Doublespeak - ang tekst

In a section omitted fforn rhis abridgement of his chapter, Lutz discusses Ninetcen Eighcy- Four, the 1949 novel by George Orwell in which a frightening totalitarian State devises a language, called newspeak, to shape and contro! thought in politically acceptable forms. (For an example of Orwells writing, see p. 510.) — Eos.











Doublespeak
By William Lutz




Language is a tool, one of many human tools. But language is arguably our most important tool, for with it we have developed society and built civilization. However, like any other tool, language can be abused, used not to build but to destroy, not to communicate but to confuse, not to clarify but to obscure, not to lead but mislead. Moreover, language is a unique tool used not simply to communicate but to apprehend and even give shape to reality. Edward Sapir, in his essay "The Status of Linguistics as a Science," writes:

Language is a guide to 'social reality.'... it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems
of communication or reflection We see and hear
and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (162)

Benjamin Lee Whorf later extended Sapir's thesis to what became known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In 1940 Whorf also argued that each language conveys to its users a ready-made world view. "Every language ... incorporates certain points of view and certain patterned resistances to widely divergent points of view"(212). Whorf adds:

Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his
mental stock in trade the world is presented in a
kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic Systems in our minds. (212-213)

Language thus reflects our perception of reality, which in turn influences and shapes our reactions to people, events, and ideas. Language is a kind of conceptual blueprint used to organize our thoughts. In this sense, language becomes the means by which we
shape reality and the means by which we communicate our perceptions of reality to others. Language can easily distort perception and influence behavior and thus be a tool, or weapon, for achieving the greatest good or the greatest evil. Socrates and Aristotle understood well this power of language.

In his essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell writes that the "great enemy of elear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one tums as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink." Orwell goes on to express his belief in "language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought." (4:137) "In our time," Orwell observes, "political speech and writing are largely the defense of
the indefensible political language has to consist
largely of euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." (4:136) "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." (4:139)


Orwell is reflecting here the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on the relation of thought and language, but he is also raising the political implications of this hypothesis. language can be used to control minds, then those who control language can control minds and ultimately control society. Language is power; those who control language control the world. Power may come out of the barrel of a gun, but without the control of language there can be no real control of society.
Doublespeak is language which
pretends to communicate but
really does not. Doublespeak
is language which does not
extend thought but limits it.
OrwelPs belief in the power of language to achieve and maintain political control is most clearly expressed in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Party in Oceania understands the power of language, for it has based its control of society on the control of language. While the Thought Police, terror, and torturę, pre- serve order, Newspeak prevents disorder, dissent, rebellion, and even independent thought. The thoughts, inspirations, the ideas that could lead to disorder are controlled, even eliminated, through the control of language. As Stephen Greenblatt observes,

If language is abused, if words can have entirely con- tradictory meanings at the same time, if the language necessary to express political opposition is destroyed, if notions of objective truth and unchanging history are abandoned, then since thought is dependent on language, all unorthodox modes of thought can be made impossible, history can be altered to suit the needs of the moment, the individual can be reduced to an automaton incapable of thought or disloyalty. (114)

In such a world one must reject the evidence of one's eyes and ears, for the great sin, "the heresy of heresies was common sense." (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 69)
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, 0'Brien, Winston Smith's torturer and guide to understanding the reality of life in Oceania, instructs Winston that

reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. (205)

And the only way to see reality properly is through the language of the Party. Language thus becomes the means of control in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The official language of the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four is Newspeak, a language that "was de- signed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." (247) The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the Party and its members, "but to make all other modes of thought impossible." (247) Newspeak is the medium used to express the mental process in

the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simul- taneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logie against logie, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again; and above all, to apply the same process to
the process itself Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink. (32-33)

The word doublespeak combines the meanings of newspeak and doublespeak. Doublespeak is language which pretends to communicate but really does not. It is language which makes the bad seem good, something negative appear positive, something unpleasant appear attractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids or shifts responsibility; language which is at variance with its real and its purported meaning; language which conceals or prevents thought. Doublespeak is language which does not extend thought but limits it.

How To Analyze Language for Doublespeak
In his essay "The Teacher-Heal-Thyself Myth," Hugh Rank has written that identifying doublespeak reauires an analysis of language "in context with the whole situation" in which the language occurs; "who is saying what to whom, under what conditions and circumstances, with what intent and with what results." (219) According to Edward P. J. Corbett, this method of identifying doublespeak "encapsulates the whole art of rhetoric and provides a set of criteria to help us discriminate those uses of language that we should proscribe and those that we should encourage."( 16-17) Applying this method of analysis to language will identify doublespeak in uses of language which might otherwise be legitimate or which might not even appear at first glance to be doublespeak.

The Euphemism
There are at least four kinds of doublespeak. The first kind of doublespeak is the euphemism, a word or phrase that is designed to avoid a harsh or distasteful reality. When a euphemism is used out of sensitivity for the feelings of someone or out of concern for a social or cultural taboo it is not doublespeak. For example, we express grief that someone has passed away because we do not want to say to a grieving person, "I'm sorry your father is dead." The euphemism passed away functions here not just to protect the feelings of another person but also to communicate our concern over that person's feelings during a period of mourning.

However, when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive it becomes doublespeak. For example, the U.S. State Department decided in 1984 that in its annual reports on the status of human rights in countries around the world it would no longer use the word killing. Instead, it will use the phrase unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life. Thus the State Department avoids discussing the embarrassing situation of government-sanctioned killings in countries that are supported by the United States. This use of language constitutes doublespeak since it is designed to mislead, to cover up the unpleasant. Its real intent is at variance with its apparent intent. It is language designed to alter our perception of reality.

Jargon
A second kind of doublespeak is jargon, the special- ized language of a trade, profession, or similar group. It is the specialized language of doctors, lawyers, engineers, educators, or car mechanics. Jargon can serve an important and useful function. Within a group, jargon allows members of the group to communicate with each other clearly, efficiently, and ąuickly. Indeed, it is a mark of membership in the group to be able to use and understand the group's jargon. For example, lawyers and tax accountants will speak of an "involuntary conversion" of property when discussing the loss or destruction of property through theft, accident, or condemnation. When used by lawyers in a legal situation such jargon is a legitimate use of language since all members of the group can be expected to understand the term.

However, when a member of the group uses jargon to communicate with a person outside the group, and uses it knowing that the non member does not understand such language, then there is doublespeak. For example, in 1978 a commercial airliner crashed on takeoff, killing three passengers, injuring twenty-one others, and destroying the airplane, a 727. The insured value of the airplane was greater than its book value, so the airline made a profit of $1.7 million on the destroyed airplane. But the airline had two problems: it did not want to talk about one of its airplanes crashing, and it had to account for $1.7 million when it issued its annual report to its stockholders. The airline solved these problems by inserting a footnote in its annual report which explained that this $ 1.7 million was due to "the involuntary conversion of a 727." The term "involuntary conversion" is a technical term in law; it is legal jargon. Airline officials could claim to have explained the crash of the airplane and the subseauent profit. However, since most stockholders in the company, and indeed most of the general public, are not familiar with legal jargon, the use of such jargon constitutes doublespeak.


Gobbledygook
A third kind of doublespeak is gobbledygook or bureaucratese. Basically, such doublespeak is simply a matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the better. For exam- ple, according to an editorial in the Philadelphia Inąuirer, when Alan Greenspan was chairman of the Presidenfs Council of Economic Advisors he made this statement when testifying before a Senate committee: It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums. (12-A)
... Thus the State Department
avoids discussing the
embarrassing situation of
government-sanctioned killings
in countries that are supported
by the United States.
Did Alan Greenspan's audience really understand what he was saying? Did he believe his statement really explained anything? Perhaps there is some meaning beneath all those words, but it would take some time to search it out. This seems to be language which pretends to communicate but does not.

Inflated Language
The fourth kind of doublespeak is inflated language. Inflated language is language designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, the common, uncom- mon, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to people, situations, or things which would not normally be considered important, to make the simple seem complex. With this kind of language car mechanics become automotive internists, elevator operators become members of the vertical transportation corps, used cars become not just pre- owned but experienced cars, grocery store checkout clerks become career associate scanning professionals, and smelling something becomes organoleptic analysis.


A World of Doublespeak
We live in a world filled with doublespeak. We are asked to check our packages at the desk "for our convenience" when it's not for our convenience at all but for someone else's convenience. We see advertise- ments for "pre-owned" or "experienced" cars, not used cars, for "genuine imitation leather," "virgin vinyl," or "real counterfeit diamonds." Television offers not re- runs but "encore telecasts." There are no slums or ghettos, just the "inner city" or "sub-standard housing" where the "disadvantaged" or "economically non- affluent" live. Non-profit organizations don't make a profit, they have "negative deficits" or experience "revenue excesses." In the world of doublespeak ifs not dying but "terminal living."

In the world of business we find that executives "operate" in "timeframes" within the "context" of which a "task force" will serve as the proper "conduit" for all necessary "input" to "program a scenario" that, within acceptable "parameters," will "generate" the "maximum output" for a "print out" of "zero defect terminal objectives."
It is rare to read that the
stock market fell. Rather, it
retreated, eased, made a
technical adjustment, a technical
correction, perhaps prices were
off due to profit taking, or off in
light trading, or lost ground.

When it comes time to fire employees, business has produced more than enough doublespeak to deal with the unpleasant situation. Employees are, of course, never fired. They are selected out, placed out, non- retained, released, dehired, or non-renewed. A Corporation will eliminate the redundancies in the human resourees area, assign candidates for derecruitment to a mobility pool, revitalize the department by placing executives on special assignment, enhance the efficiency of operations, streamline the field sales organization, or further rationalize marketing efforls. The reality behind all this doublespeak is that companies are firing employees, but no one wants the stockholders, public, or competition to know that times are tough and people have to go.

It is rare to read that the stock market fell. Members of the financial community prefer to say that the stock market retreated, eased, made a technical adjustment or a technical correction, or perhaps that prices were off due to profit taking, or off in light trading, or lost ground. But the stock market never falls, not if stockbrokers have their say. As a side note, it is interesting to observe that the stock market never rises because of a technical adjustment or correction, nor does it ever ease upwards.
The business section of newspapers, business mag- azines, corporate reports, and executive speeches are filled with words and phrases such as marginal rates of substitution, eąuilibrium price, getting off margin, distributional coalition, non-performing assets, and encompassing organizations. Much of this is jargon or inflated language designed to make the simple seem complex, but there are other examples of business doublespeak that mislead, that are designed to avoid a harsh reality. What should we make of such expres- sions as negative deficit or revenue excesses for profit, invest in for buy, price enhancement or price adjustment for price increase, shortfall for a mistake in planning or period of accelerated negative growth or negative economic growth for recession?

Political Language

Political language is the language of public policy and power. Our direction as a nation is defined for us by our elected leaders through language. The corrup- tion of the language of power and public policy, therefore, can lead to the corruption of our political system and our sense of national purpose. If our leaders do not speak clearly to us, then we, the people, from whom all power ultimately derives, cannot have the requisite knowledge and understanding upon which to make important decisions.

It takes some effort to determine that "advance downward adjustments" in the appropriations request is really a budget cut. Vietnam gave us "protective reaction strikes" (bombings), "resources control pro- grams" (poisoning the vegetation and water supply), "preemptive counterattack" (first strike), and "ter- mination with extreme prejudice" (killing a suspected spy without trial). Watergate gave us "misspeak" and "inoperative statement" for lie, "inappropriate actions" for illegal acts, and "miscertification" for fraud and conspiracy. The IranContra affair gave us "cleaning up the historical record" for falsifying official doc- uments, "carefully crafted, nuanced" answers for lies, and testimony that is "fixed by omission" for false testimony. This is language which attacks the very purpose of language, communication between people. This is indeed language which, in Orwell's words, is "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Public Relations Quarterly



1988 Doublespeak Quiz
1. Energy Documents
A.
diet
2. fourth quarter equity retreat
B.
space suit
3. initiate a career alternative enhancement
C.
airplane cockpit
program
D.
used car
4. home plaque removal instrument
E.
medical malpractice
5. uncontrolled contact with the ground
F.
cow, pigs, chickens
6. anti-gravity panties
G.
airplane crash
7. grain-consuming animal units
H.
toothbrush
8. adjustment of a windfall, or temporary
I.
lay off workers
minimal adjustment
J.
girdle
9. diagnostic misadventure of a high
K.
tax increase
magnitude
L.
electric bill
10. nutritional avoidance therapy



M.
stock market crash
11. Extravehicular Mobility Unit
N.
janitor
12. previously distinguished car
O.
unconscious
13. environmental technician
P.
irregular, or seconds (on a piece of clothing)
14. practically perfect




Courtesy of Ouarterly Review of Doublespeak
15. non-decision-making form

National Council of Teachers of English


1111 Kenyon Road
16. Missionized Crew Station

Urbana, IL 61801


(217) 328-3870


Identifying Doublespeak

ldentifying doublespeak can at times be difficult. For example, on July 27, 1981, President Ronald Reagan said in a speech televised to the American public that "I will not stand by and see those of you who are dependent on Social Security deprwed of the benefits you've worked so hard to earn. You will continue to receive your checks in the full amount due you." This speech had been billed as President Reagan's position on Social Security, a subject of much debate at the time. After the speech, public opinion polis revealed that the great majority of the public believed that President Reagan had affirmed his support for Social Security and that he would not support cuts in benefits. However, five days after the speech, on July 31, 1981, an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted White House Communications director David Gergen as saying that President Reagan's words had been "carefully chosen." What President Reagan did mean, according to Gergen, was that he was reserving the right to decide who was "dependent" on those benefits, who had "earned" them, and who, therefore, was "due" them.


The subsequent remarks of David Gergen reveal the real intent of President Reagan as opposed to hisapparent intent. Thus, Hugh Rank's criteria for analyzing language to determine whether it is doublespeak, when applied in light of David Gergen's remarks, reveal the doublespeak of President Reagan. Here is the gap between the speakefs real and declared aim.

In 1981 Secretary of State Alexander Haig was testifying before congressional committees about the murder of three American nuns and a Catholic lay worker in El Salvador. The four women had been raped and then shot at close range, and there was clear evidence that the crime had been committed by soldiers of the Salvadoran government. As reported by Anthony Lewis of The New York Times, Secretary Haig said to the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

I'd like to suggest to you that some of the investiga- tions would lead one to believe that perhaps the vehicle the nuns were riding in may have tried to run a roadblock, or may accidentally have been perceived to have been doing so, and there'd been an exchange of fire and then perhaps those who inflicted the casualties sought to cover it up. And this could have been at a very Iow level of both competence and motivation in the context of the issue itself. But the facts on this are not elear enough for anyone to draw a definitive conclusion (E 21).

The next day, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Haig claimed that press report on his previous testimony were inaccurate. When Senator Claiborne Pell asked whether Secretary Haig was suggesting the possibility that "the nuns may have run through a roadblock," Secretary Haig replied, "You mean that they tried to violate... ? Not at all, no, not at all. My heavens! The dear nuns who raised me in my parochial schooling would forever isolate me from their affections and respect." When Senator Pell asked Secretary Haig, "Did you mean that the nuns were firing at the people, or what did 'an exchange of Tire' mean?" Secretary Haig replied, "1 haven't met any pistol-packing nuns in my day, Senator. What 1 meant was that if one fellow starts shooting, then the next thing you know they all pane." Thus did the Secretary of State of the United States explain official govern- ment policy on the murder of four American citizens in a foreign land.


Secretary Haig's testimony implies that the women were in some way responsible for their own fate. By using such vague wording as "would lead one to believe" and "may accidentally have been perceived to have been" he avoids any direct assertion. The use of the phrase "inflicted the casualties" not only avoids using the word "kill" but also implies that at the worst the killings were accidental or justifiable. The result of this testimony is that the Secretary of State has become an apologist for murder. This is indeed the kind of language Orwell said is used in defense of the indefensible; language designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable; language designed to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


Doublespeak and Clear Thinking
These last examples of doublespeak should make it clear that doublespeak is not the product of careless language or sloppy thinking. Indeed, most doublespeak is the product of clear thinking and is language carefully designed and constructed to appear to communicate when in fact it doesn't. It is language designed not to lead but mislead. It is language designed to distort reality and corrupt the mind. It's not a tax increase but revenue enhancement or tax base broadening, so how can you complain about higher taxes? It's not acid rain; it's poorly buffered precipitation, so don't worry about all those dead trees. That isn't the Mafia in Atlantic City, New Jersey; those are just members of a career-offender carte), so don't worry about the influence of organized crime in the city. The Supreme Court Justice wasn't addicted to the pain killing drug he was taking, the drug had simply established an interrelationship with the body, such that if the drug is removed precipitous/y, there is a reaction, so don't worry that his decisions might have been influenced by his drug addiction. It's not a Titan II nuclear-armed, intercontinental, ballisticmissile with a warhead 630 times more powerful than the atomies bomb dropped on Hiroshima; it's just a very large, potentially disruptive re-entry system, so don't worry about the threat of nuclear destruction. It's not a neutron bomb but an enhanced radiation device, so don't worry about escalating the arms race. It's not an invasion but a rescue mission, or a predawn vertical insertion, so don't worry about any violations of United States or international law.

Doublespeak which calls bus drivers urban transportation specialists, bill collectors portfolio admin- istrators, and doormen access controllers can be considered humorous and relatively harmless. However, doublespeak which calls civilian casualties in a nuclear war collateral damage, lies inoperative statements or plausible deniability, and missiles designed to kill millions of people Peacekeepers is language which attempts to make the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, something unpleasant appear attractive, and which seems to communicate but does not. Such language breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust, and, ultimately, hostility.

I offer these categories of doublespeak as a way of thinking about, identifying, and analyzing doublespeak and not as a definitive definition of the term.
Works Cited
Corbett, Edward P. J. "Public Doublespeak. If I Speak with Forked Tongue." Enghsh Journal 65 4 (1976): 16-17.
Editorial. Philadelphia Inquirer 25 December 1974: 12-A.
Greenblatt, Stephen J. "Orwell as Satinst." George Orwell: A Collei non of Crilual Essays. Ed. Raymond Williams Englewood Chffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 1974. 106-118.
Hess, David "Reagan's Language on Benefits Confused. Angered Many " Philadelphia Inąuirer 31 July 1981: 6-A
Lewis. Anthony "Showing His Colors." The New York Times 29 March 1981: E 21.
Orwell. George. The Collected Essays. Journahsm and Istleri of George Orwell. Ed. Sonia Orwell and lan Angus 4 vols Berkeley. U of California P, 1976
Orwell, George. Nmeteen Eighle-Four. New York: New American Library, 1961.
Rank, Hugh "The Teacher-Heal-Lhyself Myth." Imnguage and Puhlu Policy. Ed Hugh Rank. Urbana National Council of Teachers of Enghsh, 1974. 215-234.
Sapir, Edward. Selei led Wrinngs of Edward Sapir. Ed D. D Mandel- baum. Los Angeles: U of California P, 1949. 160-166. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. tnmguage, Thought and Realny: Seleiled Wrilings of Benjamin Lee Whorf Ed John B Carroll Cambridge MIT. 1956. 207- Public Relations Ouarterly



The World of Doublespeak
In the previous essay, Stephanie Ericsson examines the damage caused by the outright lies we tell each other every day. But what if our language doesn't lie, exactly, and instead just obscures meanings we'd rather not admit to? Such intentional fudging, or doublespeak, is the sort of language Lutz specializes in, and here he uses classification to expose its many guises. "The World of Doublespeak" abridges the first chapter in Lutz's book Doublespeak; the essay's title is the chapters subtitle.
There are no potholes in the streets of Tucson, Arizona, just "pavement i deficiencies." The Reagan Administration didn't propose any new taxes, just "revenue enhancement" through new "user's fees." Those aren't bums on the Street, just "non-goal oriented members of society." There are no more poor people, just "fiscal underachievers." There was no robbery of an automatic teller machine, just an "unauthorized withdrawal." The patient didn't die because of medical malpractice, it was just a "diagnostic misadventure of a high magnitude." The US Army doesn't kill the enemy anymore, it just "ser- vices the target." And the doublespeak goes on.
Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. i It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the

unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language chat avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it.
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing. Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is. It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication—and what doublespeak does—mislead, distort, deceive, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.
How to Spot Doublespeak
How can you spot doublespeak? Most of the time you will recognize doublespeak when you see or hear it. But, if you have any doubts, you can identify doublespeak just by answering these questions: Who is saying what to whom, under what conditions and circumstances, with what intent, and with what results? Answering these questions will usually help you identify as doublespeak language that appears to be legitimate or that at first glance doesn't even appear to be doublespeak.
First Kind of Doublespeak
There are at least four kinds of doublespeak. The first is the euphemism, an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid a harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality. But a euphemism can also be a tactful word or phrase which avoids directly mentioning a painful reality, or it can be an expression used out of concern for the feelings of someone else, or to avoid directly discussing a topie subject to a social or cultural taboo.
When you use a euphemism because of your sensitivity for someone's feelings or out of concern for a recognized social or cultural taboo, it is not doublespeak. For example, you express your condolences that someone has "passed away" because you do not want to say to a grieving person, 'I'm sorry your father is dead." When you use the euphemism "passed away," no one is misled. Moreover, the euphemism functions here not just to protect the feelings of another person, but to communicate also your concern for that person's feelings during a period of mourning. When you excuse yourself to go to the "restroom," or you mention that someone is "sleeping with" or "involved with" someone else, you do not mislead anyone about your meaning, but you do respect the social taboos about discussing bodily functions and sex in direct
terms. You also indicate your sensitivity to the feelings of your audience, which is usually considered a mark of courtesy and good manners.
However, when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive, it becomes doublespeak. For example, in 1984 the US State Department announced that it would no longer use the word "killing" m its annual report on the status of human rights in countries around the world. Instead, it would use the phrase "unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life," which the department claimed was morE accurate. Its real purpose for using this phrase was simply to avoid discussing the embarrassing situation of government-sanctioned killings in courn tries that are supported by the United States and have been certified by the United States as respecting the human rights of their citizens. This use of a euphemism constitutes doublespeak, siNce it is designed1 to mislead, to cover up the unpleasant. Its real intent is at variance with its apparent intent. It is language designed to alter our perception of reality.
The Pentagon, too, avoids discussing unpleasant realities when it refers to bombs and artillery shells that fall on civilian targets as "incontinent ordnance." And in 1977 the Pentagon tried to slip funding for the neutron bomb unnoticed into an appropriations bill by calling it a "radiation enhancement device."
Second Kind of Doublespeak
A second kind of doublespeak is jargon, the specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group, such as that used by doctors, lawyers, engineers, educators, or car mechanics. Jargon can serve an important and useful function. Within a group, jargon functions as a kind of verbal shorthand that allows members of the group to communicate with each other clearly, efficiently, and quickly. Indeed, it is a mark of membership in the group to be able to use and understand the groups jargon.
But jargon, like the euphemism, can also be doublespeak. It can be—and often is — pretentious, obscure, and esoteric terminology used to give an air of profundity, authority, and prestige to speakers and their subject rnatter. Jargon as doublespeak often makes the simple appear complex, the ordinary pro- found, the obvious insightful. In this sense it is used not .to express but impress. With such doublespeak, the act of smelling something becomes "organoleptic analysis," glass becomes "fused silicate," a crack in a metal sup- port beam becomes a "discontinuity," conservative economic policies become "distributionally conservative notions."
Lawyers, for example, speak of an "involuntary conversion" of property when discussing the loss or destruction of property through theft, accident, or condemnation. If your house burns down or if your car is stolen, you have suffered an irwoluntary conversion of your property. When used by lawyers in a legał situation, such jargon is a legitimate use of language, sińce lawyers can be expected to understand the term.
However, when a member ot a specialized group uses lt is jargon to communicate with a person outside the group, and uses it knowing that the non- member does not understand such language, then there is doublespeak. For example, on May 9, 1978, a National Airlines 727 airplane crashed while attempting to land at the Pensacola, Florida, airport. Three of the hefty-two passengers aboard the airplane were killed. As a result of the crash, National made an after-tax insurance benefit of $1.7 million, or an extra 180 a share dividend for its stockholders. Now National Airlines had two problems: It did not want to talk about one of its airplanes crashing, and it had to account for the $1.7 million when it issued its annual report to its stockholders. National solved the problem by inserting a footnote in its annual report which explained that the $1.7 million income was due to "the involuntary conversion of a 727." National thus acknowledged the crash of its airplane and the subsequent profit it mad from the crash, without once mentioning the accident or the deaths. However, because airline officials knew that most stockholders in the company, and indeed most of the general public, were not familiar with legal jargon, the use of such jargon constituted doublespeak.

Third Kind of Doublespeak
A third kind of doublespeak is gobbledygook or bureaucratese. Basically, such doublespeak is simply a matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences the better. Alan Greenspan, then chair of President Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors, was quoted in The Philadelphia Inquirer in 1974 as having testified before a Senate committee that "It is a tricky problem to and the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums."
Nor has Mr. Greenspan's language changed since then. Speaking to the meeting of the Economic Club of New York in 1988, Mr. Greenspan, now Federal Reserve chair, said, "I guess I should wam you, if I tum out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said." Mr. Green- spans doublespeak does not seem to have held back his career.
Sometimes gobbledygook may sound impressive, but when the quote is later examined in print it doesn't even make sense. During the 1988 presidential campaign, vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle explained the need for a strategic-defence initiative by saying, "Why wouldn't an ennced deterrent, a more stable peace, a better prospect to denying the ones who enter conflict in the first place to have a reduction of offensive Systems and an introduction to defense capability? I believe this is the route the country will eventually go."
The investigation into the Challenger disaster in 1986 revealed the double speak of gobbledygook and bureaucratese used by too many involved in the shuttle program. When Jesse Moore, NASA's associate administrator, was asked if the performance of the shuttle program had improved with each launch or if it had remained the same, he answered, "I think our performance in terms of the liftoff performance and in terms of the orbital performance, we knew morę about the envelope we were operating under, and we have been pretty accurately staying in that. And so I would say the performance has not by design drastically improved. I think we have been able to characterize the performance more as a function of our launch experience as opposed to it improving as a function of time." While this language may appear to be jargon, a close look will reveal that it is really just gobbledygook laced with jargon.
But you really have to wonder if Mr. Moore had any idea what he was saying.
Fourth Kind of Doublespeak
The fourth kind of doublespeak is inflated language that is designed to make i? the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem impressive; to give an air of importance to people, situations, or things that would not nor- mally be considered important; to make the simple seem complex. Often this kind of doublespeak isn't hard to spot, and it is usually pretty funny. While car mechanics may be called ''automotive intemists," elevator operators members of the "vertical transportation corps," used cars "pre-owned" or "experienced cars," and black-and-white television sets described as having "non-multicolor capability," you really aren't misled all that much by such language.
However, you may have trouble figuring out that, when Chrysler "initiates is a career altemative enhancement program," it is really laying off five thou- sand workers; or that "negative patient-care outcome" means the patient died; or that "rapid oxidation" means a fire in a nuclear power plant.
The doublespeak of inflated language can have serious consequences. In is Pentagon doublespeak, "pre-emptive counterattack" means that American forces attacked first; "engaged the enemy on all sides" means American troops were ambushed; "back loading of augmentation personnel" means a retreat by American troops. In the doublespeak of the military, the 1983 invasion of Grenada was conducted not by the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, but by the "Caribbean Peace Keeping Forces." But then, according to the Pentagon, it wasn't an invasion, it was a "predawn vertical insertion." . . .
Doublespeak is not the product to carelessness or sloppy thinking. Indeed, most doublespeak is the product to clear thinking and is carefully designed aid constructible to appear to communicate when in fact it doesn't. It is language designed not to lead but mislead. It is language designed to distort reality and corrupt thought. ... In the world created by doublespeak, if it's not a tax increase, but rather "revenue enhancement" or "tax base broadening," how can you complain about higher taxes? If it's not acid rain, but rather "poorly buffered precipitation," how can you worry about all those dead trees? If that isn't the Malta in Atlantic City, but just "members of a career-offender cartel," why worry about the influence of organized crime in the city? If Supreme Court Justice William Rehnąuist wasn't addicted to the pain-killing drug his doctor prescribed, but instead it was just that the drug had "established an interrelationship with the body, such that if the drug is removed precipitously, there is a reaction," you needn't question that his decisions might have been influenced by his drug addiction. If it's not a Titan II nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile with a warhead 630 times ntore powerful than the atomies bomb dropped on Hiroshima, but instead, according to air force colonel Frank Horton, it's just a "very large, potentially disruptive re- entry system," why be concerned about the threat of nuclear destruction? Why worry about the neutron bomb escalating the arms race if it's just a "radiation enhancement weapon"? If it's not an invasion, but a "rescue mission" or a "predawn vertical insertion," you won't need to think about any violations of US or International law.
Doublespeak has become so common in everyday living that many people taił to notice it. Even worse, when they do notice doublespeak being used on them, they don't react, they don't protest. Do you protest when you are asked to check your packages at the desk "for your convenience," when it's not for your convenience at all but for someone else's? You see aclvertisements for "genuine imitation leather," "virgin vinyl," or "real counterfeit diamonds," but do you question the language or the supposed quality of the product? Do you question politicians who don't speak of slums or ghettos but of the "inner city" or "substandard housing" where the "disadvantaged" live and thus avoid talking about the poor who have to live in filthy^, poorly heated, ramshackle apartments or houses? Aren't you amazed that patients don't die in the hospital anymore, it's just "negative patient-care outcome"?
Doublespeak such as that noted earlier that dense cab drivers as "urban transportation specialists," elevator operators as members of the "vertical transportation corps," and automobile mechanics as "automotive internists" can be considered humorous and relatively harmless. However, when a fire in a nuclear reactor building is called "rapid oxidation," an explosion m a nuclear
power plant is called an "energetic disassembly," the illegal overthrow of a legitimate government is termed "destabilizing a government," and lies are seen as "inoperative statements," we are hearing doublespeak that attempts to avoid responsibility and make the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, something unpleasant appear attractive; and which seems to communicate but doesn't. It is language designed to alter our perception of reality and corrupt our thinking. Such language does not provide us with the tools we need to develop, advance, and preserve our culture and our civilization. Such language breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust, and, ultimately, hostility.
Doublespeak is insidious because it can infect and eventually destroy the function of language, which is communication between people and social groups. This corruption of the function of language can have serious and fan reaching consequences. We live in a country that depends upon an informed electorate to make decisions in selecting candidates for office and deciding issues of public policy. The use of doublespeak can become so pervasive that it becomes the coin of the political realm, with speakers and listeners convinced that they really understand such language. After a while we may really believe that politicians don't lie but only "misspeak," that illegal acts are merely "inappropriate actions," that fraud and criminal conspiracy are just "miscertification." President Jimmy Carter in April of 1980 could call the aborted raid to free the American hostages in Teheran an "incomplete success" and really believe that he had madę a statement that clearly communicated with the American public. So, too, could President Ronald Reagan say in 1985 that "ultimately our security and our hopes for success at the arms reduction talks hinge on the determination that we show here to continue our program to rebuild and refortify our defenses" and really believe that greatly increasing the amount of money spent building new weapons would lead to a reduction in the number of weapons in the world. If we really believe that we understand such language and that such language communicates and promotes elear thought, then the world of 1984, with its control of reality through language, is upon us.