This thread is a bit dead, but I thought I'd chuck an essay in here to get another opinion.
This is my first essay for the year so I'm just trying to find my feet a bit
Thanks in advance, any advice is much appreciated!
‘But perhaps the phrase Paltrow and Martin unleashed this week is simply the latest in the long line of words and phrases we have all used to soften the blow of private, painful events. ''He passed away.' ''It's not you, it's me.'' 'We're having time apart.' Rejection, loss and unhappiness are hard enough to go through. For many, gentle words can ease the experience.’ (Josephine Tovey, Conscious uncoupling: Gwyneth Paltrow's split from Chris Martin, The Sydney Morning Herald)
As the unpopular shark bait and shoot program continues in Western Australia, fisheries minister Troy Buswell has defended the policy, saying that it isn’t a cull, but a ‘localised shark mitigation strategy’…. Buswell learned the art of political euphemism from the best. (Lochlan Morrissey, Fully (sic))
‘Extra-Visibilty or Emphasis on Difference: in many contexts, it is quite unnecessary to mention a person’s sex, race, ethnic background or other characteristics, yet such characteristics are often mentioned even at the expense of information that would have been more relevant to the context. This is particularly true for members of minority groups. Unnecessary references of this nature should be avoided.’ (‘Inclusive Language Policy’, University of Western Sydney.)
‘Jargon facilitates communication on one hand, but erects quite successful communication barriers on the other.’ (Kate Burridge)
‘Formal language features are always helpful and appropriate. They ensure social harmony and precise, straightforward communication at all times.’ Do you agree?
Formal language choices play an important part in establishing courteous, polite relationships in society. Politically correct language and euphemisms allow users to avoid offense and navigate around taboo topics. Similarly, politeness strategies assist one in maintaining a negative face therefore uphold social harmony. However, it is a vast overstatement to say that these features are always helpful. When used outside its intended domain, jargon is anything but appropriate, as a specific lexicon can ostracise outsiders. Furthermore, when euphemisms are misused to obfuscate the truth through doublespeak, they completely prevent straightforward communication.
While jargon does allow for precision and straightforward communication, it is not always used appropriately, and therefore is not always helpful. Jargon is only effective when used in a relative domain, and in some cases cannot be avoided. For example, Mary O’Callaghan pointed out the need for subject specific lexemes in cricket. Without noun phrases such as “silly mid-on” and “leg byes”, cricketers and fans alike would struggle to effectively and efficiently communicate. Furthermore, medical professionals require jargon, especially in situations where time is valuable. Medical jargon such as the initialism “ECG” (electrocardiogram), specific semantic meaning of “acute” and the shortening ‘prem’ (premature) allows for brevity and accuracy in high pressure scenarios. However, these terms are not always helpful, and can cause confusion when used for the wrong audience and context. Linguist Baden Eunsen stated that “jargon can go over to the dark side when it is so ‘dense’ that outsiders have difficulty understanding it”. Terori Hareko-Samios experienced this ‘dark side’ of jargon after she was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome and struggled to make light of the complex medical jargon used to explain her condition. Even the initialism used to refer to the syndrome, ‘PCOS’, displays the dense nature of in-group jargon to outsiders. Hareko-Samios reflected on her confusion, stating “it was again that frustration of not being able to access information I could relate to”. Her frustration escalated to the extent where she wrote a pamphlet outlining the illness in plain language for other women. Moreover, research by Dr Mark Siddins revealed that less than 20% of patient forms were written in ‘plain English’, a statistic which Siddins believes displays the shortcomings of medical forms in their informative function. He stated that ‘the use of the technical jargon and acronyms on patient forms is unacceptable”, displaying his frustration at the use of such inappropriate uses of formal language. It is therefore clear to see that while jargon can be extremely beneficial to effective and efficient communication, it is not always helpful when used outside its specific domain.
Euphemisms are similar to jargon in that they can provide a means to uphold social harmony. Euphemisms also provide a basis for politically correct language. Positive euphemisms allow the user to navigate through taboo and avoid offense by using vaguer, milder and more indirect terms, and as Josephine Tovey stated, “for many, gentle words can ease the experience’. For example, the taboo topic of bodily functions was avoided by a tampon ad through use of the initialism ‘LBL’ in the place of ‘light bladder leakage’. This term allowed the advertiser to distance themselves from the awkwardness of the topic, while still communicating effectively and clearly. Another example is how channel 7 commentators referred to footballer Mitch Clark’s depression as a ‘long term battle with personal issues’. The use of a metaphorical post modified prepositional phrase allowed the commentators to avoid directly addressing the sensitive issue of depression, and hence prevent any offense to viewers. Furthermore, euphemisms allow users to remain politically correct by staying in line with what is socially viewed to be acceptable, and shows sensitivity and respect to serious topics such as disability, racism and religion while encouraging an attitude of tolerance and acceptance. An example of such language can be found the Diabetes Victoria Guidelines, which suggest that the politically correct "person with diabetes" should be used in the place of "diabetic". Use of the prepositional phrase "with diabetes" distances the person from their illness, rather than referring to them with the noun "diabetic" which shows a lack of respect and labels them as their disease, and not as a person. Furthermore, by using vague noun phrases such as "the festive season" instead of "Christmas Season" and "Citizens Day" instead of "Australia Day", users can avoid offense and uphold social concordance.
However, it would be incorrect to say that all euphemisms and jargon ensure social harmony and clear meaning, as euphemistic, jargon filled corporate speak has no distinct purpose but to make the user seem more intelligent while doublespeak euphemisms serve only to obfuscate and manipulate. Corporate buzz words like ‘blue sky thinking’, ‘synergy’ and ‘corporate values’ are thrown around offices with no true meaning, and do not contribute to effective communication. This language has even made its way into other domains, which results in widespread confusion and frustration. An example of this is evident in a sign used to direct residents to their local “neighbourhood safer place” in the event of a fire. This unnecessary corporate jargon was made all the more confusing as the sign only displayed the initialism “NSP”. The CFA were criticised by the Royal Commission for their language choice on the sign, being told they should have been more “frank and meaningful”. This statement portrays how unclear formal language can be when used incorrectly. On the other hand, double speak is not language used to show off, but is a malicious avoidance of the truth. By using an extremely specific lexis and long winded, euphemistic sentences, users can avoid honesty, at the cost of quality communication. The West Australian Government used doublespeak to minimise backlash over their planned shark cull by referring to the cull with the dense noun phrase “localised shark mitigation strategy”. The use of a noun phrase and avoidance of the negative connotations of ‘cull’ helped distance the Government from their actions in an attempt to manipulate and hide the truth. Another example of deliberate doublespeak through euphemism is ‘revitalise with redundancies’, a term used by Fairfax Media to refer to sackings. This phrase uses the positive connotations of the verb “revitalise” rather than “sack”, which helps to minimise the negative effects associated with the firings.
While formal language features such as jargon and euphemism undoubtedly contribute to social harmony and understanding when used appropriately, it would be incorrect to claim that formal language features are always helpful. When used in the wrong context, jargon and corporate speak provide no benefit for communication. Doublespeak, on the other hand, only serves to obfuscate and manipulate, and is truly detrimental to any meaning of a discourse. It is to be hoped that formal language features can be used correctly, and only to increase clarity and efficiency of communication and to maintain social harmony.