3.3 Improving Word Use

Have you ever gotten lost because someone gave you directions that didn’t make sense to you? Have you ever puzzled over the instructions for how to put something like a bookshelf or a barbecue together? When people don’t use words well, there are consequences that range from mild annoyance to legal action. When people do use words well, they can be inspiring and make us better people. In this section, we will learn how to use words well by using them clearly, affectively, and ethically.

Using Words Clearly

The level of clarity with which we speak varies depending on whom we are talking to, the situation we’re in, and our own intentions and motives. We sometimes make a deliberate effort to speak as clearly as possible. We can indicate this concern for clarity nonverbally by slowing our rate of speech and increasing our volume, or verbally by saying, “Frankly, …” or “Let me be clear, … .” Sometimes it can be difficult to speak clearly; for example, when we are speaking about something with which we are unfamiliar. Emotions and distractions can also interfere with clarity. Being aware of the varying levels of abstraction within language can help us create clearer and more complete messages.

Ladder of Abstraction

The Ladder of Abstraction refers to the continuum of language from concrete to abstract. Another way to view this is that concrete words are more specific and clear and abstract words are more vague. As we follow a concept up the Ladder of Abstraction, more and more of the “essence” of the original object is lost or left out, which leaves more room for interpretation, which can then lead to misunderstanding. This process of abstracting—of leaving things out—allows us to communicate more effectively because it serves as a shorthand that keeps us from having a completely unmanageable language filled with millions of words, each referring to one specific thing (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). However, abstracting requires us to use context and often other words to generate shared meaning. Some words are more directly related to a concept or idea than others. If I asked you to take a photo of a book, you could do that. If I asked you to take a photo of “work,” you couldn’t because work is an abstract word that was developed to refer to any number of possibilities from the act of writing a book, to repairing an air conditioner, to fertilizing an organic garden. You could take a photo of any of those things—that is, of people doing work—but you can’t take a picture of “work.”

At the lowest level of the Ladder of Abstraction, we have something that is very concrete (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). At this level we are actually in the moment of experiencing the stimuli that is coming in through our senses. We perceive the actual thing, for example, the concept of a “cow” in front of us, either the actual animal or as an image. It is concrete because it is unmediated, meaning that it is actually the moment of experience. As we move up a level on the ladder, we give the experience a name—we are looking at “Bessie.” So now, instead of the direct experience with the “thing” in front of us, we have given the thing a name, which takes us one step away from the direct experience to the use of a more abstract symbol. Now we can talk and think about Bessie even when we aren’t directly experiencing her. At the next level, the word “cow” now lumps Bessie in with other bovine creatures that share similar characteristics. As we go on up the ladder, “cow” becomes “livestock,” the “livestock” becomes an “asset,” and then an “asset” becomes “wealth.” Note that it becomes increasingly difficult to define the meaning of the symbol as we go up the ladder, and with each step we lose more of the characteristics of the original concrete experience. Table 3.1 below provides an illustration of the example provided above of the Ladder of Abstraction.

Table 3.1. Example of the Ladder of Abstraction

When shared referents are important, we should try to use language that is lower on the ladder of abstraction, which means the language is more concrete and specific. Being intentionally concrete is useful when giving directions, for example, and can help prevent misunderstandings. But we sometimes intentionally use abstract language. Because abstract language is often unclear or vague, we can use it as a means of testing out a potential topic (like asking a favour), offering negative feedback indirectly (to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or to hint), or avoiding the specifics of a topic.

Definitions and Clarity

Knowing more about the role that abstraction plays in the generation of meaning can help us better describe and define the words we use. As we learned earlier, denotative definitions are those found in the dictionary—the official or agreed-on definitions. Since definitions are composed of other words, people who compile dictionaries take for granted that there is a certain amount of familiarity with the words they use to define another word, otherwise we would just be going in circles. One challenge we face when defining words is our tendency to go up the ladder of abstraction rather than down (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). For example, if you are asked to define the word blue, you’d likely say it’s a colour. If you were then asked what a colour is, you’d say it’s a tint or characteristic of the appearance of a particular thing. To define it more clearly by going down the Ladder of Abstraction, you could say, “It’s the colour of Frank Sinatra’s eyes,” or “It’s the colour of the sky on a clear day.” People often come to understanding more quickly when a definition is descriptive and/or ties into their personal experiences. Definitions aren’t useless, but they are usually best when paired with examples.

Jargon refers to specialized words used by a certain group or profession. Since jargon is specialized, it is often difficult to relate to a diverse audience and should therefore be limited when speaking to people from outside the group, or at least be clearly defined when it is used.

