Semantic argument

Key takeaways

Semantic argument belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Semantic argument to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Semantic argument from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Semantic argument is a type of argument in which one fixes the meaning of a term in order to support their argument. Semantic arguments are commonly used in public, political, academic, legal or religious discourse. Most commonly such semantic modification are being introduced through persuasive definitions, but there are also other ways of modifying meaning (like attribution or classification). There are many subtypes of semantic arguments such as: no true Scotsman arguments, arguments from verbal classification, arguments from definition or arguments to definition.

Structure Since there are various types of semantic arguments, there are also various argumentation schemes to this argument. The term of semantic argument was introduced by Teresa Hołówka in 1990, and later developed by Jakub Prus and other logicians. There are three most basic types of semantic arguments, which have different argumentation schemes, but all modify meaning to support persuasion: argument from definition, argument to definition (as distinguished by Peter of Spain: definitio-definitum and definitum-definitio), and classification argument.

Argument to definition Arguments to definition are aimed to include certain objects into the extension of given definition – sometimes this might be the end of reasoning ("this is racism"). Obviously, the semantic modification is being introduced through persuasive definition in definition premise.

Individual Premise: A possesses some property F. Definition Premise: For all x, if possesses some property F, then x fits definition D. Conclusion: A fits definition D.

Argument from definition Sometimes the argument can start from definition and to include certain property in it, in order to attribute this property to certain object ("All forms of racism should be prosecuted, therefore this given action also should be prosecuted"). Arguments to definition and from definition can be used together (Douglas Walton called the latter Arguments from Definition to Verbal Classification").

Definition Premise: A fits definition D. Classificatory Premise: For all x, if x fits definition D, then x is classified as having the property G. Conclusion: A has the property G.

Argument from verbal classification Persuasive definitions are not the only way of modifying meaning – one may also modify meaning simply by linking two properties together (Douglas Walton calls it a "Verbal Classification"), and then attribute a new property to given object ("if something is prosecuted, then it is morally wrong, therefore racism is morally wrong").

Individual Premise: A possesses some property F. Classificatory Premise: For all x, if x possesses property F, then x can be classified as possessing property G. Conclusion: A possesses property G. These are three most common types of semantic arguments. Full typology of semantic arguments includes classification of persuasive definitions (the notion coined by Charles Stevenson) developed by Tadeusz Pawlowski. It also includes classification arguments (also called "attributive arguments").

In order to assess semantic argument one need to assess semantic modification made in it first. The criteria for assessing such modifications are: transparency of modification, coherence with usage, consequences of modification, authority of modifying party, alternative meanings. Also the individual premise (which attributes the key property to the given object) needs to be evaluated, since sometimes it is the most vulnerable piece of argument.

Examples of semantic arguments Bribery is about giving somebody something of significant value to make him do something we want. My client just wanted to avoid being called from one police office to another, so he gave the policeman five euros. Let’s be serious—you cannot classify this as ‘bribery’, can you? Democracy is the policy of government that tries to bring morality and politics closer to one another until they coincide. Democracy is the form of government which gives, or tries to give, the people the illusion of their own sovereignty. [F. Macagno & D. Walton's example] Terrorists are bandits who hide behind political, religious or nationalist slogans to try to resolve questions that have nothing to do with what they publicly state [F. Macagno's & D. Walton's example]. A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called ‘vehicles’ for the purpose of the rule or not? [H.L.A.Hart's example].

See also Essentially contested concept Leviathan (Hobbes book) Spinoza's Ethics

References Hołówka, Teresa. 2002. Kultura logiczna w ćwiczeniach. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2008. Persuasive definitions: values, meanings and implicit disagreements. Informal Logic 28 (3): 203–228. Pawlowski, Tadeusz. 1980. Concept formation in the humanities and the social sciences. Dordecht: Reidel. Pruś, Jakub, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2024. "When Meaning Becomes Controversial: Critical Questions for Assessing Semantic Arguments" Informal Logic 44 (2): 208-48. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v44i2.8435 Prus, Jakub. 2023. Argumenty Semantyczne – pojęcie, podział i kryteria oceny. Cracow: Ignatianum University Press. Prus, Jakub. 2021. "How Can Modifications of Meaning Influence Argumentation? The Concept and Typology of Semantic Arguments." Argumentation 35: 483–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09542-y Pruś, Jakub. 2020. Znaczenie znaczenia w argumentacji. Zarys argumentów semantycznych In: "Słowo. Struktura – znaczenie – kontekst," Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 53–67. Pruś, Jakub. 2019. "Argumentacja semantyczna – podstawowe pojęcia i problemy definicyjne." Res Rhetorica 6(4). https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2019.4.3. Stevenson, Charles L. 1938. "Persuasive definitions." Mind 47: 331–350. Walton, Douglas. 2001. Persuasive definitions and public policy arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 37: 117–132. Walton, Douglas. 2005. Deceptive arguments containing persuasive language and persuasive definitions. Argumentation 19: 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-2312-y. Walton, Douglas. 2008. The case of redefining “planet” to exclude Pluto. Informal Logic 28 (2): 129–154. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Semantic argument

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Semantic argument claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Semantic argument before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Semantic argument ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Semantic argument

In research: Semantic argument appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Semantic argument in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Semantic argument is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Arguments, Informal legal terminology, Logic, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Semantic argument outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

How to study Semantic argument in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Semantic argument means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Semantic argument out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Semantic argument in simple terms?

Semantic argument is a type of argument in which one fixes the meaning of a term in order to support their argument. Semantic arguments are commonly used in public, political, academic, legal or religious discourse.

Why does Semantic argument matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Semantic argument?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Semantic argument.