The expression suggests that a particular meaning, as clarified by a lexicographer such as Susie Dent, inherently implies culpability or fault. In essence, the argument posits that the very definition of a word or phrase leads to an unavoidable conclusion of wrongdoing. A hypothetical example could involve interpreting a legal term’s generally accepted understanding, potentially influencing a jury’s perception of a defendant’s actions.
The significance of such an interpretation lies in its potential to shortcut critical analysis and debate. It bypasses nuanced consideration of context, intent, and mitigating factors, instead relying on a seemingly objective, yet potentially biased, definitional interpretation. Historically, appeals to authority, including definitions from esteemed sources, have been used to sway public opinion and influence legal proceedings. A reliance on definitional certainty can, however, obscure the inherent ambiguity and evolving nature of language itself.
