[Vocabulary] “co-opt” and inferences

[Rover_KE]

Please do not post the same question simultaneously to more than one forum. Doing so wastes our valuable time. Instead, post your question to one forum and wait for replies. If you're not satisfied with those replies, you can try another forum, but please indicate in your thread that you've already asked the same question elsewhere (provide a link), and outline why you were not satisfied with the answers you received already.
(teechar)

I find quite a few native speakers have trouble discerning the various definitions and the accompanying inferences.

Nevertheless, we want to read the responses you have already received so that we don't have to go to the trouble of repeating them.

Please click Like to acknowledge that you accept this.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm stuggling to follow your thinking in this thread.

The Collins Cobuild dictionary has the following definition:

If someone is co-opted into a group, they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way.

Is it that you think that just because someone is asked to do something, that does not mean that they actually do it? Have I got that right? Is that essentially what your problem with the Collins entry is?

 

[Tarheel]

Cambridge's definition makes more sense to me.

If we take the Collins definition apart, we could derive a few statements:

a. The person is asked to become a member of the group.
b. He or she does not join the group in the normal way.
c. He or she is not elected to the group in the normal way, either.

Are b and c true in scenarios where the person is not a member of the group?

Two things. One, they wouldn't be asking the person to become a member of the group if that person was already a member of the group, would they? Two, are we still beating this dead horse?

 

[jutfrank]

If we take the Collins definition apart, we could derive a few statements:

a. The person is asked to become a member by the group.
b. He or she does not join the group in the normal way.
c. He or she is not elected to the group in the normal way, either.

Are b and c true in scenarios where the person is not a member of the group?

I can't make sense of the bold part. What does it mean?

Obviously, the person is not a member of the group before he is co-opted into it, and similarly he is a member of the group after he is co-opted into it.

What am I missing?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I can't make sense of the bold part. What does it mean?

Obviously, the person is not a member of the group before he is co-opted into it, and similarly he is a member of the group after he is co-opted into it.

What am I missing?

Does b or c sufficiently show the person is already a member?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I'm stuggling to follow your thinking in this thread.



Is it that you think that just because someone is asked to do something, that does not mean that they actually do it? Have I got that right? Is that essentially what your problem with the Collins entry is?

Yes, that's (or that was) my problem with my the Collins definition. But now I see it makes sense if we presuppose that the person referred to in the example sentence was already a member. Now I'm taking the definition apart to see whether each component carries that presupposition.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Nevertheless, we want to read the responses you have already received so that we don't have to go to the trouble of repeating them.

Please click Like to acknowledge that you accept this.

I was confused by the following remark among others:


"As to whether he joined or not, co-opt does not, of itself, mean that somebody joined a body. It only tells us the mechanism used if he is invited to join or joins. It is the context that determines whether or not he became or becomes a member."

When I gave the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary definition "co-opt" as follows, a member replied, "No, not really. 'Make' here has no implication of coercion. "

to make sb a member of a group, committee, etc. by the agreement of all the other members

 

[jutfrank]

Does b or c sufficiently show the person is already a member?

Sorry, I can't even begin to understand what you're getting at.

b and c don't 'show' anything, do they?

Yes, that's (or that was) my problem with my the Collins definition.

Okay. But there is no problem in the Collins entry, logically speaking. I suppose you misinterpreted something.

If someone is co-opted into a group, they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way.

Look at this:

If someone is co-opted into a group

The preposition into tells us that the someone becomes a member of the group. So too does the context of this being a definition of co-opt.

they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining [in the normal way] or being being elected in the normal way.

This latter part simply explains how the someone becomes a member. In the context of the dictionary entry, it is the definition of what co-opt means.

I wonder if you were interpreting the part I've enclosed in square brackets. If not, I can see how you may have interpreted falsely.

But now I see it makes sense if we presuppose that the person referred to in the example sentence was already a member.

I don't follow. Already a member at what point? Before he became a member? Huh?

We know that the person was not a member until the point where he became a member. You don't ask people who are members to become members. In other words, one cannot be co-opted into something that one is already a part of, and after one is co-opted into something, one is necessarily a part of it. That's what the word means.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Sorry, I can't even begin to understand what you're getting at.

b and c don't 'show' anything, do they?

Okay. But there is no problem in the Collins entry, logically speaking. I suppose you misinterpreted something.

If someone is co-opted into a group, they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way.

Look at this:

If someone is co-opted into a group

The preposition into tells us that the someone becomes a member of the group. So too does the context of this being a definition of co-opt.

they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining [in the normal way] or being being elected in the normal way.

This latter part simply explains how the someone becomes a member. In the context of the dictionary entry, it is the definition of what co-opt means.

I wonder if you were interpreting the part I've enclosed in square brackets. If not, I can see how you may have interpreted falsely.

Which part of "they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way" allows us to infer the person becomes a member?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I don't follow. Already a member at what point? Before he became a member? Huh?

We know that the person was not a member until the point where he became a member. You don't ask people who are members to become members. In other words, one cannot be co-opted into something that one is already a part of, and after one is co-opted into something, one is necessarily a part of it. That's what the word means.

I should have said the Cobuild definition presupposes that the reader already knows the person in the example sentence was a member, not that the person was already a member.

 

[jutfrank]

Which part of "they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way" allows us to infer the person becomes a member?

No part of it.

As I've already said in post #28, the inference comes from the if-clause.

 

[jutfrank]

I should have said the Cobuild definition presupposes that the reader already knows the person in the example sentence was a member, not that the person was already a member.

Okay, I think it's becoming clear to me now that the problem you're having is with the if-clause.

If you simply replaced the word If with the word When, would that change your interpretation?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No part of it.

As I've already said in post #28, the inference comes from the if-clause.

That's probably the root of the problem. The dictionary is supposed to define co-opt, which is in the if-clause. How can it assume the meaning of something it is expected to define?

 

[jutfrank]

Right. I think I understand now. I think you have a reasonable cause to have misunderstood.

The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, dictionaries do tend to phrase definitions in this way. You're not supposed to read them as logical statements.

So you might see such a dictionary entry for the adjective dead as the following (which I've just made up to illustrate my point):

If somebody is dead, they are no longer alive.

As a logical assertion, this is of course meaningless, but it isn't a logical assertion—it's just meant as a definition. The if-clause is asking us to imagine a dead person, I assume to help us get our heads around the meaning.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Which part of "they are asked by that group to become a member, rather than joining or being elected in the normal way" allows us to infer the person becomes a member?

This part "rather than joining or being elected in the normal way", which should be omitted if the person does not become a member.

 

[Matthew Wai]

1. He was asked to quit.
We don't know whether he actually quit.

2. He was asked to quit rather than quitting of his own accord.
The red part suggests he actually quit.

 

[Tarheel]

Your response indicates the Cobuild definition is inaccurate.

Two things. One, I don't care about the Cobuild definition. (Is there a reason I should?) Two, I suggest that you move on to something else.