The New Newspeak

A recent article, “The New Newspeak,” discusses how some politicians “twist English for political gain.” It gives seven examples of twisted terms:

“at risk”

“barriers”

“community”

“under-represented”

“under-served”

“homeless”

“downtrodden”

The author says, “There is far more here than wooly thinking. Each term arrives with ample, almost invisible baggage that infiltrates the brain and ultimately shapes behavior.”

The author appears to have an anti-Left bias. Take that bias into account when reading him, but also try to judge his points on their own merits.

The Takeaway: We writers should always be especially alert readers. For example, we should be aware of the “baggage” that some terms carry, and avoid delivering that baggage unintentionally. As Oscar Wilde said in a different context, “A true gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude.”

See disclaimer.

Reductio ad absurdum (2)

Recently we discussed reductio ad absurdum, which is disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads. Here is another good example of reductio ad absurdum:

Example

Author Theodore Dalrymple noticed some large posters that declared “Science needs women.” He commented:

“Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

Analysis

The author of the posters probably had wanted to propose “The people who hire scientists should hire more women,” but feared that this candid wording could make his proposition sound like the subjective opinion of a social meddler. So he tarted up his proposition to sound like an axiom: “Science needs women.”

Of course, the proposition “Science needs women” is nothing more than a specific instance of the general proposition “Science needs scientists who have certain traits irrelevant to the work of scientists.” In his comment, Mr. Dalrymple disproves this general proposition by citing three laughably irrelevant traits: having a certain sexual fetish, participating in a certain sport, and being a member of a certain ethnic group.

The Takeaway: Reductio ad absurdum is a familiar way to disprove a proposition. It is effective (persuasive) and efficient (requiring few words).

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism (3) – McDonald’s

Most writers who make mistakes in grammar do it unintentionally. But some writers do it intentionally, in order to trick people. I call this behavior grammatical shysterism: abusing grammar as a shyster lawyer would abuse it.*

An example of grammatical shysterism

If you stop at the drive-through window at McDonald’s and ask for a Honey Mustard Snack Wrap, the cashier will ask, “grilled or crispy?” Every time, every cashier will ask it the same way: “grilled or crispy?”

And in writing, McDonald’s carefully uses the exact same language: “grilled or crispy.” Such diligent consistency in marketing is one characteristic of large, successful marketers.

However, there is an odd inconsistency within the phrase itself. It is grammatically non-parallel.** Grilled is a past participle referring to a specific method of cooking food. Crispy is an adjective describing food after it has been prepared by an unspecified method of cooking.

In short, McDonald’s uses the word crispy as a way to avoid saying the word fried. But why? 

Don’t speak of the devil

McDonald’s probably knows, from its extensive market research and concept testing, that many customers who believe fried food is unhealthy will buy it if the seller doesn’t actively remind them that the food has been fried. So McDonald’s, by consistently refusing to write or utter the word fried, is cheerfully helping these customers pretend that the chicken has not been fried.

Think I’m making this up? Look at the Honey Mustard Snack Wrap (Crispy) page on the web site. You will see the more-general words cooked and prepared. But not the more-specific word fried. Not even once.

This is egregious, malignant shysterism, reminiscent of U.S. President Bill Clinton’s infamous discussion of what the meaning of is is.

I could be wrong

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumptions. It is possible that the product is not fried. And is possible that all the creative directors, copywriters, editors, proofreaders, supervisors, marketing directors and marketing vice presidents at McDonald’s, the immensely successful global marketer, are just careless writers. Possible but improbable.

The Takeaway: It’s understandable and forgivable to make inadvertent mistakes in grammar; we all do it. But we should always avoid grammatical shysterism. If you’re an honest person, never talk or write like a shyster; people may assume that you are a shyster.

See disclaimer.

*Thanks to Janice L. Brown, a colleague and a clear writer, for coining the term grammatical shysterism.

**A famous example of non-parallelism is the question, “Do you like it better in the city or in the summer?”

Don’t abuse the conjunction “so”

Many Americans abuse the conjunction so. For example, they use it at the beginning of a response to a question:

Interviewer: Let’s go on to another topic: broad-base tax vs. single tax. What is your position?

Interviewee: So broad-base is fairer and is more conducive to community prosperity.

Analysis

The interviewee is insinuating that he has already presented, or at least mentioned, the evidence on which he bases his position. He resorts to insinuation because he knows that a direct statement would sound ridiculous to the interviewer and to intelligent members of the audience:

Interviewer: Let’s go on to another topic: broad-base tax vs. single tax. What is your position?

Interviewee: That’s why I believe that broad-base is fairer and is more conducive to community prosperity.

