Informal Logic X.3, Fall 1988

Hedging as a Fallacy of Language*

GARY JASON Orange Coast College

While there has been considerable pro­ fallacy of hedging: a claim which is gress in the study of fallacies over the twen­ reasonably qualified at the beginning of the ty years since the publication of Hamblin's dialogue gets systematically weakened as excellent monograph on the subject, the the dialogue proceeds to avoid the thrust of treatment of the fallacies of language still counterevidence. In our paradigm, A simply remains much as it has always been. The will not come to grips with the substantial usual suspects-equivocation, amphiboly, evidence B has offered that Henry is not accent, composition, and division-are selfish. A's final weak claim is totally unin­ rounded up, and covered in an abbreviated formative: anybody "can be" selfish, but fashion. In this paper I would like to discuss is Henry selfish in fact? Contrast this with another fallacy of language, hedging, with honest and non-fallacious backing down an eye to broadening our view of fallacies (i.e., retraction of an initial claim): A ought of language. Specifically, I want to ac­ simply to have said, "I can't at the moment complish three things. First, I want to con­ recall the incidents which lead me to think vince the reader that hedging is indeed com­ that Henry is selfish. Let me think about mon (and so should be added to the admit­ it. Maybe I'm wrong." tedly burgeoning list of standard fallacies). Consider next this sample dialogue: Second, I want to give an adequate A: I believe that a true Christian is going theoretical (i.e., linguistic) treatment of the to be less likely to commit crimes than fallacy. Third, I want to show how the stan­ a Moslem in the same circumstances. dard treatment of fallacies of language can B: That seems ridiculous to me. Look at the be modified to include not only hedging, high crime rate in the U.S.A., which is but other fallacies as well. a predominantly Christian country, and The fallacy of which I speak is ex­ compare it to any Moslem country. emplified by the following paradigm A: Ah, but the U.S.A. is different from dialogue: Moslem countries in that those countries have harsh laws. A: Henry is a totally selfish man. B: I don't find him so-he once helped me B: Well, okay then, just look at the U.S.A. find a job. Moslems in the U.S.A. have a lower crime rate than the general Christian A: Well, about things that affect his wallet, population. he is totally selfish. A: Yes, but the so-called Christian popula­ B: Yet he has on many occasions loaned tion includes many people who are not money to his friends. true Christians. A: Well, about matters that affect his wallet In this paradigm, A puts forward a pro­ he can be very selfish. vocative claim, but hedges it round with the In this simple dialogue, A puts forward weasel words "true", and "so-called," a claim, and then systematically evades B's which allow A to make it completely counterevidence by weakening the initial unclear to whom the term' 'Christian" ap­ claim. This is the first paradigm for the plies. (The phrase "weasel word" is a col- 170 Gary Jason loquial expression denoting qualifying are backing, which advocates not only phrases and detensifiers. Those are defin­ assassinations of Sandinistas but the hir­ ed below.) Thus B' s legitimate attempts to ing of criminals to assassinate the guer­ test A's claim with relevant evidence are rillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not in effect our own frustrated. One wants to shout at A, "Look, state-supported terrorism? do you genuinely believe that Christians are less criminally inclined than Moslems? Reagan: No, but I'm glad you asked that question because I know it's on Then allow us to bring some facts to bear many people's minds. I have on the issue. Otherwise, shut up and don't ordered an investigation; I know insult the Moslems." Again, contrast A's that the C.I.A. is already going hedging with honest and non-fallacious forward with one. We have a backing down (i.e., retraction). A could gentleman down in Nicaragua who simply have said "Well, maybe I'm wrong. is on military tactics, the Contras. Let me check into some statistics and we'll And he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of talk later." Temporarily retracting one's the C.I.A. in Nicaragua to be claim until he or she has better evidence for printed, and a number of pages it is a logically acceptable way to save face; were excised by that agency head hedging is not. there, the man in charge, and he Looking at the paradigms given above, sent it on up here to the C.I.A., then, we can define roughly the fallacy of where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some hedging as the systematic weakening of a way or other, there were 12 of the claim, or the putting forward of an original copies that got out down