A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 10, Fallacies of Amphiboly and Accent)

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing from premisses whose formulations are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. The word "amphiboly" is derived from the Greek, its meaning in essence being "two in a lump," or the "doubleness" of a lump. A statement is amphibolous when its meaning, is indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. An amphibolous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in another. When it is stated as premiss with the interpretation that makes it true, and a conclusion is drawn from it on the interpretation that makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly has been committed.

Amphibolous utterances were the stock-in-trade of the ancient oracles. Croesus, the king of Lydia, is said to have consulted the Oracle of Delphi before beginning his war with the kingdom of Persia. "If Croesus went to war with Cyrus," came the oracular reply, "he would destroy a mighty kingdom." Delighted with this prediction, which he took to mean that he would destroy the mighty kingdom of Persia, he attacked and was crushed by Cyrus, king of the Persians. His life having been spared, he complained bitterly to the Oracle, whose priests pointed out in reply that the Oracle had been entirely right: In going to war, Croesus, had destroyed a mighty kingdom — his own! Amphibolous statements make dangerous premisses. They are, however, seldom encountered in serious discussion.

What grammarians call "dangling" participles and phrases often present amphiboly of an entertaining sort, as in "The farmer blew out his brains after taking affectionate farewell of his family with a shotgun." And tidbits in The New Yorker make acid fun of writers and editors who overlook careless amphiboly:

An argument may prove deceptive, and invalid, when the shift of meaning within it arises from changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. When a premiss relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently, the fallacy of accent is committed.

Consider, as illustration, the different meanings that can be given to the statement

At least five distinct meanings — or more? — can be given to those eight words, depending on which one of them is emphasized. When read without any undue stresses the injunction is perfectly sound. If the conclusion is drawn from it, however, that we should feel free to speak ill of someone who is not our friend, this conclusion follows only if the premiss has the meaning it acquires when its last word is accented. But when the last word of the sentence is accented, it is no longer acceptable as a moral rule; it then has a different meaning, and it is, in fact, a different premiss. The argument is a case of the fallacy of accent. So, too, would be the argument that drew from the same premiss the conclusion that we are free to work ill on our friends if only we do not speak it — and similarly with the other fallacious inferences that suggest themselves.

A phrase or passage can often be understood correctly only in its context, which makes clear the sense in which it is intended. The fallacy of accent may be construed broadly to include the distortion produced by pulling a quoted passage out of its context, putting it in another context, and there drawing a conclusion that could never have been drawn in the original context. This business of quoting out of context is sometimes done with deliberate craftiness. In the presidential election campaign of 1996 the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Al Gore, was quoted by a Republican press aide as having said that "there is no proven link between smoking and lung cancer." Those were indeed Mr. Gore's exact words, uttered during a television interview in 1992. But they were only part of a sentence. In that interview Mr. Gore's full statement was that some tobacco company scientists "will claim with a straight face that there is no proven link between smoking and lung cancer. . . . But the weight of the evidence accepted by the overwhelming preponderance of scientists is, yes, smoking does cause lung cancer."

The omission of the words "will claim with a straight face" and of Gore's express conviction that cancer is caused by smoking, unfairly reversed the sense of the passage from which the quotation was pulled. The argument suggested by the abbreviated quotation, having the apparent conclusion that Mr. Gore seriously doubts the causal link between smoking and cancer, is an egregious example of the fallacy of accent.

Similarly the deliberate omission of some qualification made by an author that plays a key role in giving the meaning intended for some written passage may be a damaging use of accent. In a critical essay about conservative thinkers, Sidney Blumenthal wrote (in 1985) about one such thinker, Gregory A. Fossedal, that "On the right, Fossedal is widely regarded as his generation's most promising journalist." A 1989 advertisement for a later book by Mr. Fossedal contained several "blurbs," including this one attributed to Mr. Blumenthal: "Many consider Fossedal the most promising journalist of his generation." The omission of the critic's phrase "on the right" very greatly distorts the sense of the original passage, leading the reader to draw a mistaken conclusion about the critic's judgment of the author. Mr. Blumenthal was understandably infuriated.

Similarly, a theater critic who says of a new play that it is far from the funniest appearing on Broadway this year may be quoted in an ad for the play: "Funniest appearing on Broadway this year!" To avoid such distortions, and the fallacies of accent that may be built upon them, the responsible writer must be scrupulously accurate in quotation, always indicating whether italics were in the original, indicating (with dots) whether passages have been omitted, and so on.

Physical manipulation of print or pictures is commonly used to mislead deliberately through accent. Sensational words in large letters appear in the headlines of newspaper reports, deliberately suggesting mistaken conclusions to those who glance hastily at the account. Later in the report the headline is likely to be qualified by other words in much smaller letters. To avoid being tricked, by news reports or in contracts, one is well advised to give careful attention to "the small print." In political propaganda the misleading choice of a sensational heading or the use of a clipped photograph, in what purports to be a factual report, will use accent shrewdly so as to encourage the drawing of conclusions known by the propagandist to be false. An account that may not be an outright lie may yet distort by accent in ways that are deliberately manipulative or dishonest.

In advertising, such practices are hardly rare. A remarkably low price often appears in very large letters, followed by "and up" in tiny print. Wonderful bargains in airplane fares are followed by an asterisk, with a distant footnote explaining that the price is available only three months in advance for flights on Thursdays following a full moon, or that there may be other "applicable restrictions." Costly items with well-known brand names are advertised at very low prices, with a small note elsewhere in the ad that "prices listed are for limited quantities in stock." Readers are drawn into the store but are likely to be unable to make the purchase at the advertised price. Accented passages, by themselves, are not strictly fallacies; they become embedded in fallacies when one interpretation of a phrase, flowing from its accent, is relied upon to suggest a conclusion (e.g., that the plane ticket or brand item can be advantageously purchased at the listed price) that is very doubtful when account is taken of the misleading accent.

Even the literal truth can be made use of, through manipulation of its placement, to deceive with accent. Disgusted with his first mate who was repeatedly inebriated on duty, the captain of a ship noted in the ship's logbook, almost every day, "The mate was drunk today." The angry mate took his revenge. Keeping the log himself on a day when the captain was ill, the mate recorded, "The captain was sober today."

Part 10. I probably wouldn't have chosen Al Gore and Sid Blumenthal, but there you go ;)

The final part, part 11, will close the discussion of fallacies of ambiguity with the fallacies of composition and division.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
22	Washington	185.00	11	16.82	461	0.40	290.00	18

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

The fallacy of accent may be construed broadly to include the distortion produced by pulling a quoted passage out of its context, putting it in another context, and there drawing a conclusion that could never have been drawn in the original context. This business of quoting out of context is sometimes done with deliberate craftiness.

Who would ever do a dishonorable thing like that?

Similarly the deliberate omission of some qualification made by an author that plays a key role in giving the meaning intended for some written passage may be a damaging use of accent.

Or that? Hint: The Quote Mine Project.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.