An expression
is appropriate to given communication situations when it is likely that
its recipients will. Not misunderstand the assertion it makes due to
emotive or obscure language or direct language misuse
This principle is applicable to deciding the suitability of usage to
a communication situation. It includes cases of misuse or incorrect
usage of terms or grammar. Standards of correct usage in any Ianguage
and particularly in English as a world language are not easily determined
except in cases of obvious infringements of basic rules and terminologies.
Rather than refer to 'correct usage', therefore, a general standard
of appropriateness is chosen, referring to the users, their purposes
of communication and the situation involved. There are sound reasons
for avoiding any set standards of correctness in regarding language
from the viewpoint of semantics, as follows:-
Firstly, there are no universally-accepted rules of correct usage for
all the possible terms of any language or for all the meanings each
of them may have for varied times, places or persons. Neither are there
indisputable standards of correct grammatical construction of sentences.
Even though there are general rules of grammar that do apply, they will
hardly ever cover all the possible cases and exceptions that occur.
Neither dictionaries of usage nor books of grammatical rules can set
final or unchanging standards to which all users of any particular language
must conform because languages develop and grow as people change the
ways of using them.
Secondly, therefore, the use of words in a language changes both through
time and locally. New terms or words come in, others go out. Terms already
in use tend to accumulate new meanings or special nuances of usage.
Slang is often a good example of this. Yesterday's slang is frequently
today's currently accepted usage. Much the same can occur in the case
of dialects.
Third, and what is perhaps more difficult to appreciate for those who
have not thought quite a lot about the nature of meaning, a great many
of the most commonly-used words and sentences in any language can have
many more meanings than any dictionary could list. 'Wittgenstein went
so far as to claim that there are 'countless kinds' of sentences. He
provided a number of convincing examples of the great flexibility of
usage of sentences and of general words like 'game' and 'tool'. [Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations" Oxford 1958.
Part 1 §25 ff.]
The many meanings that a current, common word may have arise from, the
many different types of circumstance in which it may be used. For example,
the word 'game' has many distinct meanings such as, 'hunted animals',
'tests', 'tricks', 'being of willing spirit', 'to play games of chance
for money', 'lame' or 'crippled', 'leisurable diversion', 'a contest
played according to any sort of rules', 'a single round of certain contests
of skill or luck', yet each of these different meanings can also be
given many sub-meanings according to the way it is used. It may be meant
literally or figuratively (as in poetry or the theatre etc.), in a game
of pretending or as part of a 'punch-line' in a joke. In each case the
same term tends to convey some fresh nuance of meaning, according to
the purposes and all the other circumstances involved.
We conclude that there are not any exhaustive standards of the 'correct'
usage of words. Even quite common expressions - however standardised
they may be - can contain words with many potential shades of meaning,
depending upon the complex of situations in which they are used or interpreted.
So as to bring some system into the analysis of expressions' appropriateness,
further well-defined terms are required.
A communication situation, in which an assertion is expressed, is to mean the sum of circumstances that may affect the procedure of
conveying an assertion to anyone
All possible circumstances cannot be listed, yet certain stable factors
will usually be present. The following diagram helps to clarify a fairly
typical and straightforward communication situation:-
A COMMUNICATION SITUATION includes the following:-
The diagram is fairly self-explanatory. It applies both to spoken and
written communications as well as those made through broadcasting, recording,
printing or other media which separate the communicator and recipient.
Where the communicator and recipient are in a face-to-face situation,
however, the possibility of 'feedback' occurs in that the participants
can check the assertions they understand by questioning whether their
interpretations are correct or by requesting alternative versions of
the origin expression (E0). Even so, of course, the assertions cannot
be checked without obtaining new terms or expressions, themselves requiring
interpretation.
In formulating an assertion,
the efficient communicator chooses the expression to be used with a
number of factors in mind. The verbal context must be considered
so that the expression will not conflict with whatever else is said
or written. The exact assertion one is likely to derive from any
isolated expression will often depend upon what comes before and after.
So consistency in use of terms, sticking to one's own definitions and
coherence of meaning on the whole must be aimed at if the communication
is to be maximally effective.
A second factor to consider is the intelligibility of what is being
expressed within a wider frame of reference, involving the purpose in
making the assertions.
