Surreal illustration of linguistic divide.

Lost in Translation? Unraveling the Mysteries of Verbal Disagreements

Kai Mendoza in Mind & Education June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Why what seems like a deep disagreement might just be a mix-up in meanings – and what to do about it."

Have you ever found yourself in a heated argument, only to realize later that you and the other person were essentially saying the same thing, just using different words? This is more common than you might think, especially in complex discussions like philosophy, politics, or even everyday life. These kinds of misunderstandings are often labeled as 'merely verbal disputes,' and they can be incredibly frustrating.

At its core, a merely verbal dispute occurs when two or more people appear to disagree on a topic, but their disagreement stems from using the same words to mean different things. It's like speaking different dialects of the same language – you might think you understand each other, but subtle differences in vocabulary and usage can lead to significant confusion.

But are these disputes always a bad thing? And how can we identify and resolve them effectively? Let's dive into the fascinating world of verbal disagreements, exploring their nuances, potential pitfalls, and some surprising ways they can actually be productive.

The Anatomy of a Verbal Dispute

Surreal illustration of linguistic divide.

To truly understand merely verbal disputes, it's important to go beyond the surface level of language. We need a framework for identifying when a disagreement is rooted in semantics rather than genuine differences in belief or opinion. Philosopher Carrie Jenkins offers a useful starting point, suggesting that a dispute is merely verbal if:

Consider two friends arguing about whether a glass is a 'cup.' One might insist that cups have handles, while the other believes a handle is optional. They seem to disagree, but it turns out they're simply using different definitions of the word 'cup.' There's no real conflict about the object itself, just a difference in how they label it.

The parties involved seem to be disagreeing about a specific topic.
However, they don't actually disagree on the core issue.
The appearance of disagreement arises from the fact that they are each using words or terms differently.

However, this seemingly simple definition raises some important questions. Are all uses of language equally valid? What happens when someone is using a word 'incorrectly,' according to standard definitions? These questions lead us to two distinct types of verbal disputes: faultless and faulty.

Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Words

Ultimately, navigating the complex landscape of verbal disputes requires a combination of careful listening, intellectual humility, and a willingness to explore different perspectives. By recognizing the potential for misunderstanding and actively seeking clarification, we can transform seemingly intractable disagreements into opportunities for deeper understanding and meaningful connection.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1111/meta.12335, Alternate LINK

Title: Two Species Of Merely Verbal Disputes

Subject: Philosophy

Journal: Metaphilosophy

Publisher: Wiley

Authors: Delia Belleri

Published: 2018-10-01

Everything You Need To Know

What exactly is a 'merely verbal dispute,' and why do these disagreements often occur?

A 'merely verbal dispute' arises when individuals appear to disagree, but the disagreement stems from using the same words with different meanings. It's not a conflict over core beliefs or facts, but rather a difference in how language is employed. This can occur even when people think they understand each other, leading to frustration and unproductive arguments. Identifying these disputes requires looking beyond the surface level of language to understand the underlying semantic differences. The problem is that it creates a disagreement where one might not exist. Often, it means that one is talking past the other.

According to philosopher Carrie Jenkins, what criteria define a 'merely verbal dispute'?

Carrie Jenkins suggests a dispute is 'merely verbal' if the parties seem to disagree, but don't actually disagree on the core issue, and the appearance of disagreement arises from using words or terms differently. This definition helps to identify disagreements rooted in semantics rather than substance. This does bring up questions about the validity of various language use, particularly when someone uses a word incorrectly as per standard definitions.

What are 'faultless' and 'faulty' verbal disputes and how do they differ?

While the information describes two types 'faultless' and 'faulty' these are not described. The text mentions that defining types of disputes depends on whether all uses of language are equally valid and what happens when someone is using a word incorrectly, according to standard definitions. This distinction may be based on whether there is a 'correct' or widely accepted definition of a term that one party is violating, leading to the misunderstanding. Without discussing the differences, it is hard to see how each works.

What strategies can be used to resolve 'merely verbal disputes' and foster better understanding?

Resolving verbal disputes involves careful listening, intellectual humility, and a willingness to explore different perspectives. By recognizing the potential for misunderstanding and actively seeking clarification, disagreements can be transformed into opportunities for deeper understanding and meaningful connection. Understanding that others may be using the same words but thinking about different meanings promotes mutual comprehension. One can ask clarifying questions to foster a better understanding.

Beyond simple disagreements, what is the broader significance of understanding 'merely verbal disputes'?

The idea of 'merely verbal disputes' extends beyond simple disagreements. It highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding different perspectives in various fields, including philosophy, politics, and everyday life. Recognizing these disputes can prevent unnecessary conflicts and promote more productive conversations. The implication is that by clearing the air of linguistic misunderstandings, we can discover common ground or at least narrow the scope of real disagreements.