unreasonably restricted initial claim, so as there and were not submitted for to avoid refutation. We will tighten this this printing process by the C.I.A. definition later. Now those are the details as we It might fairly be asked whether the have them, and as soon as we have fallacy of hedging, defined as above, is so an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did frequently committed in ordinary argumen­ not get excised or changed, we cer­ tation as to merit placing it on the list of tainly are going to do something "standard fallacies." The lexicon of about that. We'll take the proper fallacies is already large, and so the burden action at the proper time ... of proof is on the proposer of an addition Q: Well, Mr. President, you are implying to that lexicon to give some reason for fur­ then that the C.I.A. in Nicaragua is ther expansion. directing the Contras there. I'd also like In defense of adding hedging to the to ask whether having the C.I.A. in­ rogue's gallery of fallacies, I would point vestigate its own manual in such a sen­ sitive area is not sort of like sending out how common it is for politicians to the fox into the chicken coop a second hedge in debates and news conferences to time. avoid taking positions which will cost them Reagan: I'm afraid I misspoke when I said votes. Consider these examples from the se­ there is a C.I.A. head in cond Reagan/Mondale presidential debate: Nicaragua. There's not someone Example I: there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, C.I.A. Q: Mr. President, in the last few months it men stationed in other countries in has seemed more and more that your the world, and certainly in Central policies in Central America were begin­ America, and so it was a man ning to work. Yet just at this moment we down there in that area that this are confronted with the extraordinary was delivered to. And he recogniz­ story of the C. I. A. guerrilla manual for ed that what was in that manual the anti-Sandinista Contras, whom we was a direct contravention of my Hedging 171

own executive order in December guarantees are often so heavily qualified as of 1981, that we would have to be virtually useless. For example, one nothing to do with regard to manufacturer of color photographic film political assassinations. I guaranteed for quality puts the guarantee as In the first question, Reagan was asked follows: about a provocative pamphlet allegedly pro­ This product, if defective in manufacture, duced by the C.I.A. His answer inadver­ labeling, packaging or shipping, or if tantly revealed that the C.I.A. had a man damaged by us, will be replaced with like in charge of the military tactics of the Con­ fresh film or purchase price refunded, at our tras. When pressed, he hedged by saying option. This is your exclusive remedy and there are C.I.A. men all over, and "it was the limit of all contract or tort liability. Since color dyes may change in time, no warran­ a man down there in that area it was ty against any color change is expressed or delivered to." implied. This film will not be replaced or Example 2: purchase price refunded for any change in color. Q: You've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I'd like to A guarantee for color film which is hedg­ know what that means. Would you stop ed to be optional at the will of the manufac­ Soviet ships as President Kennedy did in turer and to not apply to changes in color 1962 and wouldn't that be more is a pretty worthless guarantee. Contrast this dangerous than President Reagan's with a completely unhedged guarantee by covert war? Gillette Corporation for its razors: "Com­ Mondale: What I'm referring to there is the plete shaving satisfaction guaranteed or mutual self-defense provisions Gillette will replace free of charge or re­ that exist in the inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that fund full purchase price." No qualifications permits the nations, our friends in are put forth, and the option for return lies that region, to combine to take solely with the customer. some steps, diplomatic and other­ If hedging is reasonably common, then wise, to prevent Nicaragua when why is it so commonly overlooked in ac­ she acts irresponsibly in asserting counts of fallacies of language? I suspect power in other parts outside of her it is because fallacies of language are often border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it. equated with, or at least limited to, fallacies of ambiguity. 