|
|
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated.
For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as "up to 50% off on all products"; this is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%, and in theory, the vendor is free not to reduce any prices and still remain faithful to the exact wording of the advertisement, as "up to 50" most literally means "any number from 0 to 50 inclusive".
Another example is a letter of recommendation where the letter writer states "I cannot recommend this person highly enough", which would ordinarily be taken to mean that no amount of recommendation is sufficient to communicate the high stature of recommendation, while at the same time it could literally mean that there is no recommendation at all.
In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person may speak of "resistance fighters" or "freedom fighters", while another may call the same subjects "terrorists". The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given.
The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate.[2] Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made.[3] Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects".[4]
The expression weasel word derives apparently from the egg-eating habits of weasels.[5]
An article published by the Buffalo News attributes the origin of the term to William Shakespeare's plays Henry V and As You Like It, in which the author includes similes of weasels sucking eggs.[6] The article also claims that this is a misnomer, because weasels do not have a mandible suitable for sucking eggs or blood.[7]
Regardless of whether weasels in fact suck eggs, a belief that they do implies an egg shell devoid of its contents. Thus, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon analysis are known as "weasel words". The expression first appeared in Stewart Chaplin's short story "Stained Glass Political Platform" (published in 1900 in The Century Magazine),[8] in which they were referred to as "words that suck the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks the egg and leaves the shell". Theodore Roosevelt attributed the term to Dave Sewall, claiming that Sewall used the term in a private conversation in 1879.[9] Winston Churchill wrote: "The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning." Current examples include governing parties in various countries commenting upon their country's financial state with statements such as "the budget deficits we inherited" rather than specifically blaming their predecessors.
Additionally, the definition of the word 'weasel' includes: n. a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person; v. to manipulate shiftily. [10] A weasel word (or phrase) can quite likely be understood to come from a position of intending to manipulate the communication, in a sneaky or underhanded manner.
In the political sphere, this type of language is used to "spin" or alter the public's perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt argued that "one of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use ...'weasel words'; when one 'weasel word' is used ... after another there is nothing left".[11]
Examples
- "A growing body of evidence..."[12] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
- "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
- "It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
- "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
- "Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
- "It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
- "Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
- "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
- "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
- "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
- "It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
- "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
- "Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
- "It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
- "Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
- "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?¹)
- "It was noted that..." (By whom, why, when?)
- "See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
- "Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)
- "Studies show..." (what studies?)
- "(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
- "Some argue..." (who?)
- "Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
- "More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
- "The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)
¹It is important that real examples do not in fact explain, at a later stage of the argument, what exactly is meant by "it turns out that"; the whole needs to be looked at before it can be decided that it is a weasel term.
A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:[13]
- Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many")
- Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")
- Adverbs that weaken (e.g. "often", "probably")
Other forms of weasel words include:
The vagueness of a statement may disguise the validity or the aim of that statement. Generalizing by means of quantifiers, such as many or better, and the passive voice ("it has been decided") conceals the full picture in that it avoids the necessity of providing attribution. (If one were to put "it has been decided" into active voice, one would need to supply an actor: "X has decided".)
Non sequitur: Irrelevant statements are often used in advertising to make it appear that the statement is a beneficial feature of the product or service being advertised. Example: "The official coat hanger of a sports team". This statement announces a paid endorsement with the aim of suggesting that the quality of the coat hanger is superior to others. The statement does not, however, offer any evidence in support of its claim - there is not necessarily a link between the quality of a product and a paid endorsement. Some generalizations are considered unacceptable in writing. This category embraces what is termed a "semantic cop-out", represented by the term allegedly.[14] This phrase implies an absence of ownership of opinion, which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.
Extrapolating through the use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive can be used to introduce facts that are beyond the proof of the cited work. This is a legitimate function of language, which resembles weaseling. When it is impractical to enumerate and cite many individual works, then the use of these grammatical devices conforms to the standards established by tradition. For example: "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 and the adverb there as impersonal dummy subjects, as when an author intends to distance himself/herself from the work, 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..."
- "After the end of the Californian gold rush, there were many ghost towns."
- "There are people who wash very infrequently."
The personal pronoun one, as a subject or an object in formal speech, that refers either to oneself or as a generalization to anyone in a similar situation, may also be used justifiably to distance a speaker from a subject.
- "One wonders what else was being discussed that evening."
- "What can one do in circumstances such as these?"
The passive voice and middle voice can both be used in English to avoid blame. A passive construction occurs when the object of an action is made the focus of the sentence (by moving it to the front). In some cases, the agent (the subject in active voice, usually indicated by "by" in the passive voice) is missing altogether, as the sentence "mistakes were made by the politicians", for example, has been curtailed deliberately to "mistakes were made."