Creating Whole Messages

There are four types of expressions—observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs. Whole messages include all the relevant types of expressions needed to most effectively communicate in a given situation, including what you see, what you think, what you feel, and what you need (McKay et al., 1995). Partial messages are missing a relevant type of expression and can lead to misunderstandings and conflict. Whole messages help keep lines of communication open, which can help build solid relationships. People can often figure out a partial message even if they can’t readily identify what has been left out. For example, if Omar says to Ivana, “I don’t trust Ranjeet any more,” Ivana may be turned off or angered by Omar’s conclusion (an expression of thought) about their mutual friend. However, if Omar recounts his observation of Ranjeet’s behaviour, how that behaviour made him feel, and what he needs from Ivana in this situation, she will be better able to respond.

While partial messages lack the relevant expressions needed to clearly communicate, contaminated messages include mixed or misleading expressions (McKay et al., 1995). For example, if Alyssa says to her college-aged daughter, “It looks like you wasted another semester,” she has contaminated observations, feelings, and thoughts. Although her statement appears to be an observation, there are underlying messages that would be better brought to the surface. To decontaminate her message and make it more whole and less alienating, Alyssa could more clearly express herself by saying, “Your dad and I talked, and he said you told him you failed your sociology class and are thinking about changing your major” (observation). “I think you’re hurting your chances of graduating on time and getting started on your career” (thought). “I feel anxious because you and I are both taking out loans to pay for your education” (feeling).

Messages in which needs are contaminated with observations or feelings can be confusing. For example, if Sanjay says to Cheng, “You’re so lucky—you don’t have to worry about losing your scholarship over this stupid biology final,” it seems like he’s expressing an observation, but it’s really a thought with an underlying feeling and need. To make the message more whole, Sanjay could bring the need and feeling to the surface by saying “I noticed you did really well on the last exam in our biology class” (observation). “I’m really stressed about the exam next week and the possibility of losing my scholarship if I fail it” (feeling). “Would you be willing to put together a study group with me?” (need). More clarity in language is important, but as we already know, communication isn’t just about exchanging information—the words we use also influence our emotions and relationships.

Using Words Affectively

Affective language refers to language used to express a person’s feelings and create similar feelings in another person (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Affective language can be used intentionally in relational contexts to create or enhance interpersonal bonds and can also be effectively employed in public speaking to engage an audience and motivate them in particular ways. We also use affective language spontaneously and less intentionally. People who “speak from the heart” connect well with others because of the affective nature of their words. Sometimes people become so filled with emotion that they have to express it, and these exclamations usually arouse emotions in others. Hearing someone exclaim, “I’m so happy!” can evoke similar feelings of joy, while hearing someone exclaim, “Why me?!” while sobbing conjures up similar feelings of sadness and frustration. There are also specific linguistic devices that facilitate affective communication.

Figurative Language

When people say something is a “figure of speech,” they are referring to a word or phrase that deviates from expectations in some way in either meaning or usage (Yaguello, 1998). Figurative language is the result of breaking semantic rules, but in a way that typically enhances meaning or understanding rather than diminishes it. To understand figurative language, a person has to be familiar with the semantic rules of a language and also with social norms and patterns within a cultural or language group, which makes it difficult for non-native speakers to grasp. Figurative language has the ability to convey much meaning in just a few words because some of the meaning lies in the context of usage (what a listener can imply by the deviation from semantic norms) and in the listener (how the listener makes meaning by connecting the figurative language to their personal experience). Some examples of figurative speech include simile, metaphor, and personification.

A simile is a direct comparison of two things using the words like or as. Similes can be very explicit for the purpose of conveying a specific meaning and can help increase clarity and lead people to personally connect to a meaning because they have to visualize the comparison in their mind. For example, Forrest Gump’s famous simile, “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get,” conjures up feelings of uncertainty and excitement. More direct similes such as “I slept like a baby” and “That bread was as hard as a rock” do not necessarily stir the imagination but still offer an alternative way of expressing something.

A metaphor is an implicit comparison of two things that are not alike or are not typically associated—the speaker says something is something else. For example, “She has a heart of gold” means that the person is generous and kind, not that that she literally has a heart made of gold. Or “He is a night owl,” meaning that the person likes to stay up late at night. Metaphors become meaningful because people realize the speaker’s purpose for relating two seemingly disparate ideas. They are figurative devices that can make our writing and speaking richer, but they require a person to balance creative associations among ideas with the common rules of the language if people are expected to figure out the meaning behind the association. A speaker must have the linguistic knowledge and insight to realize when a non-literal use of words or ideas will be more meaningful than a literal and conventional use of those words. Metaphors challenge the imagination, which can cause each person to make sense of the metaphor in their own way (Olbricht, 1968).

Many metaphors come from our everyday experiences. For example, many objects are implicitly compared to human body parts; for example, we say a clock has hands and a face. Personification means attributing human qualities or the characteristics of other living things to non-human objects or abstract concepts; for example, “The smiled down on the world.” This can be useful when trying to make something abstract more concrete and can create a sense of urgency or “realness” out of a concept that is hard for people to understand. Personification has been used successfully in public awareness campaigns because it allows people to identify with something they think might not be relevant to them, as you can see in the following example: “Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a sleeping enemy that lives in many people and will one day wake up and demand your attention if you do not address it now.”

Powerless Language

Powerless language is marked by hesitancy and distracts from the certainty of a statement (Johnson, 1987). All the types of powerless language shown below suggest a level of uncertainty and should be avoided because this type of language is not seen as strong communication (Johnson, 1987). There will be situations where it might be appropriate, but over all, phrases like those in the examples below should be avoided if possible.

Examples of types of powerless language (Johnson, 1987):

• Hedges: “kinda”,  “I think”, “I’m kinda angry”
• Hesitations: “uh,” “ah,” “um,” “Uh, can I talk to you about this?”
• Tag questions: “It sure is hot today, isn’t it?” “You’re coming with me, aren’t you?”
• Polite forms: “please,” “sir,” “ma’am,” “Excuse me, sir”
• Intensifiers: “so,” “very,” “I’m not very tired”
• Disclaimers: “I know this sounds ridiculous, but …”

Evocative Language

Vivid language captures people’s attention and their imagination by conveying emotions and action. Think of the array of mental images that a poem or a well-told story from a friend can conjure up. Evocative language can also lead us to have physical reactions. Words like shiver and heartbroken can bring up previous physical sensations related to the words. As a speaker, there may be times when creating a positive or negative reaction could be beneficial. Evoking a sense of calm could help you talk a friend through troubling health news. Evoking a sense of agitation and anger could help you motivate an audience to action. When we are conversing with a friend or speaking to an audience, we are primarily engaging others’ visual and auditory senses. Evocative language can help your conversational partner or audience members feel, smell, or taste something as well as hear it and see it. Good writers know how to use words effectively and affectively. A well-written story, whether it is a book or screenplay, will contain all the previous elements.

Using Words Ethically

We have learned that communication is irreversible. We have also learned that, among other things, the National Communication Association’s “Credo for Ethical Communication” states that we should be accountable for the long- and short-term effects of our communication (NCA, 1999). The way we talk, the words we choose to use, and the actions we take after we are finished speaking are all important aspects of communication ethics. Knowing that language can have real effects for people increases our need to be aware of the ethical implications of what we say. In this section, we will focus on civility and accountability.

Civility

Civility means being polite and courteous in our behaviour and speech. However, strong emotions regarding our own beliefs, attitudes, and values can sometimes lead to incivility in our verbal communication. Incivility occurs when a person deviates from established social norms and can take many forms, including insults, bragging, bullying, gossiping, swearing, deception, and defensiveness, among others (Miller, 2001). Some people lament that we live in a time when civility is diminishing, but because standards and expectations for what is considered civil communication have changed over time, this isn’t the only time such claims have been made (Miller, 2001). As individualism and affluence have increased in many societies, so have the number of idiosyncratic identities that people feel they have the right to express. These increases may contribute to the impression that society is becoming less civil, when in fact it is just becoming different. We tend to assume other people are like us, and we may be disappointed or offended when we realize they are not. Cultural changes have probably contributed to making people less willing to engage in self-restraint, which again would be seen as uncivil by people who prefer more restrained and self-controlled expression (Miller, 2001).

Some journalists, media commentators, and scholars have argued that the “flaming” that happens on comment sections of websites and blogs is a type of verbal incivility that presents a threat to our democracy (Brooks & Geer, 2007). Researchers have identified several aspects of online language use that are typically viewed as negative: name calling, character assassination, and the use of obscene language (Sobieraj & Berry, 2011). So what contributes to such uncivil behaviour both online and offline? The following are some common individual and situational influences that may lead to breaches of civility (Miller, 2001).

• Individual differences: Some people differ in their interpretations of civility in various settings, and some people have personality traits that may lead to actions deemed uncivil on a more regular basis.
• Ignorance: In some cases, especially in novel situations involving uncertainty, people may not know what the social norms and expectations are.
• Lack of skill: Even when we know how to behave, we may not be able to do it. Frustration may lead a person to revert to undesirable behaviour such as engaging in personal attacks during a conflict because they don’t know what else to do.
• Lapse of control: Self-control is not an unlimited resource. Even when people know how to behave and have the skill to respond to a situation appropriately, they may not do so. People who are careful to monitor their behaviour can have occasional slip-ups.
• Negative intent: Some people, in an attempt to break with conformity or challenge societal norms, or for self-benefit (publicly embarrassing someone in order to look cool or edgy), are openly uncivil. Such behaviour can also result from mental or psychological stress or illness.

