disagreement’, in F. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation.Vol 1A, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 462–469.
Deppermann, A.: 1997, Glaubwürdigkeit im Konflikt.Rhetorische Techniken in Streitgesprächen, Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Deppermann, A.: 1999, Gespräche analysieren, Leske + Budrich, Opladen.
Heritage, J.: 1995, ‘Conversation Analysis: Methodological Aspects’, in U.M. Quasthoff (ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 395–418.
Nothdurft, W.: 1996, ‘Schlüsselwörter. Zur rhetorischen Herstellung von Wirklichkeit’, in W. Kallmeyer (ed.), Gesprächsrhetorik.Rhetorische Verfahren in Gesprächsprozessen, Narr, Tübingen, pp. 351–418.
Pomerantz, A.: 1984, ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes’, in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–101.
Powers, L.H.: 1995, ‘Equivocation’, in H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 287–301.
Spranz-Fogasy, T. and T. Fleischmann: 1993, ‘Types of Dispute Courses in Family Interaction’, Argumentation 7, 221–235.
Swinney, D.A.: 1979, ‘Lexical Access During Sentence Comprehension: (Re)consideration of Context Effects’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 654–660.
Walton, D.N.: 1996, Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Woods, J. and D.N. Walton: 1989, ‘Equivocation and Practical Logic’, in J. Woods and D.N. Walton (eds.), Fallacies.Selected Papers 1972–1982, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 195–207.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deppermann, A. Semantic Shifts in Argumentative Processes: A Step Beyond the ‘Fallacy of Equivocation’. Argumentation 14, 17–30 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838727096
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838727096