CHAPTER
LIVING WITH
YOUR LANGUAGE
OBJECTIVES
On completing this chapter you should be able to do the following:
1. Identify and explain three myths of language.
2. Draw, label, and discuss the "triangle of meaning" as proposed by
Ogden and Richards.
3. Defend the argument that meanings are in people, not in the dictionaries.
4. Define "denotation" as it relates to meaning.
5. Define "connotation" as it relates to meaning.
6. Explain what is meant by a "Humpty Dumpty attitude" about meaning.
7. Take a stand on the issue of equivocation or strategic ambiguity in
our dealings with others.
8. List the three factors generally contributing to any misunderstandings
related to meaning.
9. Define the term "newspeak," and identify current examples.
10. Give two examples of "embellishment" as a communication device.
177
"
178
THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
11. Diagram a continuum of language pollutions in their order of ethical
purpose.
12. Distinguish among the statements about observation, inference, and
judgment, giving original examples of each.
INTRODUCTION
Language is the tool you use for sharing experiences with others and for
coping with your real world. You construct meaning for yourself by using
symbols, and with language you can influence others for good or ill. What
you call "meaning" involves what you select to pay attention to and how
you share those perceptions with others. The more you know about how
meaning happens, the more effective you may be as a communicator.
MYTHS ABOUT
MEANING
Problems you may have about getting others to understand you may be
partly caused by one or more of the myths many people have about
language and meaning. Only part of human difficulties are caused by
what people don't know-the rest are caused by what people think they
know but is actually wrong.
Myth 1: Words
Have Meaning
Meaning is sometimes thought to be contained in words in a more or less
permanent, logical, obvious, natural, and predictable way. In that myth,
meaning comes already attached to the words you use, and all you need
to do is give someone your words and the meanings go right along with
them.
Meaning, however, is the relationship which you make between a
symbol and what that symbol stands for. Meaning is in people, not in
words. The words are simply used to "call up" m~anings in others and
yourself when you see or hear them.
Symbols and
Relating a word to what that word stands for is done in the minds of the
speakers-listeners. Since the meanings are made by people, the meanings
are arbitrary. They change. Only when you have some agreement between people about what words "mean" can you achieve more accurate
communication. Figure 8-1 helps support our contention that ''words
don't mean; people mean" where Ogden and Richards refer to the indirectness of the relation between words and things. 1 We have adapted the
original Odgen and Richards diagram so that you may compare meaning
to a baseless triangle in which three points are represented by an object
in your world (in this case a drawing of a four-footed canine creature), a
symbol which stands for that object (it could be a noise as well as squiggles
on paper), and a human being. Any relationship between the object and
the word can be made only through the human mind. This triangle has
no base, because there is no necessary connection between the word
"dog" and the beast running around. Calling the object by that particular
referents
179
LIVING WITH YOUR LANGUAGE
In New York
In Mexico City
In Paris
Thought or reference
Thought or reference
Thought or reference
chien
perro
Symbol
Referent
Symbol
Referent
Symbol
Referent
FIGURE 8-1
There is no direct relationship between the "referent" (the thing you are talking or writing about) and the "symbol"
(the words you use). Only as these referents and symbols are related through' the thoughts of a person (reference) do
they have meaning. Meaning is not in the object or in the symbol but in the interaction of these through the human
communicator.
name, that set of letters in that particular order, reflects only the fact that
at some time people have agreed to do it that way. Thus the symbol came
to "mean" the object in our mythology of language use.
Dictionaries and
meaning
You might object to our statement that words don't have meanings. What
about dictionaries? Aren't they the supreme authorities on meanings of
words? Isn't that where you go when you want to look up the "meaning"
of a word? That's another myth. What dictionaries give us is a record of
what words have meant to speakers of that language, or how people in
certain parts of the society have been using words up to the time the
dictionary went to press.
Dictionaries also give you a list of various usages of words at different
BOX 8-1.
How's That Again?
