Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The term equivocation is used in two different senses: as a logical fallacy and as communicative strategy.

The logical fallacy of equivocation occurs when a term is used with two or more different meanings within the same argument. For example, consider the following argument: A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool. Here, the word plane in the first part of the sentence refers to a tool used by carpenters to shape wood, and in the second part of the sentence it means an airplane.

The other sense in which the term equivocation is used is as a communication strategy in which the speaker deliberately says something ambiguous, with two interpretations, and believes only one of them to be true, but wants the hearer to infer the false one. A frequently cited example is of an advertisement that says: “No heat costs less than oil heat.” Here, one interpretation is that not using any heating costs less than heating using oil, and the other is that oil heating costs less than any other type of heating. The first interpretation is probably the one that the advertisers believed to be true, and the second is what they hoped the readers would infer.

Equivocation and Psychological Conflicts

Research in interpersonal communication shows that equivocation results from psychological conflicts that result when a choice must be made between two undesirable alternatives in a conversational situation. They do not result from generally unpleasant situations, or conflicts that result when a choice must be made between two desirable alternatives.

The situation described in the heating oil example demonstrates a conflict in choosing between two undesirable alternatives. The advertisers would neither like to say that not using any heating costs less than heating using oil because that would be against their interests, nor would they like to say that oil heating costs less than any other type of heating because that might not be entirely true. Both alternatives are undesirable, thus invoking the need to equivocate. The necessary condition for equivocation is a situation in which direct and clear responses are negative and need to be avoided.

During such conflicts, equivocations allow speakers to avoid being committed to any one alternative. In that sense, they allow speakers to plan ahead by reasoning and provide them with “plausible deniability” should it be needed later. They also help speakers assuage their sense of guilt because speakers can reassure themselves that there is some truth in what they are saying, at least at the utterance level.

Strategic Use of Equivocation

The high rate at which people prefer equivocations when choosing between two undesirable alternatives indicates that they are strategically used by speakers to mislead the hearer, and cannot simply be explained by communicative errors like the speaker being honestly mistaken about the hearer's possible interpretation of his utterance. Equivocations are often used as a strategy by politicians. One reason for this is that politicians have to deal with a variety of audiences, and disagreements with even a fraction of them can often have very high costs. Yes Minister, the popular British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) comedy of the 1980s, has many examples of equivocations in such situations.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading