Other Definitions
weasel word (dict)
|
Weasel WordA weasel word is a word intended to soften the force of a statement and/or make an assertion as though one is just conveying some other's opinion. For example, "Critics say he should go to jail" instead of "I say he should go to jail." Though the imagery of the term suggests that it implies the concept of a weasel as being sneaky and able to wiggle out of a tight spot, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says that the term actually comes from the weasel's ability to suck the contents out of an egg without breaking the shell; thus, weasel words suck the meaning out of a statement while seeming to keep the idea intact. Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive or draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result of the speaker's or writer's poor but honest attempt at description. Weasel words or terms English speakers are often exhorted to avoid weasel words or terms in public discourse. It is difficult to define exactly what these terms are and all examples vary with the situations in which they are being used. Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English. There are various ways we may consider weasel words. Syntax, part of which is missing In certain kinds of advertisements, for example, the part of the syntax that would normally establish the validity of a statement is missing or is being withheld deliberately in the expectation that the listener or reader will complete the message subliminally and so will be influenced by it: - "... is now 20% cheaper" (It is now 20% cheaper than what?)
- "There is more goodness in ..." (How is this goodness measured and of what does it consist?)
- "More people than ever are using ..." (What does that mean in numbers?)
- "New and improved ..." (Improved in which qualities? If it is improved, how can it also be new ?)
- "Our ... will never be cheaper." (Is this accounting for inflation? Is your profit margin thin enough that you could not have a cheaper sale next year?)
One way to counter phrases such as these is consciously to complete them to oneself and thus establish in one's mind their validity or lack thereof. The message A speakers use of weasel words obscures the fact he has omitted vital information that is unsuitable to the message of which he is trying to convince an audience. He uses jargon in embellishing unpalatable truths to the extent that none of these adverse realities surface in his expositions. He employs the vocabulary that heightens the expectations of his audience without his being in the position of fulfilling these expectations. Claims about the truth of a subject at an earlier time when the truth could not have been ascertained because of a lack of hard facts, will become much harder to verify when weasel words have been used in the meantime. This may often be seen when a politician for example, tries to alter the later perception of an original speech. Generalization in the use of weasel words Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps the speaker or writer disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what he has said. - "People say"
- "Few of those who knew the truth have spoken up for "
- "Sometimes it is difficult to do something about it."
- "It has been decided that..."
Who are the people who say ..., who are the people who knew the truth and who ought to have spoken up, and when are the times when it is difficult to do something about something? What has been decided by whom? In the following phrases, an indication of where or how the stories started would have removed the weaseling effect: - "It has been mentioned he has embezzled money." (Who mentioned it?)
- "Rumour has it that she has left him." (Where was this rumor published or spread?)
Not all generalization is wrong It must be said, however, that away from the dissembling functions applied to it by the weasellers, generalization through grammatical devices such as quantifiers and the passive voice does indeed have a valid and valuable point in introducing facts that are beyond the proof of direct citation. When it is impracticable, if not impossible, to enumerate and cite too many individual voices, or the voices are too remote in time, then the use of these grammatical devices perfectly conforms to the standards established by tradition. Examples here are: - "It is often disputed that"
- "Hard as it may be for modern readers to accept"
- "As the wits put it"
- "For scientists as for so many others, evolution served as an example of a fundamental challenge to long-held convictions".
Also rhetorically valid is the use of the neuter pronoun it as an impersonal dummy when an author intends to distance himself from what he has written, or to separate one part of the text from another: - "At the beginning, it was the train that was late."
- "It was a matter of total indifference that"
- "Where was it again when we first met?"
Summing up It is through the eye that the beholder, or through the ear that the listener perceives a weasely statement. The readership or audience soon catches out the writer or speaker who tries to persuade them in this way. However, the author whose generalizations honestly point to valid common experiences will find acceptance of this style by the readers who will understand what he wants to convey.
|
 |