Page 112 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 112
What Do We Know about the World?
The two crucial strategies for “redirecting and intensifying” attitudes
are the persuasive definition and the quasi-definition. Quasi-defini-
tions consist in the modification of the emotive meaning of a word
without altering the descriptive one. The speaker can quasi-define a
word by qualifying the definiendum (or rather describing its referent)
without setting forth what actually the term means. The definitions
provided by the famous Devil’s dictionary mostly consist in this tactic.
For instance, we can consider the following account of “peace” (Bierce,
2000: 179):
Peace: In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of
fighting.
Here, the speaker is not describing the meaning of “peace”, but how
a peaceful period of time should be considered. The outcome is that a
concept usually evaluated positively is turned into one bound to the neg-
ative idea of deception.
The other tactic of redefinition of ethical words is called persuasive
definition. The emotive meaning, namely the evaluative component as-
sociated with a concept, is left unaltered while the descriptive meaning,
which determines its extension, is modified. In this fashion, imprison-
ment can become “true freedom” (Huxley, 1955: 122), and massacres
“pacification” (Orwell, 1946). Persuasive definitions can change or dis-
tort the meaning while keeping the original evaluations that the use of a
word evokes. A famous example is the following redefinition of “peace”,
or rather, “true peace” (Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Ad-
dress, Oslo, Norway December 10, 2009):
Peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on
the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. Peace
is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as
they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. A just peace
includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic
security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but
freedom from want.
While retaining its original positive emotive meaning, “peace” is
not referring anymore to absence of conflict, but also to specific war
operations. However, how can these two dimensions be described?
How is it possible to analyze these two different types of meaning? A
possible answer can be found in examining them from a reasoning per-
spective.
The two crucial strategies for “redirecting and intensifying” attitudes
are the persuasive definition and the quasi-definition. Quasi-defini-
tions consist in the modification of the emotive meaning of a word
without altering the descriptive one. The speaker can quasi-define a
word by qualifying the definiendum (or rather describing its referent)
without setting forth what actually the term means. The definitions
provided by the famous Devil’s dictionary mostly consist in this tactic.
For instance, we can consider the following account of “peace” (Bierce,
2000: 179):
Peace: In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of
fighting.
Here, the speaker is not describing the meaning of “peace”, but how
a peaceful period of time should be considered. The outcome is that a
concept usually evaluated positively is turned into one bound to the neg-
ative idea of deception.
The other tactic of redefinition of ethical words is called persuasive
definition. The emotive meaning, namely the evaluative component as-
sociated with a concept, is left unaltered while the descriptive meaning,
which determines its extension, is modified. In this fashion, imprison-
ment can become “true freedom” (Huxley, 1955: 122), and massacres
“pacification” (Orwell, 1946). Persuasive definitions can change or dis-
tort the meaning while keeping the original evaluations that the use of a
word evokes. A famous example is the following redefinition of “peace”,
or rather, “true peace” (Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Ad-
dress, Oslo, Norway December 10, 2009):
Peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on
the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. Peace
is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as
they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. A just peace
includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic
security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but
freedom from want.
While retaining its original positive emotive meaning, “peace” is
not referring anymore to absence of conflict, but also to specific war
operations. However, how can these two dimensions be described?
How is it possible to analyze these two different types of meaning? A
possible answer can be found in examining them from a reasoning per-
spective.