2 To see why such an equa­ In the question, Mondale is pressed on tion is wrong, reconsider fallacies of am­ his position that he would possibly quaran­ biguity for a moment. Is ambiguity per se tine Nicaragua. In reply he hedges by talk­ bad? Surely not. Very likely most English ing about "our friends" combining with us words are ambiguous, and unavoidably so. to "take some steps," "diplomatic or other­ As one semanticist has noted: wise," to prevent Nicaragua from acting "irresponsibly," "in asserting power." A moment's reflection will show that, far from being a defect of language, polysemy Some sort of action by the U.S. is being [ambiguity I is an essential condition of its indicated, but the statement is so heavily efficiency. If it werc not possible to attach qualified that the audience cannot tell what several senses to one word, this would mean that action would be (thus how dangerous a crushing burden on our memory: we it would be), and what acts by Nicaragua would have to possess separate terms for would bring it on. every conceivable subject we might wish to Another area in which hedging is com­ talk about. Polysemy is an invaluable fac­ tor of cconomy and flexibility in language: mon is in the statement of conditions in con­ what is astonishing is not that the machine tracts, especially statements of guarantees occasionally breaks down. but that it breaks which accompany various products. Such down so rarely.' 172 Gary Jason

Yet ambiguity is not normally a pro­ tion is the central purpose of the discourse. blem, because context usually makes the in­ What is fallacious is to use laden language tended meaning clear. A word can be am­ to presuppose that which is in dispute, or biguous without being used ambiguously in to persuade by emotion rather than reason. a given conversational context, as a number Thus ladenness can be used to commit of logic texts have noted. 4 What gives rise fallacies, but those fallacies usually are not to a fallacy of ambiguity, i.e., a fallacious presented as fallacies of language. Instead, use of ambiguity, is the use of an ambiguous ladenness which is used to presuppose that phrase one way in one premise of an argu­ which is under dispute is usually termed ment and a different way in another premise "question-begging epithets" and lumped in (or the conclusion). as a form of petitio. Ladenness which is us­ The vision that emerges here is that of ed to bias the description of evidence is a pervasive feature of language which is not characterized, if at all, as a kind of special normally bad, but which can be used to pleading. 6 I am suggesting that fallacies of commit fallacies. Viewing fallacies in this ladenness can be viewed as fallacies of way naturally leads us to ask what vagueness and ladenness as well as the tradi­ vagueness. Many words are vague, but con­ tional fallacies of ambiguity, the way is clear text usually clarifies the meaning precisely to include hedging. The feature of language enough for conversation to proceed. that is misused in hedging is understate­ Vagueness is often useful, as when in law ment. Let us turn our attention to that it allows room for the application of a term feature, so as to achieve a better theoretical to new cases undreamt of when the original understanding of hedging. law was passed. But vagueness can be us­ To understate a claim is to use words ed to commit slippery slope fallacy, as when which diminish the force or content of the a person exploits the vagueness of a term claim. Understatement can be achieved in to change the issue by degrees. Also, again a number of different ways. 7 To begin with, as noted by several authors, vagueness can the predicate of the claim can be diminish­ be used to equivocate, as when a person in­ ed by any of a large group of adverbs of terprets a vague term loosely in one premise degree linguists call "detensifiers." A par­ and strictly in another. 5 tial list of common English detensifiers is Another feature of language liable to given below. misuse is ladenness, by which I mean sort of rather relatively theoretical or emotional connotation. Terms kind of more or less quite can be theory-laden without being emotion­ to some extent moderately a bit laden (" electron, " "ionic bond"), or barely technically basically emotion-laden without being theory-laden slightly somewhat in most respects ("dirty rat," "punk"), or both theory- and a fair amount a little in many respects emotion-laden ("IQ," "nation"). Again, mainly in part in some respects scarcely almost partially very likely most words are laden to some practically virtually mildly degree. Ladenness is not bad per se-it is how the ladenness is used that makes all the For example, the claim "dogs are friend­ difference. It is not fallacious to use a ly" can be understated by detensification: theory-laden term in a context in which the "dogs are friendly," "dogs are somewhat theory at hand is not under question. It is friendly" and so on. not fallacious to use an emotion-laden term Detensification is only one method of in a context in which the expression of emo- understatement. Qualification is another. A Hedging 173

