A DEFINING MOMENT

In this lesson you're going to learn about using definition as a rhetorical strategy. As Heinrichs says, definition can help you "get a favorable grip on an argument."

We're not talking about opening up a dictionary app on your phone to prove that the definitions of "disinterested" and "uninterested" aren't the same. (If you've been reading Heinrichs carefully, you should know the difference between the two already. If not, feel free to open up your preferred dictionary app now.)

The kind of defining Heinrichs talks about in the chapters you'll read in this lesson don't have to do with the literal, dictionary definition of a word. He's talking about all the different connotations a word can have, and how you can use those to label and frame your argument.

We'll also focus on what Heinrichs refers to as commonplace words. Again, we're not talking the literal, dictionary definition of commonplace here (which would be "not unusual, ordinary").

Not sure which definition of commonplace we're referring to? Well, Heinrichs will soon clear that up for you in a very non-commonplace way.

Charged Words

As Heinrichs points out in this chapter, an effective way to frame an argument is to use commonplace words that come with an emotional charge. One example he used was "team effort." Both of the following sentences mean the same thing, but the first has a more positive emotional charge:

• "This is a really important project, everybody. If it's going to be successful, we have to make it a team effort."

• "This is a really important project, everybody. If it's going to be successful, you're all going to have to take responsibility for it."

Ugh, right? That second one sounds like a real drag. Taking responsibility for an important project means if it goes wrong, you'll be blamed. But joining in on a team effort for an important project means you're a part of the group. You're up for it—you're game.

Go ahead and use charged words all you want—as long as they're ethical. Remember back in the first unit, when you read the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication? There's a sentence in it that reads:

"We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred." (Source)

There are plenty of words that are emotionally charged in a very unethical way, and an ethical public speaker has to be able to identify and avoid those words. For example, a politician who refers to his opponent during a campaign as a fascist is using a word with a highly negative charge that unfairly distorts the truth.

We're guessing most of you won't find yourself tempted to call someone a fascist in any future public speaking situations—or to use any words or terms that will incite violence or hatred.

Let's take it down a notch and look at some less extreme examples. (We like to call this technique the "reverse Emeril.")

Using this kind of charged language probably won't incite your audience to violence, but it's not going to endear you to them, either:

• Referring to grown women as "girls."

• Calling a group of people "cheap" instead of, say, "economical."

• Suggesting that someone is "addicted" to something they're not technically addicted to, such as texting.

Okay, so that last one may actually be a real thing but the point still stands.