One feature of communicative incivility is polarizing language—language that presents people, ideas, or situations as polar opposites. Such language exaggerates differences and overgeneralizes. Situations are rarely black or white, right or wrong, or good or bad. Only seeing two values and clearly accepting one and rejecting another indicates a lack of sophisticated or critical thinking. We don’t have to accept every viewpoint as right and valid, and we can hold strongly to our own beliefs and defend them without ignoring other possibilities or rejecting or alienating others. A person who says, “All police are corrupt,” is just as wrong as the police officer who says, “All drug users are scum.” By avoiding polarizing language, we keep a more open mind, which may lead us to learn something new. A citizen may have a personal story about a negative encounter with a police officer that could enlighten us on their perspective, but the statement that all police are corrupt falsely overgeneralizes that experience. Avoiding polarizing language can help us avoid polarized thinking, and the new information we learn may help us to better understand and advocate for our position. Avoiding sweeping generalizations allows us to speak more clearly and hopefully avoid defensive reactions from others that result from such blanket statements.

 Accountability

The complexity of our verbal language system allows us to present inferences as facts and mask judgements within seemingly objective or oblique language. As an ethical speaker and a critical listener, you must be able to distinguish between facts, inferences, and judgements (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Inferences are conclusions based on thoughts or speculation but not direct observation. Facts are conclusions based on direct observation or group consensus. Judgements are expressions of approval or disapproval that are subjective and not verifiable.

Linguists have noted that a frequent source of miscommunication is inference-observation confusion, or the misperception of an inference (a conclusion based on limited information) as an observation (an observed or agreed-on fact) (Haney, 1992). We can see the possibility for such confusion in the following example: If a student posts on a instructor-rating site the statement “This instructor grades unfairly and plays favourites,” then they are presenting an inference and a judgement that could easily be interpreted as a fact. By using some of the strategies discussed earlier for speaking clearly, the information can be presented in a more ethical way, for example, by using concrete and descriptive language and owning emotions and thoughts through the use of “I” language. To help clarify the message and be more accountable, the student could say, “I worked for three days straight on my final paper and only got a C,” which we will assume is a statement of fact. This could then be followed up with “But my friend told me she only worked on hers the day before it was due, and she got an A. I think that’s unfair and I feel like my efforts weren’t recognized by the instructor.” Of the last two statements, the first states what may be a fact (note, however, that the information is secondhand rather than directly observed), and the second states an inferred conclusion and expresses an owned thought and feeling. Sometimes people don’t want to mark their statements as inferences because they want to believe them as facts. In this case, the student may have attributed their grade to the instructor’s “unfairness” to cover up or avoid thoughts that the friend may be a better student in this subject area, a better writer, or a better student in general. Distinguishing between facts, inferences, and judgements, however, allows your listeners to better understand your message and judge the merits of it, which makes you more accountable and therefore a more ethical speaker.

The video below provides a overview of “I” and “you” statements and how to use them to communicate with others effectively.

(Drexel University Counseling Center, 2020)

In this section, we have provided some methods that can be used to improve language use and verbal communication. Because an integral component of verbal communication is also listening, we will now discuss the act of listening and how to become better listeners.

References

Drexel University Counseling Center. (2020, July 27). I-statements [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLtyFIvc46Y

Haney, W. V. (1992). Communication and interpersonal relations (6th ed). Irwin.

Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Johnson, C. E. (1987). An introduction to powerful and powerless talk in the classroom. Communication Education, 36, 167–172.

Kingwell, M. (1995). A civil tongue: Justice, dialogue, and the politics of pluralism. Pennsylvania State University Press.

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.

Miller, R. S. (2001). Breaches of propriety. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 29–58). American Psychological Association.

National Communication Association (NCA). (1999). NCA credo for ethical communication. https://www.natcom.org/sites/default/files/pages/1999_Public_Statements_NCA_Credo_for_Ethical_Communication_November.pdf

Olbricht, T. H. (1968). Informative speaking. Scott, Foresman and Co.

Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360

Yaguello, M. (1998). Language through the looking glass: Exploring language and linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Image Credits (images are listed in order of appearance)

Leiter ladder by Hedwig von Ebbel, Public domain

Rain of Happiness 2 by ISELAAJN, CC BY 2.0

Blog (1) by Cortega9, CC BY-SA 3.0

Police-IMG 4105 by Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR