4.11: Evaluative Language

Evaluative Language

Summary: Evaluative language plays a significant role in persuasion and argumentation, influencing how people perceive and interpret information. Unlike descriptive language, which merely describes a state of affairs, evaluative language passes judgment, either positive or negative, on something.

Characteristics of Evaluative Language:

• Evaluative language involves passing judgment on something, using terms like "good," "bad," "right," or "wrong."
• Some terms are purely evaluative, while others are both descriptive and evaluative, carrying both descriptive content and a positive or negative evaluation.
• Hybrid evaluative/descriptive terms can subtly influence perceptions and acceptance of claims.

Rhetorical Influence:

• Evaluative language is prevalent in political discourse and advertising, where it can shape public opinion and attitudes.
• By framing issues or individuals using evaluative terms, speakers can influence how audiences perceive and evaluate them.

Use of "Too" to Modify Evaluation:

• Adding "too" before a positively evaluative term can change its connotation to negative, indicating excess and criticism.
• This linguistic mechanism illustrates how language can influence perception and judgment.

Logic vs. Rhetoric:

• Evaluative language exemplifies the distinction between logic and rhetoric.
• While logic is concerned with the analysis and evaluation of arguments based on rationality, rhetoric focuses on persuasion through various means, including evaluative language.
• Evaluative language may be persuasive but does not necessarily constitute a valid argument.

Philosophical Perspective:

• Philosophy distinguishes between normative sciences like logic, ethics, and epistemology, which establish standards of evaluation, and empirical sciences like psychology, which describe and explain human behavior.

Conclusion:

• Evaluative language is a powerful tool in persuasion, influencing how people perceive and interpret information.
• Understanding the role of evaluative language sheds light on the distinction between logic and rhetoric and their respective roles in argumentation and persuasion.
• Evaluative language underscores the importance of critically evaluating claims and arguments, considering both their logical validity and persuasive effectiveness.

Table 3 below gives a small sampling of some evaluative terms.

beautiful	dangerous	wasteful	sneaky	cute
murder	prudent	courageous	timid	nosy
sloppy	sloppy	capable	insane	curt

Analyzing a Real-Life Argument

Summary: This section analyzes President Obama's speech on Syria from September 10, 2013, applying concepts and techniques introduced in the chapter. The argument focuses on the necessity of military action against the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons.

Main Conclusion: "It is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike."

Supporting Subarguments:

1. Assad's Use of Chemical Weapons: Obama provides evidence to support the claim that Assad used chemical weapons, although the argument is more inductive than deductive due to the possibility of alternative explanations. (Paragraphs 1-9)
2. Threat to National Security: Obama argues that failing to respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons poses a threat to national security, with several premises supporting this claim. (Paragraphs 10-14)
   • A. Assad's continued use of chemical weapons erodes international norms.
   • B. Erosion of norms could lead to acquisition and use of chemical weapons by other tyrants.
   • C. Increased likelihood of chemical warfare poses risks to U.S. troops and allies.
   • D. Weakening of prohibitions on weapons of mass destruction could embolden Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Implicit Assumptions:

1. Allowing threats to national security to persist necessitates a response.
2. The most adequate response to national security threats involves military force.

Reconstructed Argument (Standard Form):

1. If we don’t respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then Assad’s regime will continue using them with impunity.
2. If Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons with impunity, this will effectively erode the ban on them.
3. If the ban on chemical weapons erodes, then other tyrants will be more likely to attain and use them.
4. If other tyrants attain and use chemical weapons, U.S. troops will be more likely to face chemical weapons on the battlefield.
5. Therefore, if we don’t respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, U.S. troops will be more likely to face chemical weapons on the battlefield.
6. If we don’t respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons and if fighting spills beyond Syrian borders, our allies could face these chemical weapons.
7. If Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons with impunity, it will weaken prohibitions on other weapons of mass destruction.
8. If prohibitions on other weapons of mass destruction are weakened, this will embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear program.
9. Therefore, if we don’t respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, this will embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear program.
10. An increased likelihood of U.S. troops or allies facing chemical weapons on the battlefield or Iran becoming emboldened to develop a nuclear program are threats to U.S. national security interests.
11. Therefore, a failure to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to our national security.
12. The only way that the United States can adequately respond to the security threat that Assad poses is by military force.
13. It is in the national security interests of the United States to respond adequately to any national security threat.
14. Therefore, it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with military force.

Conclusion: Obama's argument relies on a complex structure with multiple subarguments and implicit assumptions. While the analysis provides insights into the structure of the argument, further examination and critical evaluation are necessary to fully assess its validity and effectiveness.

In addition to showing the structure of the argument by use of parentheses which show which statements follow from which, we can also diagram the arguments spatially as we did in section 1.4 like this: