Abstract
Aristotle’s fallacy of form of expression didn’t have quite the impact on the logic textbook treatments of the fallacies that equivocation, amphiboly, and accent have had. Early on, it tended to be included in textbooks, as more of a minor fallacy, but then, with a few notable exceptions and honourable mentions, it eventually faded out almost to nonexistence, in the standard treatment. The current presumption is that it is not worth mentioning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
On Sophistical Refutations (166 b 10).
See Walton ([1989b, Chapter 2]).
See Chapter 4.
Sections 5 through 8, below.
Mill [1843; 1970, pp. 530–532] quoted much of Whately’s account of the fallacy of paronymous words, but treated it under ‘the fallacy of ambiguous terms’, along with equivocation. Mill classified both fallacies in the category of ‘fallacies of confusion’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (1996). Figure of Speech. In: Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Applied Logic Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8632-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8632-0_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4717-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8632-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive