Intissar
Greene
Using
Language to Influence Thought
Language is a fundamental component of the human
experience. It allows us to turn our
thoughts into meaningful words. At
around age five, the focus on language changes from acquiring and producing
words, phrases, and sentences, to actually thinking about language itself
(Weiten 238). During this time of “metalinguistic awareness”, we begin to
“play with language” (jokes), recognize sarcasm, and understand double meanings
(238). Clearly, language expresses
thought, but can language influence thought? Indeed, semantic slanting and name-calling are two concepts of
language that have noticeable effects on individual thought and behavior (Lutz
1-9)(Nielsen).
Semantics pertains to the shared meaning of words, or
groups of words (“Semantics”). The
phrase “elderly man” conveys a mutual meaning with others who speak our
language. Semantic slanting, however,
refers to “deliberately choosing words to create specific emotional responses”
(Weiten 258). For example, the words
“elderly man” take on a different emotional response when replaced by the
phrase “old geezer”. Semantic slanting
may serve several purposes such as protecting emotions from harsh realities,
promoting a certain behavior, or altering ideas and beliefs. Additionally, it may influence witness
recall, sway social and cultural perceptions, and perpetuate ignorance or hate.
When faced with the inevitable, large structures
within society make frequent use of semantic slanting to protect the emotions
of the masses. Instead of “bombing the
enemy”, the military chooses the phrase “sending in air support” (Lutz
10). Corporations select the word
“downsizing” as a replacement for the phrase “laid off” (127). Government seeks to assuage disgruntled citizens
by “increasing domestic revenue” rather than “raising taxes” (201). These semantic language techniques influence
our thoughts by pointing our emotions toward something more palatable and
agreeable.
Similarly,
advertisers use language to point us toward a certain behavior (buying) while
adding the emotional element of feeling good about that behavior. In 1950, Kellogg’s introduced the cereal
“Sugar Pops”. During the 1970s,
Kellogg’s changed the name to “Corn Pops”; however, the ingredients remained
unchanged (Hemmelgarn).
Advertisers understood that the collective meaning of the word “corn”
conjured up healthier connotations than the word “sugar”; therefore, consumers
felt better about purchasing the product.
The creativity of semantic slanting in consumerism has manufactured the
terms “pre-owned” (used), “faux” (fake), and “manufactured housing community”
(trailer park)(Lutz 6). Advertisers
want to sell products; however, other groups in society are selling something
different - agendas.
Groups with
special interests and beliefs make keen use of semantics to further their
agendas. Anti-abortionists adopted the
phrase “pro-life”. To evoke strong
emotions, they “frequently use the words ‘baby’ and ‘kill’ in the same
sentences” (Halpern 108). Consequently,
groups favoring abortions changed their label to “pro-choice” (108). Neither group wanted to be against
anything. Furthermore, semantic
slanting in politics often implies a subtle threat to our opinions. The phrase “All good Americans will agree…”
uses risky logic since disagreement means that one is not a good American
(Weiten 259). People who want to
purport their political ideas may result to using phrases in an oversimplified
labeling format. “Bleeding-heart
liberals” and “right-wingers” are tidy names that tend to generalize complex
issues into an all or nothing scenario, forcing an individual to one side or
the other.
Carefully chosen words can challenge and
shape beliefs concerning the world around us; remarkably, semantic slanting can
shape our memory itself. In a study by
E. F. Loftus and J.C. Palmer, participants viewed a videotape of a car
accident. After viewing, participants
asked about the crash reported only minor damage when asked a question that
contained the word “hit”. One week
later, the viewer answered the same question; however, instead of the word
“hit”, the question contained the word “smashed”. Contrary to their original
eyewitness reports, thirty-two percent of the individuals reported more damage
(some of it imaginary) to the question that contained the word “smashed”
(589). In this case, the semantic
slanting resembled delicate verbal trickery!
Alternately, semantic slanting can foster
accuracies. New terminology may reflect
outdated or uninformed social perceptions; for example, “Indians” became
“Native Americans”. Appropriately, the
phrase “deaf and dumb” evolved to “hearing impaired”. Because the word “foreign” implies strange or not pertinent,
“foreign students” became “international students”(Weiten 259). Language evolves within society; frequently,
perceptive phrases keep pace with positive changes in social
consciousness. Unfortunately, social
consciousness is not always positive.
From the
political showground to the school playground, name-calling can sustain ideas
of intolerance and stereotyping.
Name-calling, including words such as “moron”, “chick”, “rag head”, or
“fatso”, differs from semantic slanting in that “it is not subtle, and is easy
to recognize” (Weiten 258).
Name-calling appears at its worst when a language of hate (hate speech)
takes aim against ethnic groups, minorities, and women. Hate speech influences societal perceptions
that can leave the targeted individual with a devastated or distorted
perception of self worth (Nielsen).
Agendas repeatedly engaging in the use of hate speech “reinforces racist
attitudes and the belittling of minorities” (Calvert). Although hate speech may or may not result
in violence, the legal debate continues whether hate speech itself is a form of
violence (Nielsen).
Critical
thinking gives greater awareness of how language influences thought and
behavior. The modification to one’s
personal thoughts that result from the effects of semantic slanting,
name-calling, or hate speech hampers personal investigation and individual free
will. Remaining vigilant to the power
of language will ensure that our actions are informed and our beliefs are
genuine.
Calvert,
Clay. “Hate Speech and Its Harms: A
Communication Theory Perspective.” Journal
of Communication 47.1 (1997).
Abstract. InfoTrac Expanded
Academic ASAP. MCC at Red Mountain
Library, Mesa AZ. 13 Mar. 2003.
Halpern, D. F. Thought and knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Mahwah: Erlbaum. 1996.
Hemmelgarn,
Melinda. A Sugar Pop is a Sugar Pop. Human Environmental Services Extension’s
Resource. 14 Mar. 2003.
<http://outreach.missouri.edu/hesnutnews/fnr88-97/fnr91-4.htm>.
Loftus, E.
F., and J. C. Palmer. “Reconstruction
of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and
Memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior 37 (1974): 585-589.
Lutz,
W. Doublespeak. New York: Harper Perennial. 1989.
Nielsen,
Laura Beth. “Subtle, Pervasive,
Harmful: Racist and Sexist Remarks in Public as Hate Speech.” Journal of Social Issues 58.2 (2002):
InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP.
MCC at Red Mountain Library, Mesa AZ.
13 Mar. 2003.
“Semantics”. Def. 1.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. Vol. 2.
5th ed. 1983.
Weiten,
Wayne. Psychology Themes and
Variations: Briefer Version. 5th
ed. Belmont: Wadsworth-Thompson Learning.
2002.