qualifier is a phrase which limits the ap­ 2a) It is obviously a plane. plication of a predicate. Consider the 2b) It is presumably a plane. following sequence of claims. 2c) It is conceivably a plane. a) I will tell the truth. As a special case of the above, unmodaliz­ b) I will tell you the truth. ed statements can be understated by adding c) I will tell you the truth about this matter. modalities-often parenthetically-as in the d) I will tell you the truth about this matter examples below. today. 1a) The President is honest. Notice that the claims get steadily weaker, Ib) The President is, I believe, honest. because the area of application grows smaller (from telling everyone the truth 2a) Pigs cannot dance. 2b) Pigs, to the best of my admittedly about everything all the time, to telling one limited knowledge, cannot dance. person the truth about one thing one time). A third sort of understatement involves The point here is that when a speaker makes substituting contradictories for contraries. an assertion without a modality, the listeners For instance, one can understate the claim assume that the speaker has no particular "Kelly is bad" by saying "Kelly is not doubts about his statement. To paren­ good." The contradictory of "good" ("not thetically add a modality is a way to signal good") has been substituted for the contrary doubt, hence to understate. ("bad"). Calling a person "not good" These four devices for understatement weakens the claim, since it leaves open the (i. e., the use of detensi fiers, the use of possibility that the person is neither good qualifiers, the substitution of contradictories nor bad. for contraries, and the substitution of a So far we have been dealing with un­ weaker for a stronger modality) are of modalized assertions, that is, statements not course not mutually exclusive. They can be containing modalities. But modalities are used together, as in the cases below. commonly used in statements. Words such I a) The President is honest. as "surely," "obviously," "evidently," I b) The President is probably honest about "certainly," "clearly," "must," "has to" this matter. and so on indicate that the speaker has com­ 2a) Hitler was evil. plete confidence in the claim. Words such 2b) Hitler was, in my opinion, not good. as "think," "suppose," "believe," "pro­ 3a) Fred is dead. bably," "presumably," "supposedly," 3b) Fred, I rather suspect. is sort of dead. "should" and so on indicate confidence but some doubt. Words such as "guess," (In Ib, a detensifier and a qualifier are us­ "seem," "can," "may/maybe/might," ed. In 2b, a parenthetical modality and con­ "possibly," "perhaps," "conceivably" tradictory are inserted. In 3b, a parenthetical and so on indicate less confidence and more and a detensifier are used.)8 doubt. Modalized assertions thus are open I said earlier that understatement, like to a fourth sort of understatement, viz., the ambiguity, vagueness and ladenness, is a substitution of a weaker modality for a pervasive feature of language that has many stronger one. The sequences below illustrate logically unexceptionable uses. Quite often this sort of understatement. we understate to make ajoke, as for instance when the humorists Bob and Ray claim they la) The rabbit must have gone down this are heard "approximately Coast to Coast. " hole. I b) The rabbit should have gone down this The British are famous-not to say hole. notorious-for using understatement as a Ie) The rabbit may have gone down this humorous device. And quite often we use hole. understatement to be courteous. Thus for 174 Gary Jason

example "I am not quite convinced that you of straw man involves either eliminating are entirely right in this matter" is a very detensifiers, or ignoring key qualifications, polite way of disagreeing with someone. or replacing contradictory predicates by Hedging, then, is not understatement, it is contraries, or by substituting a stronger a fallacious use of understatement. modality for a weaker one, in the oppo­ To be precise, hedging takes place in the nent's position. (This form of straw man following ways. Hedging of the first sort thus works in an opposite fashion from occurs when a proponent offers a thesis T, hedging, because in hedging an arguer at­ and them presented with evidence E which tempts to understate his own position in refutes T, substitutes T', where T' is a order to make it easier to defend). weakened version of T which is consistent Still other examples of features of with E. By "weakened version" we mean language which can be misused to commit that T' results from T by the addition of a fallacies can be given. We could include detensifier, or a qualifier, or substituting the hypostatization (or reification), which is us­ contradictory of a predicate for its contrary , ed to commit the fallacy of misplaced con­ or substituting a weaker modality for a creteness. JO And we might also consider the stronger one. (In contrast, non~fallacious feature of synonymy, which can be put to backing down involves simply retracting T, good use (such as the elimination of where the retraction is explicit. If the arguer repetitionll), but which can also be used to wishes to argue separately for T', that is commit the fallacy of begging the question. another matter). Hedging of the first sort, The foregoing considerations suggest like arguing to an irrelevant conclusion, that the way to bring hedging into the in­ tends to work when the illicitly substituted formal logic curriculum, and possibly some claim is deceptively similar to the original. other neglected fallacies as well, is to Hedging of the second sort occurs when a broaden of view of the fallacies of language, claim is put forward which has so many and what is involved in a fallacy of qualifiers or detensifiers that it does not tru­ language. 12 ly apply to the things that it appears to, or cannot be tested by counterevidence. Hedg­ ing of the second sort, like amphibolous Notes predictions by fortune-tellers, tends to work when the emptiness of the claim is not im­ *My thanks to Perry Weddle, J. Anthony mediately obvious to the audience. Blair, and Hans Hansen for their valuable Even adding understatement to ambigui­ criticisms of earlier drafts. Any errors that ty, vagueness and ladenness does not ex­ remain are my own. haust the list of the features of language that 1 The debate took place on October 21, are misused to commit fallacies. For exam­ 1984. All quotes from the debate are ple, overstatement (hyperbole) is another from The New York Times transcript of common feature of language, often used to the debate, published October 22, 1989. joke (as when Texans tell "tall tales" about their State). But we can overstate to com­ 2 See for examples: mit a fallacy, namely, a type of straw man. a) Copi, Irving, Introduction to Logic Generally speaking, the straw man fallacy (7th ed.) N.Y.: Macmillan Pub. Co. is committed when a person inaccurately (1986) pp. 113-122; represents another person's position. 9 Very b) Thomas, Stephen Naylor, Practical often, perhaps usually, this misrepresenta­ Reasoning in Natural Language (3rd tion takes the form of overstating the op­ ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice­ ponent's position in order to make it harder Hall (1986) pp. 365-367; to defend. That is, one common technique c) Engel, S. Morris, With Good Reason, Hedging 175

N.Y., St. Martin's Press (1986) pp. qualifier added: I am sure that Sam hates 89-116; Jazz of this sort. d) Toulmin, Stephen et al., An Introduc­ contradictory substituted: I am sure that Sam tion to Reasoning, N. Y .: Macmillan does not like Jazz. Pub. Co. (1979). weaker modality substituted: I believe that Sam hates Jazz. 3 Ullmann, Stephen, Semantics, N. Y . : Barnes and Noble (1979) pp. 167-8. 9 This definition is close to that of Walton (op. cit. p. 10). Govier (op. cit. p. 109) 4 See, for examples, Toulmin op. cit. p. has a more careful statement of straw 185 and Walton, Douglas, Informal man: Fallacies, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. (1987) p. 242. The straw man fallacy is commit­ ted when a person misrepresents an 5 See, for examples, Walton op. cit. p. argument, theory, or claim, and then 246, and Cederblom & Paulsen, Critical on the basis of that misrepresentation, Reasoning, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth claims to have refuted the position that Pub. Co. (1982) p. 59. The point that he has misrepresented. vagueness is not necessarily fallacious is made by Trudy Govier in her A Prac­ 10 Engels (op. cit. pp. 98-106) has a nice tical Study of Argument Belmont, CA: discussion of this fallacy. Wadsworth Pub. Co. (1985) p. 356. II See Ullmann, op. cit., p. 152 for a 6 In particular, Govier (op. cit. p. 280) has discussion of the use of synonymy to noted that emotionally loaded language reduce repetition in prose. can vitiate the results of opinion polls. 12 One might even take the extreme posi­ 7 For an extensive linguistic analysis of tion that there are no separate "fallacies these and other techniques of understate­ of language." per se but rather that ment, see Huebler, Axel, Understate­ fallacious reasoning can occur because ments and Hedges in English, Amster­ of misuse of language. For this extreme dam: John Benjamines Pub. Co. (1983). view to be made plausible, a case would 8 A pedagogic aside: I usually assign my have to be made for including the students exercises designed to strengthen fallacies of ambiguity in some other their ability to spot understatement. I category-say, as types of ignoring the give them ten or so modalized assertions issue. But whether or not such a case can and have them understate each all four be made is beyond our present topic. ways. Example: original claim: I am sure that Sam hates Jazz. Professor Gary Jason, Department of detensificr added: I am surc that Sam hatcs Philosophy, Orange Coast College, Costa Jazz somewhat. Mesa, CA 92628 0