Learning English with Englishinny is the place for advanced reading

            A cartoon shows two turkeys. One says impatiently, “Speak slowly. You know I don’t understand gobbledygook.”

            I have described the language of Watergate as a legitimate use – not a misuse – of language. Some readers, like the turkey in the cartoon, object.

People speak, intending to convey a meaning.  Others listen and interpret the meaning of the words they hear.  Since words have no specific meaning out of context, we select them in relation to our own personal experience, intention, and motivation.  Thus, on occasion we use a euphemism; that is, we choose a fair-sounding word or phrase for one that is, for any reason, objectionable.

            If we look at euphemism head-on, whether it is used in the intimacy of the family or in the public discussion of government policy, the motivation is to avoid objectionable language. Someone must be protected from embarrassment; someone might be deceived.

            At one extreme, euphemism is encouraged by a maudlin sensibility; at the other, by our slander and libel laws.  These euphemisms are generally accepted since they conform to traditional patterns and standards of behavior.  They are  legitimate, acceptable uses of language.  There remains, however, a vast middle-ground.  Here, objections to our choices are often heard, and people are accused of misuse or illegitimate use of language. Whereas intentions to deceive in one situation are acceptable, similar intentions in other situations are condemned.

            Such an approach confuses a major rule of the language game.  The use of euphemisms is natural to a speaker when he feels alternative choices are objectionable; that is objectionable from his point-of-view. His choice of words, however, might not be consistent with another's view.  That does not make his choice illegitimate.  What it does is provide an insight into the speaker.  It is he, not his language, which should be the subject of our attention.

            Thus, we should examine word choices not in the light of whether they are right or wrong, proper or improper.  We should examine them for insights into the speaker.  If one hears or reads a "bombing raid," for example, referred to as a "protective reaction strike," he should examine that particular choice of phrase not as right or wrong use of language, but in terms of the speaker's intention.  He will not, then, be confused by the surface meaning - the choice of phrase; he will understand the deep meaning: a "protective reaction strike" under the guise of any euphemism is a "bombing raid."  The useful question that emerges is, "Why did the speaker make that choice of phrase?" This focuses our attention not on a "misuse" of language but on the motivation and intention of the speaker where it belongs.

            The real danger of choosing euphemisms, though, is that an administration, for example, can soon encircle themselves within the language they use and not be able to see beyond it.  In the end, they not only deceive the public, they deceive themselves.  This danger was made manifestly clear as one Watergate defendant after another accused, avowed, or resignedly admitted that he had been deceived by his colleagues.  At that point-in-time, however, they were so ensnared in the language they were using that they were unaware of the deception. It was the administration - not their language - which needed to be changed.

            We can, I think, take a lesson from Langston Hughes: "I play it cool and dig all jive - That's the reason I stay alive - My motto as I live and learn - Is to dig and be dug in return."

                                                          Bill Reynolds