Etymological Fallacy
Leigh Kolb
Ives Goddard - the senior linguist and curator at the Smithsonian Institution - concluded that the word “redskins” was created by Native Americans, and that it was first used as an inclusive expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations who traveled to Washington, D.C.
to negotiate national policy towards Native Americans. “The actual origin of the word (redskin) is entirely benign,” Goddard is quoted as saying.Redskin Facts website
To understand the etymological fallacy (EF) fully, it’s important to break down the word etymology, which is a practice that in itself informs the conversation surrounding the fallacy. According to Merriam-Webster, etymology is “the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found [...] by analyzing it into its component parts,” and by tracing and identifying it through translated languages and cognates. The origin of etymon is Latin, from Greek: the “literal meaning of a word according to its origin, from etymos, true; akin to Greek eteos, true.” The logy suffix refers to a scientific area of study, but its origin is from the Greek logos, which means, “word.” An etymon, then, is “an earlier form of a word in the same language or an ancestral language.”
While the linguistic study of tracing words to their origins can be a fascinating exercise, when the natural evolution of language that occurs over time is left out of the study, there is the danger of committing the EF (also known as the appeal to definition or abuse of etymology), which assumes that the way a word is used now should be the way it was used historically (an etymon), usually due to the fact that the etymon is more conducive to the argument. EF is a willful use of a former definition of a word that has changed meaning and/or developed new connotations because the change does not benefit the one committing the fallacy.
As Jesse Sheidlower (2001) points out in “What Is, And Isn’t, In a Word,” in The New York Times: “Some words also fall prey to what linguists refer to as the ‘etymological fallacy,’ the belief that a word’s history has a strong bearing on how it is, or should be, used.” He goes on to explain that many words change meaning without raising any question, but that the words that most often fall prey to the EF are the ones that are, or are perceived as, offensive.
The NFL team from Washington, DC, the Washington Redskins, has a name that has been the source of controversy and lawsuits in recent years (Gandhi 2013). Many Native American groups (and their allies) have fought against the use of the name redskins, which carries with it the terms “derogatory,” “offensive,” “outdated,” and “disparaging slang” in modern dictionary definitions. Sports journalist Baxter Holmes (2014) writes in Esquire that the true meaning of the term “redskin” was the scalps of Native Americans who were killed and mutilated for a bounty. After receiving challenges and pushback from readers, he writes another article and includes an excerpt from an 1863 newspaper in Minnesota that explicitly offers money from the state for each “red-skin” produced.
However, the Redskins team owners have stood firm, and in doing so, produced a website and supporting multimedia that relies heavily on the EF. RedskinFacts.com claims that the origin of the word redskins was “benign” and self-referential. The site relies on the etymon (or at least one linguist’s version of the etymon) to support the decision not to change the name. In court, “The team’s attorneys and linguistics experts argued that this demonstrated that the term had never really been disparaging - just a ‘robust informal synonym’ for ‘American Indian,’ which dictionaries only started to label as offensive in response to political pressure from a few Indian activists” (Nunberg 2014). The EF ignores change, connotations, and context. In his article, Sheidlower (2001) says,
Guidelines for words’ usage are determined not by their history (real or imagined), but by someone who cares one way or the other having the power to convince an audience.
Groups that have - or gain - political power can have an influence on what they are called [...] the concerns of Native Americans268 Leigh Kolb
have not been taken as seriously (which is also why “Redskins” and “Braves” are still used as the names of professional sports teams).
The EF, when used to attempt to uphold the status quo of offensive language, is typically committed in favor of the dominant political/social group.
Of course, not every fallacious use of etymons involves offensive language. In Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies, Robert J. Gula (2002) uses the example of an atheist trying to convince a religious person that religion is not about love: it “ties man down; it tries to control him; it shackles and enslaves. Nowhere is love even suggested.” The atheist attempts to support his argument this way: “Look at the very words we use. The word reverence comes from the Latin word vereor, a word that means ‘fear.’ [...] And even the word religion itself comes from the Latin religo, a verb that means ‘to bind’ or ‘to fetter’” (48). Gula points out that this argument is fallacious since it ignores that words change, thus making an argument against something based on the Latin roots of a word is not a good argument at all.
Language is constantly changing, and the evolution of words and their meanings is a largely democratic process. When individuals cling to etymons to make an argument about a word that has long since developed new connotations, that argument is uninformed at best and fallacious at worst. To avoid committing the EF, individuals should approach language as they would a scientific process: they may hypothesize the word means X, but after further research and consideration, realize that indeed a word now means Y. The definition may have formally changed in the dictionary, or the meaning may be currently undergoing a cultural shift. Either way, to be a responsible and respectful rhetorician, the changing nature of language must be considered and individuals should be learned enough and flexible enough to communicate within the time and culture they inhabit.
To date, the Washington Redskins have remained firm in their etymological defense and have not changed their team name. However, many journalists and media outlets have stepped over the fallacy and are refusing to use the team name in their reporting. In 2013, Pew Research reported that many journalists and media outlets - 76 at that point - had spoken up about the word “Redskins” and in many cases restricted (or even banned) its use in their publications.
Gula (2002) says, “The etymology of a word does not necessarily constitute any evidence about how the word is being used. A word is important, not for what it once meant, but what it means now” (48). Sheidlower’s conclusion is similar: “A word’s ‘real meaning’ according to its etymology may not match the ‘real meaning’ of its context and usage. And in matters of taste, it is the usage - the way that we and the words we speak every day exist in the world - that is always the deciding factor.” Clinging to etymons while ignoring the evolution and everyday use of language is neither logical nor truthful.
References
Gandhi, Lakshmi. 2013. “Are You Ready for Some Controversy? The History of ‘Redskin.’” NPR 9 September 9. http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013 /09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin (accessed September 29, 2107).
Gula, Robert J. 2002. Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.
Holmes, Baxter. 2014. “Update: Yes, A ‘Redskin’ Does, in Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, like a Pelt, for Cash.” Esquire, June 18.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2014. “When Slang Becomes a Slur.” The Atlantic, June 23. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why- redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/ (accessed September 29, 2107).
Pew Research Center. 2013. “Media Takes Sides on ‘Redskins’ Name.” Pew Research Center, October 30. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/media- take-sides-on-redskins-name/ (accessed September 29, 2107).
RedskinFacts.com. 2015. “Redskins Alumni.” RedskinFacts.com, November 1. www.redskinsfacts.com (accessed September 29, 2107).
Sheidlower, Jesse. 2001. “What Is, and Isn’t, In a Word.” The New York Times, March 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/weekinreview/what-is-and-isn-t- in-a-word.html (accessed September 29, 2107).