{"id":6724,"date":"2021-11-19T14:36:37","date_gmt":"2021-11-19T13:36:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=6724"},"modified":"2025-04-19T17:19:13","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T15:19:13","slug":"unmeaning-fallacies-of-confusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/unmeaning-fallacies-of-confusion\/","title":{"rendered":"Unmeaning: Fallacies of confusion"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Meaning and Unmeaning<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Logical, formal and scientific languages differ from natural language by their univocity<\/strong> and stability:<\/strong> each meaningful chain, corresponds one and only one complete meaning.
\nIn such languages, there is no need for interpretation.
\nMeaning is context-free (not influenced by the context). It remains stable it throughout any speech developped in the domain of reference.
\nSuch chains are neither void of meaning (nonsense), nor obscure, vague, or ambiguous (multiplicity of meanings)<\/p>\n

In ordinary language, the interpretability of signifying chains is not guaranteed. A signifying chain of existing words\u00a0 can be syntactically well formed and nonetheless:<\/p>\n

– Meaningless, or uninterpretable (nonsense).<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the most extreme case, it is impossible to attribute any plausible meaning to the linguistic segment, that is, it cannot receive any satisfactory paraphrase acceptable or relevant in this context. It is inoperable by the receiver, interpretation is powerless.
\nThe chain can nevertheless be explained away as a a poem, as a coded language, as a metaphor, as the product of search for meaninglessness<\/p>\n

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (Chomsky)<\/p>\n

– Obscure, enigmatic, weakly meaningful.<\/strong>
\nIt is difficult to formulate any interpretation; or it admits of several equally weakly motivated and inconclusive interpretations. S. Interpretation, Hermeneutics, Exegesis<\/u>.<\/p>\n

– Ambiguous<\/strong>.
\nThe discourse admits of two or more clearly distinct and incompatible interpretations, S. Ambiguity<\/u><\/a>.
\nThe coexistence in the same discourse of incompatible orientations <\/u><\/a>is a major cause of pragmatic obscurity.<\/p>\n

– Vague.
\n<\/strong>Vagueness appears about borderline inter-categorical phenomena. <\/u>Vagueness can also be related to over-generalization making the discourse irrelevant for the specific issue under discussion, S. Vague<\/u><\/p>\n

– Unstable.<\/strong>
\nThe meaning of the same string can vary or become obscured, in the same discourse, S. Syllogism<\/u><\/a>; <\/u>Ambiguity<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These are the some of the perils<\/em> of natural expression, when compared with the rigorous requirements of scientific discourse. The plasticity of meaning in ordinary discourse certainly makes natural language a tricky environment for the development of scientific reasoning.
\nOn the other hand, this same plasticity makes that natural language can generate other forms of language, S. Demonstration and argumentation<\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n

Logical languages develop according to its own laws, scientific\u00a0 language according to\u00a0 the law of \u201cthings themselves\u00a0\u00bb.
\nNatural discourse develop under the constraints of its own laws, the pressure of reality, and<\/em> according to the specific needs,\u00a0 interests, values that makes up the speaker’s subjectivity.
\nThe above mentioned \u201cperils of expression\u201d are first of all \u00a0resources<\/em> for the covert intentions and indirect motives, \u00a0ruse and crafts of the speaker.<\/p>\n

2. Argumentative exploitation of semantic uncertainty: Fallacies of confusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

The feeling of indeterminacy is materialized by a judgment carried by the audience, or by the speaker herself, considered the first member of her audience. \u00a0Like the judgment of clarity, it can vary with the hearer.<\/p>\n

In the case of argumentative speeches, the uncertainty judgment made on a speech is an evaluative judgment that serves to refute<\/u> it as fallacious, S. Rules<\/u>.<\/p>\n

Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning or without effect in regard to the subject in debate should be strictly avoided.<\/span>
\nLevi Hedge 1838, \u00ab\u00a0Rules for Honorable Controversy\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Commandment 10, Language use rule<\/em>: Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately misinterpret the other party\u2019s formulations.<\/span>
\nvan Eemeren, Grootendorst \u201cTen Commandments for Reasonable Discussants\u201d (2004, p. 190).<\/span><\/p>\n

The discourse is criticized as<\/p>\n

\u201cunmeaning<\/em>\u201d, that is, \u201c lacking intelligence, vapid \u201d and \u201c having no meaning, senseless\u201d (MW).
\n\u201cinsufficiently clear<\/em>\u201d
\n\u201cconfusingly ambiguous<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The interpretive condition, \u201cthey may not deliberately misinterpret the other party\u2019s formulations<\/em>\u201d guarantee the fairness of the criticism<\/p>\n

These fallacies belongs to the \u201cfallacy of expression\u201d family. They target the semantic roots of the discourse, S. Discourse destructi<\/u>on<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Under this verdict, the\u00a0 discourse is dismissed<\/u> as semantically void, logically unassessable, so irrelevant for the discussion and interactionally rejected. Like all evaluative judgments, these judgments, valid or not, can be disputed and need justification<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The meaning of a discourse is the product of an activity of expression (rhetoric) and an activity of interpretation<\/u> (hermeneutics). The feeling of uncertainty of the meaning, can thus have its source in the uncertainty\/ruse of the expression<\/em> (proponent side) or of the interpretation<\/em> (opponent side).<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. Meaning and Unmeaning Logical, formal and scientific languages differ from natural language by their univocity and stability: each meaningful chain, corresponds one and only one complete meaning. In such languages, there is no need for interpretation. Meaning is context-free (not influenced by the context). It remains stable it throughout any speech developped in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6724"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6724\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14002,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6724\/revisions\/14002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}