In general communication is intended to serve some practical purpose
sooner or later. In so doing one takes account of the sort of public
(the likely or intended recipients of the communication) so as to choose
terms and the level of language complexity or precision suitable to
their understanding. Where the purposes are informational and educational,
the materials will be organised in a pedagogical fashion with step-by-step
explanations, examples to illustrate the more abstract expressions and
so on. The pace of a text, the ways in which a reader's interest can
be motivated and held, the choice of terminologies and examples can
all affect the way in which a public is likely to interpret or misinterpret
the chief assertions one would convey. As an example, the present text
could be considered. The wider, practical frame of reference taken into
account here includes the use of the book to introduce semantics to
students who have a good grasp of English so that they may study it
without accompanying instruction and with no previous knowledge of the
subject. Yet it is also designed as the basis of a lecture course leading
to a final examination. These purposes are influenced by other attendant
circumstances, such as the places of likely use (from high school to
university), the traditions and requirements of institutions that may
use it, the standards of knowledge and academic thoroughness that prevail
in the field of philosophy and many other considerations too detailed
to list. All of these factors are reviewed again and again while composing
the text. Some such factors are always involved in any type of communication.
In interpreting an expression, from the point of view of the recipient,
similar considerations will usually be made. The wider frame of reference,
the purposes of the communication and the verbal context will not be
without influence on the interpretations, provided one is aware of these
factors. However, because reading is an ingrained habit from childhood,
it is easy to pass over sentences quickly without penetrating their
depth of intended meaning. This applies particularly when reading and
translating foreign or ancient texts and where the society, conditions
and purposes surrounding the text are only sketchily known to us. A
translator of a foreign text who relied only on a dictionary of usages
and grammars would hardly be very accurate for it is the 'feel' of the
senses of words as they are spoken or otherwise used in the living language
of the country of origin that counts in achieving authentic fluency.
The feel for a language implies an exact understanding of inappropriate
and inappropriate usage and of the nuances of meaning as used by native
speakers of the language, of course. This is often very hard to achieve
for a non-native who has not lived in the language milieu in question
in the language-formative years of youth.
Altogether, these questions highlight the fact that words do not
have fixed meanings so much as they have uses. Or rather, the stock
of accumulated previous uses that cone to be established as the meanings
of the words represent only one pole of the sphere of communication.
At the other pole is the subjective individual interpreter who makes
sense of a text by intuition, thought associations and by other means
than the approved dictionary definitions. This seems to be increasingly
true of the English language, whose international variants are considerable
both in dialects throughout the English-speaking world and in its many
specialised forms (political, scientific, technical, legal, philosophical,
etc.). In short, then, the above asserts that:-
Interpretations must usually strike a balance between the stock of
attributed meanings of words on the one hand and the nuances lent by
the particular communication situation on the other hand.
An 'appropriate' expression is therefore one which takes reasonable
account of both poles of the sphere of communication so that the choice
of terms and expressions are optimally suited to ensuring that the overall
principle is followed (i.e. so the recipient will interpret the intended
assertion correctly).
It will always be a matter
of personal judgement as to which conventions anyone wishes to conform
to or ignore. Sometimes a language convention may be unacceptable on
political, ethical or religious grounds and the communicator will have
to consider how to avoid the 'holy cows' of language and find neutral
enough alternatives to avoid shocking the recipients and thus having
a negatively-emotive effect. In some circles many words are unutterable,
being regarded as blasphemous or not to be used in polite society and
the likes. Word taboos can be quite peculiar depending upon the culture
involved, particularity in tribal and ancient religiously-oriented societies
where words are themselves invested with magical properties. Language
of the esoteric 'in-circle' sort found within the same society also
involves verbal taboos, such as the upper-class prejudice against the
commoners' slang and the layman's ridicule of 'posh talk'. Unfortunately
also in academic circles some words may be unmentionable for political
reasons, one example being the word 'imperialism' in the 1950's during
the Macarthyite period in the U.S.A. and Europe. The word could seldom
be used without disgrace even in 'learned' circles, unless by disowning
it as a 'Red' propaganda swearword. (Note: the colourful counter-taboo
word 'Red' with its aggressive and bloody associations).
When considering how people will interpret spoken language, one also
takes account of how speech emphasis on words or syllables, tones of
voice and the intonation of a sentence affects the meaning. This is
mostly lost in texts, as well as all bodily gestures, facial expressions,
and other activities accompanying speech. Meaning can depend heavily
upon such non-verbal factors and can become obscured when speech is
recorded or broadcast.
A practical summary
The foregoing explanations
can be summarised as a list of questions as to basic information
to take into account when interpreting any expression. Such information
is also relevant to judging the appropriateness of an expression.
1) Who was the originator of the expression? (name, profession, title,
personality, etc.)
2) What is the verbal context, if any? (Overview of text content as
to the relevant frame of reference)
5) What is the communication situation under consideration? (Circumstances
under which conveyed)
4) What were the (likely) purposes of the communication? (why recorded?)
5) Who are/were the recipients? (Those for whom it was intended, also
those for whom not intended)
6) What state of affairs does it refer to, if any? (What location in
space/time? Past, present (date, time) or else predicted future etc.
The above information is
often intuitively-evident to the interpreter and requires no research.
In other connections this sort of information may be wrongly assumed
by the interpreter or may require considerable investigation. To exemplify
this, the above questions are applied to an expression.
Eg. Quote "Do we think there is such a thing as absolute justice,
or not?" To the questions above the answers may respectively be
as follows:-
1) Originator Plato (ca 500-450 B.C.) supposedly reporting Socrates'
words on the day before his death by hemlock.
2) Context In Phaedo, quoted by Plato's 'mouthpiece' Socrates
as an introduction to a philosophical discussion on the origins of knowledge.
3) Communicational situation Written in ancient Greek. Probably
Plato's 18th dialogue written when a mature thinker many years after
Socrates' death. Little is known about the situation in which this was
written. The quote occurs here as an example to explain semantic factors.
4) Likely purposes To educate students of Plato's Academy to
the philosophy developed from Socrates by Plato. Further to influence
political debate in an attempt to change society towards his ideal republic,
5) Recipients Students of the Academy, the Greek intelligentsia.
Subsequently to the world at large through history until the present
day.
6) State of affairs Being a question the quote does not refer to any specific state of affairs,
yet attempts to start a debate on whether in general there exists an
ideal form of justice independently of whoever cay know this ideal form.
Judging the appropriateness of an expression
In situations where language is to be used seriously to convey assertions
as exactly and unconfusingly as possible, such as in scientific, philosophical
and political debate, certain norms can be generally prescribed, as
to what is an inappropriate term or expression:-
Norm 1 - Emotive terms and expressions should be eliminated in favour of cognitively-significant terms and expressions
An emotive expression or term is one which tends to persuade in an irrational way rather than by conveying clear or cognitive meaning in an attempt to prove a point by rational arguments or reasons. Emotive language involves words that affect the recipient, or are likely so to do, by appealing to feelings and thus evoke strong positive or negative associations. Such language is not conducive to efficient communication.
Eg.) E0 "They
are a load of pigheaded Commies."
This is certainly an emotively-loaded expression. She term 'a load of'
is frivolous, 'pig-headed' gives an irrational association and 'Commies'
is an anti-communist slogan abbreviation. A more neutral expression
could be substituted as:-
E1 "They are
a collection of obstinate communists."
Yet this is also denigration, if less emotively tendentious. Obstinacy
is often applied to opponents to describe what may be firmness. 'A collection
of suggests an odd assortment not much better than 'a load of Communists'
can be a derogatory term in many circles, but its normal usage is to
designate one of a particular political range of opinions. A more neutral
expression would be:-
E2 "They are a number of determined supporters of communism." Even this would be emotive in effect in strongly anti-communist circles. Yet there are probably very few terms that cannot ever sway anyone's feelings at all. Since Marxian communism is a cognitive doctrine as well as an emotive one it may not be possible to find any appropriate term to characterise it correctly without taking sides. 'Communism' is a highly ambiguous term which almost invariably tends to cloud the issue when used in general communication situations. In such cases a term should be avoided completely in the interests of cognitive clarity.
Norm 2 - Terms
and expressions of obscure usage should be eliminated in favour of straightforward
terms and expressions which are equally efficient
The tendency towards use of unnecessarily intellectual jargon, affected
or 'theatrical' metaphors and very uncommon or impressive words often
obscures the assertions one would convey (if any 1). This norm basically
aims at the commonsensical use of ordinary language wherever it is adequate,
rather than specialised language and the coinage of superfluous technical
terms. It ought to apply to any use of words other than for their own
sake, thus probably making communication more efficient both in the
sciences and the arts generally.
Eg.) E0 "The obtuse verbalisations of the learned ignorami
of the distant shores of Academia are too, too, arty-ficial or, as ordinary
folk say, high-falutin' poppycock and balderdash",
In more straightforward language this might be intended, to convey:-
E1 "The awkward use of words by poor academicians is too
unnatural."
A more serious example:-
Eg) EO "On the fundament of macro-prognoses for the ongoing
devolution parameters of peripheral communities, our technocrats have
optimalised their manifest economic functions in a paradigm for fiscal
stimulation."