In 2012, this usage began to spread rapidly; now you hear it almost every day. It annoys intelligent listeners and makes them suspicious of the speaker's honesty.

The Takeaway: Using the conjunction so to insinuate that you have presented or mentioned evidence is a childish trick. If you wish to be taken seriously by intelligent adults, try to avoid imitating this puerile nonsense.

See disclaimer.

Don’t abuse the adverb “though”

Many Americans abuse the adverb though by gratuitously adding it to a response to a question:

Person A: What’s your son majoring in?

Person B: He’s majoring in electrical engineering. He’s doing really well, though.

Analysis

It’s natural for a proud parent to report, even without direct prompting, that his child is doing well in college. However, B’s addition of though suggests an irrational subtext: B imagines that A asked the question maliciously, in order to set up an opportunity to say that B’s son has chosen too difficult a major for him.

To defend his child against this imagined attack, B uses though to insinuate, “And I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking electrical engineering is a tough major. Well, it is. But in spite of that, he’s doing just fine, Mr. Smarty Pants.”

B senses that such a direct statement would immediately warn A that B is irrational, so B resorts to insinuation in an attempt to somehow make his point without revealing his irrationality.

It seems to me that many Americans, chiefly women, frequently use insinuation to defend themselves against imagined threats, criticisms and disagreements. Intelligent listeners see through the insinuation and head for the exits.

The Takeaway: Many speakers use the adverb though sneakily. It is all too easy to unconsciously absorb and imitate this habit. Always try to think before you speak.

See disclaimer.

Writing skills require maintenance

A new study shows that the readability of legal briefs significantly declined between 1969 and 2008. The study suggested that the lawyers believed their writing was not bad enough to affect the results of their cases and that they saw “no benefit to the time-consuming and difficult task of changing their writing styles.”

I would add: The lawyers, having decided not to do anything to improve their writing, wrongly assumed that their writing would not deteriorate because of that decision. They did not realize that all kinds of skills deteriorate unless maintained. This is why, for example, musicians practice every day of their lives.

The Takeaway: Like every American, you hear and read thousands of words of bad English every day. Unless you apply a little conscious effort, you will unconsciously assimilate more and more of that bad English as time goes by. Eventually you will sound indolent, effeminate, semi-literate and childish, like most Americans today. That may be good enough for Boobus Americanus. However, you and I are writers; it is not good enough for us. We have pride of craftsmanship.

See disclaimer.

Thanks to Cheryl Stephens for pointing out the article about the study.

Grammatical shysterism (2)

Here’s another example of grammatical shysterism, the deceptive use of grammar:

When the U.S. Department of Justice “admitted it knew its central contention was false” in its prosecution of a businessman, an employee of the department commented, “Defendants aren’t entitled to a perfect trial. . . . Misstatements happen.”

Analysis

The Department of Justice employee chose a grammatical structure that avoids any mention of human beings. She avoided saying “we lied” or “Justice lied” or “the prosecutor lied” – or even “we misstated” or “Justice misstated” or “the prosecutor misstated.”

In effect the employee said, “They were not lies at all; they were misstatements. And those misstatements made themselves; nobody at Justice made them.”

Of course, grown-ups easily see through such childish deceptions.

The Takeaway: If you resort to grammatical shysterism, you will sound like a pathetic child.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism

If you are striving to write clearly, you should carefully avoid grammatical shysterism, the deceptive use of grammar. Here’s a classic example of grammatical shysterism:

WBBM-TV, a CBS affiliate, interviewed a four-year-old boy on camera and then edited the interview to distort the meaning of his words. When other journalists exposed this offense, WBBM-TV issued the following statement:

“We accept responsibility for the mistakes that were made, both in the reporting and editing of the story. The video of the child should not have aired. As soon as news management identified the problem, they took immediate steps to ensure that the video would not air in subsequent newscasts. In addition, we have followed up with our employees to make sure that we all have learned from the mistakes that were made.”

Analysis

When referring to the making, editing and broadcasting of the offensive video, the statement uses either passive voice:

mistakes that were made

or reflexive voice:

The video… should not have aired

When referring to what the station did after it got caught broadcasting the offensive video, the statement uses active voice every time:

We accept

news management identified

they took

we have followed up

we all have learned

The grammar suggests that a mischievous video aired itself on WBBM-TV but diligent managers at WBBM-TV immediately took steps to prevent that sneaky little video from airing itself again.

The Takeaway: Don’t slip into the habit of using grammatical shysterism; it will make you sound like a shyster.

Thanks to Janice L. Brown, a colleague and clear writer, for coining the term grammatical shysterism.

See disclaimer.