El Justo
Deity
no - that's correct.
"The great relabeling" of American language and thought
- Thread starter Whomp
- Start date
Xenocrates
Deity
This is a very important point. There is a battle between various political groups to colour the meaning of words.
This process has been commented upon before many times, notably by Chomsky.
Eg. is it "Occupation of Iraq" or "Liberation of Iraq"?
Framing: When the speaker constructs his sentence in such a way as to inhibit debate into his proposition.
Example:
Alternative - ''tax reduction'' Same meaning, totally different ''colour''. Tax is a duty and those that are avoiding it are scoundrels - ''tax avoidance''. Tax burden etc etc.. It is hard to argue that tax is a good thing and without it society and the economy would collapse, not because the proposition is wild (in fact it's obviously true) but because the right have been more successful in manipulating language than the left.
I've had problems with this so many times, most recently on another thread here; people hear "Islamic Fundamentalist/Islamic terrorist" so often that they fail to understand that ''Islam'' isn't the cause of the terrorism.
Example 2:
"Looking for the weapons of mass destruction" - there no weapons of mass destruction but the construction of the phrase inhibits our understanding this.
Alternative "Looking for weapons of mass destruction" - leaving out ''the'' makes all the difference, but people are oblivious to it. Did you see the difference?
The passive form
I hate this; it hides a multitude of sins.
"Weapons of mass destruction have not been found" - passive form
"We did not find weapons of mass destruction" - active form
We use the passive to focus the reader's attention on or away from something/someone. In the active form the reader focusses on ''we'' in the passive they focuss on the weapons.
The passive form is used mostly in science - "The specimen was put into the beaker, but no zinc was found". The active form would be "I put the specimen into the beaker and I didn't find any zinc". The active form invites the question ''maybe you did it wrong?", but the passive form sounds clean and accurate. It doesn't matter who did it, the result would have been the same.
When journalists report statements coming from Israel, Palestine or Iran (and anywhere) they translate very carefully in order to take advantage of these subtle means of affecting the opinion of the listener. Be careful!
This process has been commented upon before many times, notably by Chomsky.
Eg. is it "Occupation of Iraq" or "Liberation of Iraq"?
Framing: When the speaker constructs his sentence in such a way as to inhibit debate into his proposition.
Example:
Alternative - ''tax reduction'' Same meaning, totally different ''colour''. Tax is a duty and those that are avoiding it are scoundrels - ''tax avoidance''. Tax burden etc etc.. It is hard to argue that tax is a good thing and without it society and the economy would collapse, not because the proposition is wild (in fact it's obviously true) but because the right have been more successful in manipulating language than the left.
I've had problems with this so many times, most recently on another thread here; people hear "Islamic Fundamentalist/Islamic terrorist" so often that they fail to understand that ''Islam'' isn't the cause of the terrorism.
Example 2:
"Looking for the weapons of mass destruction" - there no weapons of mass destruction but the construction of the phrase inhibits our understanding this.
Alternative "Looking for weapons of mass destruction" - leaving out ''the'' makes all the difference, but people are oblivious to it. Did you see the difference?
The passive form
I hate this; it hides a multitude of sins.
"Weapons of mass destruction have not been found" - passive form
"We did not find weapons of mass destruction" - active form
We use the passive to focus the reader's attention on or away from something/someone. In the active form the reader focusses on ''we'' in the passive they focuss on the weapons.
The passive form is used mostly in science - "The specimen was put into the beaker, but no zinc was found". The active form would be "I put the specimen into the beaker and I didn't find any zinc". The active form invites the question ''maybe you did it wrong?", but the passive form sounds clean and accurate. It doesn't matter who did it, the result would have been the same.
When journalists report statements coming from Israel, Palestine or Iran (and anywhere) they translate very carefully in order to take advantage of these subtle means of affecting the opinion of the listener. Be careful!
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Interesting post, Xenocrates. I recall when I took a Communications class last semester, we talked about how one can manipulate the connotation and attitude of a statement with the active/passive "versions" of it. It's a very tricky thing, the English language.
I wonder, do other languages have this sort of "linguistic loophole," for lack of a better word?
I wonder, do other languages have this sort of "linguistic loophole," for lack of a better word?
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
You should be glad, because the word "liberal" has replaced what we used to call you -- pinkos, communists, and subversives. 
I'm more than happy to go back to the old classifications.
I'm more than happy to go back to the old classifications.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
rmsharpe said:You should be glad, because the word "liberal" has replaced what we used to call you -- pinkos, communists, and subversives.
I'm more than happy to go back to the old classifications.
Me too, considering that from an old school political definition of liberal, just about everyone is.
Xenocrates said:
Are you a fan, or just have read him? This would explain alot to me about you.
Xenocrates said:
While I know the cause of terrorism is diverse, I think that in this case it isn't far fetched to say that Islam can lead to terrorist acts. Generally though, I use the term to describe the type of terrorism, such as area it occured and who commited it.
I don't want to take away form your post either btw, it was very articulate and accurate.
Xenocrates
Deity
Tulkas12 said:
1) I've read about Chomsky but I've never been so bored as to actually want to dive into one of his books. Bored enough to contemplate taking up knitting but not bored enough to read the Chom.
2) Thanks very much Tulk - you're not quite as bad as I assumed either!
I'm in China now and one thing you really notice is that the spin in the news is really easy to spot because they aren't so good at hiding it. Also the Shanghai 5 security group (that you Americans will be so scared of in the future) claim that the fact that English is not the language of discussion is a very positive thing.
Xenocrates said:
I would disagree with the Shanghai 5 then, and I do not veiw it as a negative thing that the English language is so well developed to be able to do this kind of thing with it.
As fot the scared part? I have no issue with half of China, the business half that is. The other half (militarty) tends to make threatening rhetorical statements that are usually uncalled for.
EdwardTking
Deity
I agree with the comments that the US right has been changing the language.
But the left has been doing this too by trying to change the meaning of words such as "marriage" to include long term homosexual partnerships.
But the left has been doing this too by trying to change the meaning of words such as "marriage" to include long term homosexual partnerships.
