WORDS AS ARGUMENTS

1. A Word as a Hologram of the Argument

Holography is a technique that provides a two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional phenomena. In a metaphorical sense, a word can function as a hologram of an entire argumentation (actually a set of co-oriented speeches) reflecting the totality of the argumentative discourse of which it is a part. The line of discourse is condensed into one of its points, which is the word. Such hologrammatic words are called oriented (in the argumentation within language theory) or biased (in standard fallacy theory).

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

This is true if an argumentation is seen as a self-sufficient piece of reasoning, contained in an autonomous discursive episode. But if argumentation is seen as an ongoing 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 was 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 the words orientation, oriented can have a neutral-positive orientation (“taking bearings”), while allowing, if necessary, a negative orientation (“biased”).

The global issue is that of the argument orientation and the persuasive definition. In the first case we are dealing with linguistic data, in the second with linguistic activity, in the first case the discourse is biased per se, in the second case it is biased by the speaker.

2. Names as Issues

Consider the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. If one participant speaks of babies and the other of fetuses, we already know that the former is most likely pro-life and the latter pro-choice. The antagonistic words are “loaded” with the antagonistic conclusions to which they are directed. Baby refers to a human person, and implies that we must feel for this being all the value-laden emotions we feel for small children, and treat it accordingly. Fetus puts these attitudes in parentheses, and technically refers to the « product of the vertebrate conception during prenatal development, after the embryonic stage, when it begins to form and exhibit the distinctive characteristics of the species. (TLFi, Fetus). A word may be value-laden in one discourse and not in another. For example, in the developmental discourse of medicine, fetus contrasts with embryo and is an uncontroversial technical term, as is baby when referring to an infant.
The idea of human selection is generally repugnant. The search for a positive term for babies who have been genetically selected in order to treat their sick brother or sister, continues. Candidate terms include, designer baby, medicine baby, savior baby, doctor baby…

A similar debate is also reflected in the naming of products used to treat crops, products suspected of being carcinogenic. The terms agro-pharmaceutical product or phyto-sanitary product sound very chemical, and the latter has even been appropriated by a French association “Phyto-Victims”. Pesticide also has a negative orientation, despite its etymological meaning of “pest killer” (as if the negation of a negation were interpreted as a hyper-negation). The terminological battle continues, and the industry has turned to plant protection product and crop protection product.

The orientation of ordinary words strongly distinguishes natural language from logical languages. Biased language can be seen as 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 on the purification principle, since it could significantly affect most of our 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 names cannot be agreed upon before the debate, but which are in fact the product of the debate.
In the abortion debate for example, the discussion of the correct term, fetus or baby, cannot be separated from the discussion of the merits and demerits of abortion itself.

In practice, the persuadee must agree not only to a position, but also to its expression, see persuasion. It is not possible to remedy biased language by conventionalism, which consists 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 inseparable from the discussion of its name. The fact of being at the center of a debate leads to the doubling of the object’s name. Its objective designation and its “real name” are 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 reveals, on the one hand, the desire to put ordinary language in brackets when serious questions are involved, insofar as it does not correspond to a purely referential and inferential ideal, and, on the other hand, the desire to consider that the debate between rational beings consists only in clarifying semantic misunderstandings, that are the consequence of the defects of natural language. The task of argumentation would be relatively easy if we could assume that some data are accepted as such by both parties; this is true only for peaceful neutral facts, outside the heart of the debate. In the other case, the division of discourses is openly revealed by the use of so-called biased, loaded or oriented labels. The labeling is already argumentative, see schematization. Agreement on the labeling 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.