1. A word as a hologram of the argument

Holography is a technique that provides a two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional phenomena. In metaphorical sense, a word can function as the hologram of a whole argumentation (actually a set of co-oriented speeches) and mirror the totality of the argumentative discourse it is part of. The line of discourse is condensed into one of its points, that being the word. Such hologrammatic words are termed oriented (in the Argumentation within Language theory) or biased (in standard Fallacy theory).

Argumentations containing oriented words are considered to be fallacious and sophistical insofar as they actually presuppose the conclusions they apparently construct. The conclusion is embedded in the wording of the argument, and the reasoning is trapped in a vicious circle. Metaphorically, one may say that the target (the conclusion) is tailored to the measure of the arrow (the argument); the arrow cannot miss the target, and is therefore irrelevant.

This is true if an argumentation is considered to be a self-sufficient piece of reasoning, contained in an autonomous discursive episode. If argumentation is seen as an on-going process, however, the orientation of words testifies to the fact that the argumentative discourse not only constructs its conclusion on the spot, but also recalls that this conclusion has been previously established. Oriented words refer to the whole script corresponding to the arguer’s discourse; they are the memory of argumentation, and the clearest example of objects of discourse. The word biased has a negative orientation (“prejudiced; to be avoided”) while orientation, oriented can have a neutral-positive orientation (“taking bearings”), while admitting, if need be, a negative orientation (“biased”).

The global issue is that of the argument orientation and the persuasive definition. The first case involves language data and the second speech activity, in the first case the discourse is biased per se, in the second case it is made biased by the participant.

2. Designations as issues

Let us consider the pro-life vs. free choice debate. If a participant speaks of babies and the other of fetuses, we already know that the former is most probably pro-life and the latter pro-free-choice. The antagonistic words are “loaded” with the antagonistic conclusion towards which they are oriented. Baby refers to a human person, and implies that we must feel for this being all the value-loaded emotions we feel for young children, and treat him or her accordingly. Fetus puts these attitudes between parentheses, and technically refers to a “product of the conception of vertebrates during prenatal development, after the embryonic stage, when it begins to form and to present the distinctive characteristics of the species.” (TLFi, Fetus). A word might be value-loaded in a discourse and not in another. In the developmental discourse of medicine, for example, fetus opposes to embryo and is a non-controversial technical designation, as is baby when referring to a pre-toddler child.
The idea of human selection is generally repulsive. The search for a positive designation for babies which have been genetically selected in order to treat his or her sick brother or sister, continues. Candidate terms include, designer baby, medicine baby, savior baby, doctor baby….

A similar debate is also reflected in the designation for products used as crop treatments, and suspected to be carcinogenic. The terms agro-pharmaceutical product or phyto-sanitary product sound highly chemical, and the latter has even been appropriated by a French association “Phyto-Victims”. Pesticide has also a negative orientation, despite its etymological meaning, “pests killer” (as if the negation of a negation was interpreted as an hyper-negation). The terminological fight continues, and the industry has turned to plant protection product and crop protection product.

The orientation of ordinary words strongly differentiates natural language and logical languages. Biased language can be considered an obstacle to the objective treatment of the issue, and has thus been banned from argumentative discourse as an instrument of monological rationality. The problem is how to agree upon the purification principle, as it could significantly affect most of out common vocabulary.

Categorization operations are not too problematic for plants, animals and other natural species. Things are more complicated when it comes to beings and situations whose designations cannot be agreed upon before the debate, but is actually the very issue at stake.

In the debate about abortion for example, the discussion of the correct designation, fetus or baby, cannot be dissociated from the discussion on the merits and disadvantages of abortion itself.

In practice, the persuadee must assent not only to a position, but also to the corresponding expression, S. Persuasion. It is not possible to remediate biased language by a conventionalism, consisting in agreeing on the meaning of the words before the debate in which they are to be used, refraining from using loaded terms, or creating neutral terms. The discussion of the nature of the object is not separable from the discussion of its name. The fact of being at the heart of a debate results in duplication of the designation of the object. Its objective designation and “real name” will eventually be attributed to it at the end of the debate; objectivity is not a condition but a product of the debate.

The search for “neutral” terms shows, on the one hand, the desire to put ordinary language between parentheses when it comes to serious issues, insofar as it does not correspond to a pure referential and inferential ideals, and, on the other hand, the wish to consider that the debate between rational beings consists only in clarifying semantic misunderstandings, which are the consequence of the defects of natural language. The task of argumentation would be relatively simple if we could assume that some data are accepted as such by both parties; this is true only for peaceful neutral facts, external to the heart of the debate. In the other case, the division of discourses is openly exposed by the use of so-called biased, loaded or oriented designations. The designation is already argumentative, S. Schematization. Agreeing on the designation of facts is a matter of identity, focus, emotional empathy. As there is a conversion to new beliefs, there is a conversion to new facts and words.