Definition and Examples of the Fallacy of Equivocation

Definition and Examples of the Fallacy of Equivocation Equivocation is a fallacy by which a specific  word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. Its also known as semantic equivocation. Compare this with the related term of  amphiboly, where the ambiguity is in the grammatical construction  of the sentence rather than just a single word or phrase. Compare also with the term polysemy, which refers to when a single word has more than one meaning, and  lexical ambiguity when a word is ambiguous because it has more than one meaning. Equivocation is a common fallacy because it often is quite hard to notice that a shift in meaning has taken place, note authors Howard Kahane and Nancy Cavender in their book Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. The sugar industry, for instance, once advertised its product with the claim that Sugar is an essential component of the body...a key material in all sorts of metabolic processes, neglecting the fact that it is glucose (blood sugar) not ordinary table sugar (sucrose) that is the vital nourishment (Wadsworth, 1998). In a broader sense,  equivocation  refers to the  use of vague or unclear  language, especially when the intention is to mislead or deceive an  audience. Combatting the Fallacy You need to discover context behind the slippery terms and an arguments assertions when working to combat an equivocation fallacy. The  fallacy of equivocation  occurs particularly in  arguments  involving words that have a multiplicity of meanings, such as  capitalism, government, regulation, inflation, depression, expansion,  and  progress, note authors  Robert Huber and Alfred Snider in their book Influencing Through Argument. To expose the fallacy of equivocation you give accurate and specific  definitions  of  terms,  and  show  carefully that in one place the definition of the terms was different from the definition in another (IDEA, 2005). Take a look at the following ridiculous  syllogism  example given in the book  Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms by  Douglas N. Walton: An elephant is an animal.A gray elephant is a gray animal.Therefore, a small elephant is a small animal.Here we have a relative term, small, that shifts meaning according to the context. A small house may not be taken, in some contexts, as anywhere near the size of a small insect. Small is a highly relative term, unlike grey, that shifts according to subject. A small elephant is still a relatively large animal. (John Benjamins, 1987) Investigating equivocation fallacies in a debate opponents arguments will be more difficult than one that is readily apparent to be not factual like the above, but fallacies like this are worthwhile to combat, as getting to see behind the curtain and find truth  is important, for example, when searching for peoples (or politicians) motives behind what they endorse.   Another area to dig into is vagueness of a claim or when a term is left undefined. For example, when President Bill Clinton claimed not to have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, his statement may have meant one particular act but was presented in such a way that it appeared he hoped people would infer his denial of all types of sexual contact. Next, look also for words taken out of context from an original text or speech and twisted around to mean something other than what the person meant.