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure
that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
In this statement is contained the core of the many communication
mishaps that plague your personal and professional life.
180
THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
times, in different parts of the world. The trouble with this historical record,
however, is that no dictionary can predict with any great assurance exactly
how the next person you meet may be using the word in a message.
Thus, although dictionaries are good for many purposes-for documenting how words have been used, for pronunciation preferences, for showing word origins, for settling bets about "meanings," and for looking up
words for Scrabble-they do not provide you with a "true" meaning of
words detached from the people using them.
;
Levels of meaning:
Denotation and
connotation
If meanings are inside people, what is the chance that two speakers will
have close enough to the "same" meanings that they can communicate
effectively? How can you be sure your words are understood the way
you "meant" them? 2:._1:Je answer is, you can't always be sure. You are
more likely to be understood if you talk about objects which you can
point to, or which have some width, height, weight, or color about them.
BOX 8-2.
Cocklebur and Lint Theory of Meaning
As a humorous demonstration in a workshop, this "theory" was developed by the authors to show how we acquire different meanings for
words based on our personal experiences. It is a way of describing the
difference between denotative meaning (the cocklebur) and connotative
meaning (the lint).
We found a collection of cockleburs, those seed pods which a
number of different plants produce. They were about half an inch long,
were shaped like a small football, and had a number of sticky, thorny
bristles.
Each participant in the workshop was given a cocklebur to carry for
a week-in a pocket, purse, jacket, trousers-wherever there was a place
for this prickly little seed pod. At the end of the week all participants
were supposed to check what had happened to their own cockleburs
and compare them with those carried by others.
Cockleburs pick up lint from pockets the same way they attach
themselves to the fur of animals, which is nature's way of distributing
the seeds of the original plant. In a week's time the original cocklebur is
nearly covered with bits of lint, threads, dust, and other collected debris,
so that one can barely make out the original bur.
As the workshop participants learned, everybody had some of his
or her own special lint on the spines of the bur, just as we all pick up
our own connotations for words. The original burs were very much
alike-the denotative meaning--compared with the differences added
to the original meaning by our association (lint)-the connotative meaning. The analogy was clear.
LIVING WITH YOUR LANGUAGE
181
"Please pass the salt" will likely get you the saltshaker. "Please respect
me" may not get you anything but a quizzical look. What's the difference?
The objective "salt" can be seen, pointed to, and acted on with some
degree of assurance that it is what you are both talking about. Salt, in
this case, has a denotative meaning, or one which can be pointed to,
"out there." You and the other person can probably agree on that item
from your common experience and from the label you put on it.
The subjective ''respect,'' on the other hand, is pretty hard to point
to ("give me two tablespoons of respect ... ") and has what we call a
connotative meaning. There is no referent in the real world easily obtainable to both of you, and for that reason you must depend on the meaning
of this word to come solely out of the experiences you have had with it.
Different people want to have different things happen when they talk
about "respect," and you may have trouble defining the term unless you
and the others have had very much the same background and similar
expectations of an outcome. 2
Connotative meanings are more likely to be personal, private, complex, and hard-to-pin-down than are denotative meanings. But even the
denotative meanings will depend to some extent on what similarities and
differences we choose to pay attention to in the referent.
Myth 2: A Word
Has Only One
Meaning
Communication would be quite simple-and also quite limited-if each
word had only one meaning and everybody could agree to it. It is possible
for you to act as if a word has only one meaning, even if you are aware
of this myth. 3 When you talk with others or about others, you may try to
BOX 8-3.
Will You Run Out of Meanings?
Communication would be rather simple if each symbol could refer to
only one unique unit of experience. You often are under the delusion
that one word equals one usage-one way of using it. Take the word
"run" as an example. You can
Run a 50-yard sprint
Run a business
Run your hose
Have a runny nose
Have a run of cards
Run your household the way you like
Run out of time
Run out of cereal
Run out on somebody
Run over someone with your car
182
THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
impose your one-and-only meaning on such words as "honesty," "patriotism," "loyalty," "respect," "love," "cheating," "success," "hard work,"
''friendship,'' ''expensive,'' ''beautiful,'' ''intelligent,'' or ''crazy.''
Making words mean what you want them to mean-like Humpty
Dumpty in Box 8-4-is a kind of conceit which says that there is only
one meaning for a word and it is mine. You should know, however, that
only about 500 words are commonly used in the everyday conversation
of Americans. Even more significant, however, is the fact that those 500
most commonly used words have some 14,000 different definitions (or
"meanings"?) listed in the dictionary-an average of 28 different ways
which somebody, at some time, has reportedly used each word.
,
Myth 3:
Ambiguous
Meanings Are
Always Bad
Teachers, parents, counselors, and almost all people who work in communication spend much of their time trying to get everybody to communicate more clearly, more precisely, more accurately. In this quest for
clarity, even this textbook will present in the forthcoming pages a discussion of "language pollution" which calls for an awareness of how language
can mislead you and how you can be victimized by unreliable communication. Before we make a case for clear communication, however, let's
BOX 8-4.
The Humpty Dumpty Attitude
For those of you who use jargon, or have ties to dialects, there is a
message in the speaking patterns invented by Lewis Carroll which can
show you how your language can be turned into "jabberwocky." The
story of Alice in Wonderland has some remarkable commentaries about
the semantic world you may invent and how you may try to make sense
out of word foolishness. The following selection underscores the importance of meaning and the effect it has on communication:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell
you. I mean 'there is a nice knockdown argument for you.'"
"But glory does not mean 'a nice knockdown argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.''
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master, that's
all."*
*Lewis Carroll, A/ice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass
and The Hunting of the Snark, Modern Library, Inc., New York, 1925, pp. 246247.
LIVING WITH YOUR LANGUAGE
183
explore the somewhat revolutionary idea that under some circumstances
it might be important to be ambiguous in your communication-to equivocate.
Relationships are
complex
ways
com-
Life is not simple. What you want to have happen in your relations with
others may be complicated-in fact, one of your desired outcomes may
be quite opposite from another. If you want to spend time with two
different people but don't want to hurt either's feelings, how do you avoid
making trouble with a communicatively clear statement such as "I'm going
to date Jim (or Sally) tonight, but would enjoy seeing you on Friday."
Advice to married couples from counselors sometimes suggests being
ambiguous about responses to information demands from the partner.
Professional politicians have a reputation of being disarmingly vague,
but we see the same behaviors in our everyday interpersonal transactions
as well.
A politician facing a large crowd of voters has to decide which statements about a troublesome issue will best represent (1) the possibility of
support from his friends, (2) the possibility of the least damage or alienation of neutrals or others, (3) what positions were stated in the past, (4)
what positions are likely to be held in the future, and (5) the politician's
own sense of integrity and honor. Equivocation may be the best solution,
since no clear, unequivocal statement will begin to meet all those needs.
One seasoned political figure had a favorite disarming answer when asked
for his stand on what he knew to be a controversial issue: "You can count
on me there, my friend. I'm all right on that one ..." 4
In daily relationships, faced with trying to figure out how someone
will react to a request we want to make, or just to anticipate how to begin
a conversation, we make ambiguous opening statements. Have you ever
had a person come into your room while you are obviously studying and
ask, "Hey, are you busy ... ?" or "You got a minute?" Telephone open-
BOX 8-5.
Tragic Truth Telling
Little white lies, equivocation, or ambiguous answers are often considered socially acceptable forms of deception if feelings or sensibilities are
spared. Example: After the very sudden death of his wife, a man we
know approached the attending physician and in a tearful voice asked,
"Doctor, was there anything I should have done that I didn't do?" The
doctor proceeded to tell the bereaved husband that he should have
brought his wife in for an examination many weeks earlier. Equivocation
at that moment might have greatly softened the guilt felt by the grieving
widower.
