DEFINITION 3
Argument from DEFINITION

1. Definition in the process of categorization

Categorization is the process by which an individual is identified as belonging to a category, and is given the name of that category, S. Categorization and Nomination. The definition is the reservoir of essential characteristics that allow this identification.

2. Argumentation on the basis of a definition

The definition (the definiens) of a word or an expression (boy, scotch bonnet, democracy, single parent, educated person, British citizen, natural disaster …) provides a stock of definitional features applicable to all the beings, individuals, institutions, events … designated by the definiendum (belonging to the category named by the word). Argumentation by definition applies the definition of the name to an entity designated by that name. It works as follows:

1. 1. An argument: a statement of the form “I is a D”: I is an individual (identified, categorized, perceived, named… as) “a D”.
   2. A license to infer, found in the definition of D that is taken as authoritative.
   3. A conclusion: everything that is said about the D can be really be said of I.

A definition (a definiens) is a rich set of propositions about “what that kind of being is”. It contains doxical assertions based on common knowledge about those beings which are found in the examples that illustrate the definiens as well as in the definiens properly said. To call a being “a D” is to ascribe to it all the properties that define the name “D”, as well as the scripts, duties and obligations associated with Ds. In other words, the definition (the definiens) of “what is a D” is a set of inference licenses applicable to all the persons and objects called D.

Using the definition allows inferences of the following type, S. Common Place.

— “Harry is a British citizen”: this claim expresses a categorization of the person Harry, derived from the information that he was born in Bermuda, see Layout. The categorization (“— is a British citizen”) corresponds to a local modeling of the person “as a British citizen”, which makes it accessible to the inferential definition machine. Armed with this information, we can draw from the body of knowledge that defines “what it is to be an Englishman”, and conclude, according to the needs of the moment, that:

He takes tea at five
He will need a drop of milk
We can certainly address him in English
If he has committed a crime abroad, his legal treatment will be conducted according to the relevant international convention

— “My dear, you’re a little girl!” Traditional wisdom says that girls are like this, should do this and that, etc. Well, my daughter, you’re like this, and you must act accordingly:
— “This is a Scotch bonnet” so, it is “very aromatic, it is delicious prepared in an omelette”; better still, you can “dry it out, and use it as an aromatic”[1], S. Categorization.
— “Now you are undoubtedly one of the great democracies” so we can re-establish diplomatic relations and encourage our citizens to spend their vacations on your beaches.
— “Mrs. Doe is a mother who lives alone”, so under such and such administrative and financial rules, she is entitled to a single parent allowance of a certain amount.
— “Mrs. Smith is a graduate student” so she enjoys certain rights and must fulfill certain obligations as defined by the Graduate Students Charter in effect at the university where she is enrolled.
— “He’s a bastard” so I don’t trust him.

Argumentation by definition ascribes to a particular being a quality that is actually found in the definition of its name, as found in a dictionary or an encyclopedia. More broadly, it ascribes to a being any characteristic that is borrowed from the stereotypical notion of the kind of beings that bear that name.
Argumentation by definition is the epitome of what Billig calls “bureaucratic thinking”, which is fundamental in everyday life (Billig [1987], p. 124).

When the criteria used for categorization are defined within a rigorous scientific framework, then argument by definition becomes an essential scientific tool. Similarly, in the field of law, the criteria that qualify an act make it possible to apply the legal syllogism, that provides routine legal decisions by default.

3. Argument from definition: Lexical definitions as inferential resources

Some basic argumentative inferences embedded in a word are made explicit in its lexical definition and suggested in the examples of its use. Language dictionaries are repositories of accepted ideas and accepted connections between ideas; as such, they provide legitimate inferences from and to a word in the language and culture to which they belong (Raccah 2014) see Orientation. These inferences are considered rational and persuasive insofar as they are expressions of a shared semantic heritage, the treasury of discursive rationality. Consider the word rich. By collating the definitions of some current dictionaries, we can gain some insight into the elementary “licenses to infer”, diversions, or “drifts” to and from this word, that is, the semantic inferences that characterize a basic understanding of the word “rich”. The following information is taken from definitions from MW, tfd; CD.

(i) … so he is rich. This claim is justified:

— On an analytical basis: … (he has) a lot of money; of valuable assets, SO he is rich
— On the basis of signs: … (he owns) expensive materials, workmanship (such as mahogany furniture), SO, he is rich
— On the basis of his or her moral character and motives:
He is determined to become rich quickly,  SO, he is likely to become rich

 (ii) He is rich, so… On the same analytical basis, or from the signs, one can deduce:

… (he has) a lot of money; of valuable assets
… (he owns) expensive materials, workmanship (such as mahogany furniture)
… he does not have to work
… he has forgotten his humble background —

This last conclusion allows for exceptions: He is rich, but …

… even when he became rich and famous, he never forgot his humble background.

(iii) An implicit principle, the “anyone can get rich” principle, eliminates two objections:

Having a humble background:
Even though he became rich and famous, he never forgot his humble background:

Lack of formal education:
A lack of formal education is not an obstacle to getting rich.

(iv) One main opposition: The rich vs. the poor, allows the application of the topos of the opposites:

There’s one law for the rich and another for the poor.

---

[1] Entry Mousseron in J. and J. Manuel Montegut (1975). Atlas des Champignons [Atlas of Mushrooms] Paris: Globus, 1975.

---