This typically intellectual-political jargon tends to hide the assertion
in unnecessary trendy terms, for whatever obscure reasons. The meaning,
insofar as it is even clear to the communicator, is concealed from those
who are not fully acquainted with the terminology of social planners.
Perhaps the obscurity of the expression is so great that no clear expression
can be substituted. The following is but a suggestion:
E1 "Using general statistics on present trends towards the
growth of snail communities, our economic planners have made a theory
about how to improve their finances."
Unpleasant decisions and policies are frequently packaged for the general public in obscure language, not least in legal, military, political and governmental jargon. This sort of misuse of language has bee called 'muddying the issue' or 'obscuram per obscuritas' but, in view of the norm itself, it is simply termed 'obscure usage' here.
Norm 3 - Direct
misuse of words, grammar, punctuation, and syntax should be corrected
where there are clearly accepted, standards
This norm chiefly applies to inaccuracies of expression due to insufficient
conversance with the particular language (the English language in this
case) or to slips of the tongue or pen and printers' errors.
Eg) E0 Those who require the rationing of food may receive it."
If this expression were intended to convey:-
E1 "Those v/ho require the food ration may receive it," then
the use of the verbal noun 'rationing,' is incorrect English. 'Rationing'
in the above context would also mean 'the practice of rationing' and
not the actual ration anyone receives.
Eg) EO "Always I am making clear in good English, isn't it?"
This expression misuses the continuous present tense, places the adverb
'always' awkwardly, leaves out the reflexive 'myself' and uses an inappropriate
question suffix 'isn't it?'. Corrected it may instead read:-
E1 "I always make myself clear in good English, don't I?''
Norm 4 - Expressions
liable to misinterpretation because of awkwardness or inconciseness
should be substituted by more straightforward ones
See 'The Principle of Conciseness', which explains this requirement
in detail.
__________________________________________________________________________
EXERCISES (APPROPRIATENESS OF EXPRESSION)
The following exercises are elementary in nature, intended as a practical
test of one's understanding of the principles so far discussed. The
manner in which examples were discussed in the foregoing indicate possible
approaches in formulating answers. Answers should include grounds for
one's views, whether theoretical or general, practical grounds based
on one's own experience of language use. Use of a dictionary is advisable.
l) Point out in what the
expressions below May be considered emotive, taking account of the communication
situations indicated in each case:-
a) Consider the following exchange of views between two students of
political history;
1st student: Anarchism was a grass-root movement for the liberation
of commoners from powerful and oppressive social institutions.
2'nd student: Anarchism was a dreamer's philosophy, a childish romantic
revolt against any form of social organisation.
1'st student: No. Only against organisations that suppress natural inclinations
and human rights, such as the war machine and the State as the guarantor
of the property of the rich.
b) The following exchange took place in the British Parliament (18/1/1983)
between Mr. George Foulkes and Mrs. Thatcher concerning the Franks'
report on the Falklands War:-
Mr. Foulkes: … when the Franks' committee was set up, some of us
predicted that since she had power to suggest the members of the committee,
to determine its terms of reference and to manipulate its publication,
it would be an establishment cover-up and a whitewash. Since she is
one of the few people who have had the privilege of reading the whole
report, will she say if our predictions and fears have been confirmed
and whether her hopes have been realised?
Mrs. Thatcher: I deeply resent what Mr. Foulkes has said as a criticism
and a slur on Lord Frank and on the whole committee. The arrangements
about the membership of the committee were agreed in full and proper
consultation across all parties of this House. The terms of reference
were debated in this House and fully approved.
2) Discuss whether the expression below is appropriate to a communication
situation where a national broadcasting network reporter refers to the
disarmament struggle between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. in 1983. "President
Reagan still offers the zero-option plan requiring that the deployment
in Europe by N.A.T.O. of theatre nuclear weapons would take place unless
the U.S.A. destroys all its SS-20 multi-warhead missiles in the European
theatre.
3) Consider the following passage from the viewpoint of an editor of
a serious but critical journal of health. State in what you regard the
language usage inappropriate, giving reasons. Suggest an alternative
form for the expression so as to convey what you regard as its cognitive
content as accurately and appropriately as possible.
EO "Modern institutionalised and technocratised medicine in the
'West increasingly puts the interests of its own practitioners plus
the research and medical supply industry before that of its patients,
it having become infiltrated by large business and .the old system's
established interests whose Mafia-like concern is for 'protection' of:
the drug and appliance trade, regardless of the health or the pockets
of its clients."