184
THE DYNAMICS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
ings are designed to explore not the clarity of the connection, but the
implicit interpersonal connection, as in the beginning question "Hi,
what're you doin'?" 5
Equivocation: Bad
people or bad
situations?
It is easy to say that some politicians are "slippery" or "evasive" or "speak
with forked tongue" and blame equivocation on some kind of self-serving
character flaw or evil personality trait, bordering on deliberate dishonest,
misleading behavior. One popular notion is that equivocation and ambiguous behaviors come from some inner personal fault-a weakness of
character, a lack of ethics, a dishonest tendency, an immoral attitude.
Based on their research, Bavelas et a!. present the argument for a
situational theory: 6
We propose that, although an individual equivocates, he or she is not the
cause of equivocation. Rather, equivocation is the result of the individual's
communicative situation. Equivocation is avoidance; it is the response chosen
when all other communicative choices in the situation would lead to negative
consequences. 7
These researchers found, among other results, that people would choose
direct messages where there was no communicative conflict, and "thus,
situation determined the choice of message." 8
A rich lexicon of words for "evasive actions" is included in this report,
involved with metaphors for the act of being caught, such as "on the
spot"; "in a bind" or "pinch" or "squeeze"; being "between a rock and
a hard place," so as to make a person "straddle the fence," "skirt the
issue," "dodge," "duck," "sidestep," "pussyfoot," "weasel," "vacillate,"
"beat around the bush," "waffle," or "back and fill." 9
The great number of terms we have in our language relating to this
activity of indirection or evasion could indicate that we must have a lot of
it around-for the same reason the Eskimo has so many different words
for snow.
Equivocation: The
plus side
''Little white lies'' permit you to tell your friends that their haircuts look
great, that they are really not getting fat, that their term papers are really
well written, or that it was really no bother for you to drive all the way
across town to pick up the assignment.
Open communication in your relationships--personal or professional-may not be the only, or even sometimes the best, way to conduct
your affairs. If you have multiple or competing goals to accomplish with
your communication, it can be difficult for you to be unerringly clear and
unambiguous as you speak or write to accomplish those goals.
Eric Eisenberg and others suggest the term "strategic ambiguity" to
describe the effective activities of organizational communicators faced with
"striking a balance between being understood, not offending others, and
The
Inc.)
LIVING WITH YOUR LANGUAGE
185
Little white lies: "He's on a
diet. Tell him he looks thin."
(Drawing by Modell;© 1984
The New Yorker Magazine,
Inc.)
maintaining one's own self-image." 10 The problems of trying to balance
such competing needs as Eisenberg describes are, of course, not limited
to communication in organizations. They may be present in your everyday
behaviors with others in social settings, in marriage, in college classes, and
in family interactions. Still another fertile field for ambiguous messages,
the law, has been mentioned by Wendell Johnson, who himself dedicated
his lifetime to helping people toward effective interpersonal communication:
The fact of ambiguity is not necessarily negative. Consider the writing of
legislation, for example. Laws must have a certain vagueness fringe, a certain
amount of ambiguity, if they are to have the most desirable effect for the
greatest number of people. Yet if they are too ambiguous nobody will know
how to apply or enforce them. And if they are too specific they won't be
applicable in many situations. Ambiguity is fascinating. 11
We are avoiding using the terms "good" and "bad" to refer to the ways
USING
LANGUAGE
in which people use language. Ethics in the use of language is of great
EFFECTIVELY RED importance to us, and we like to think that most communicators intend
to do others no harm, and further intend their actions to fit the values
HIGHLIGHTED
and norms of the society they are communicating in. 12 Every societyTEXTevery
NOTprofession-has in it people who will abuse others by whatever
means
they can. Unfortunately, as we discuss later in this chapter, language
FOR READING
is power and it is not really too difficult for people to use the power of
language for unethical or immoral ends if they choose to do so.