Download - HSRC Press

INDUCTIVEI. If all of the premisses are true,then the conclusion must betrue.II. All of the information orfactual content in theconclusion was alreadycontained, at least implicitly, inthe premisses.DEDUCTIVEI. If all of the premisses are truethen the conclusion is probablytrue, but not necessarily true.II. The conclusion containsinformation not present, evenimplicitly, in the premisses.In the examples that follow, we intend paying attention to less trivial examplesof inductive reasoning.Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zaEXAMPLES OF INDUCTIONIn Marais’ (1985) study (the article appears as Appendix 2 in the Afrikaansedition of this book) of the semantic dimensions of modes of address (morespecifically the Afrikaans u and jy), Marais found that there were interestingassociations relating to the respective use of the terms u and jy. One of themajor aims of the research was to test Brown’s theory that u and jy wererespectively associated with power and solidarity. The first paragraph underdiscussion can be represented in the following manner:S 1 : The series of highly significant differences in group means of means ofratings of u and jy indicate that the two personal pronouns cannot beregarded merely as alternative forms that are arbitrarily exchanged by thesender and the receiver in the encoding and decoding processes.S 2 : The significant systematic differences were an indication that u and jygave rise to different sets of associations — at any rate, as far as thesample was concerned.S 3 : To the extent that power and solidarity were in fact represented by thesemantic differential scale, the analyses indicated that u is associated withpower to a greater extent than jy, and that as far as solidarity is concernedjy is associated with this construct to a greater extent than u.C: The preceding may be regarded as confirmation of Brown’s theoryregarding personal pronouns and their relationship to power andsolidarity.113