- "Mistakes were made." The names of the persons who made mistakes is being withheld and the intention of weaseling is obvious.
- "Over 120 different contaminants have been dumped into the river." A more precise number of "contaminants" might have avoided the impression of weaseling, even though we might never know who the "dumpers" were.
- "It has been suggested that this article or section be..."
A related issue is the stylistic qualms of linguists and teachers who discourage the passive voice being used too frequently.[15][16] However, in the sentence
- "One hundred votes are required to pass the bill",
the use of the passive voice is not necessarily connected with weaseling. The phrase, "100 votes are required to pass the bill", is probably a statement of fact, that it is exactly 100 votes that are needed for the passing of the bill, and it might be impossible to predict where these votes are to come from. For a statement to be a weasel expression, it needs other indications of disingenuousness than the mere fact that it is expressed in the passive voice.
The scientific journal article is another example of the legitimate use of the passive voice. For an experimental result to be useful, anyone who runs the experiment should get the same result. That is, the identity of the experimenter should be of low importance. Use of the passive voice focuses attention upon the actions, and not the actor (the author(s) of the article).
Examples of weasel words using the middle voice are:
- "It stands to reason that most people will be better off after the changes."
- "There are great fears that most people will be worse off after the changes."
- "Experience insists that most people will not be better off after the changes."
Not all sentences using the middle voice are necessarily weasel words. The above sentence: "It stands to reason that most people will be better off after the changes", is clearly an instance of redundancy rather than weaseling. There is no need for "it stands to reason..." All that is needed is: "More people will be better off after the changes". What is relevant is what has been said before or is going to be said afterwards in the context of the discussion where the sentence occurs.
Style is another point more important in the discernment of the use of middle or passive voice. The above sentence: "There are great fears..." would have been better in the passive voice: "It is feared that most people will be worse off after the changes". The passive voice is the more logical choice here for the reason that this sentence would not stand on its own, but would occur in the course of a discussion. If the reasoning behind the sentence is so obvious within the discussion that it does not need substantiating by citing thousands of sources then the passive is perfectly alright.
Weasel words may be used to detract from an uncomfortable fact, such as the act of firing staff. By replacing "firing staff" with "headcount reduction", one may soften meaning.[17] Jargon of this kind is used to describe things euphemistically.
In certain kinds of advertisements, words are missing or withheld deliberately to deceive the buyer. Words such as more or better are misleading due to the absence of a comparison:
- "... up to 50% off." (How many items were actually decreased in price by half? The statement holds true even if the price of only one item is reduced by half, and the rest by very little or none.)
- "Save up to $100 or more!" (What exactly is the significance of the $100? It is neither a minimum nor a maximum, it just sits arbitrarily somewhere in an undefined range.)
- "... is now 20% cheaper!" (Cheaper than what? The last model? Some arbitrarily inflated price?)
- "Four out of five people would agree..." (How many subjects were included in the study?)
- "... is among the (top, leading, best, few, worst, etc.)" (Top 100? Best in customer service/quality/management?)
- "... for a fraction of the original price!" (This wording suggests a much lower price even though the fraction could easily be 99/100 or 101/100)
- "More people are using..." (What does that mean in numbers?)
- "Nothing Is Stronger/Longer Lasting/Safer" (How many are equally as strong/long lasting/safe?)
- "Lose 20 pounds in 3 weeks" (20 pounds of what? Water, muscle, bone, money?)
In Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (1956), U.S. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt described astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek's report on the death of Air Force Pilot Thomas Mantell in pursuit of a UFO as "a masterpiece in the art of 'weasel wording'."[18]
Carl Wrighter discussed weasel words in his best-selling book I Can Sell You Anything (1972).
Australian author Don Watson devoted two volumes (Death Sentence and Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words) to documenting the increasing use of weasel words in government and corporate language. He maintains a website[19] encouraging people to identify and nominate examples of weasel words.
Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, talks much about 'weasels' (conniving business people) in one of his books, named accordingly: Dilbert and the Way of The Weasel (2002).
- ^ Microsoft Encarta, "weasel words"
- ^ Merriam-Webster, "Weasel, verb"
- ^ Yonghui Ma (2007), "Language Features of English Advertisement", Asian Social Science, March 2007, p 109
- ^ Jason, Gary (1988) "Hedging as a Fallacy of Language", Informal Logic X.3, Fall 1988
- ^ Theodore Roosevelt Association, Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia
- ^ E. Cobham Brewer, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
- ^ University at Buffalo,[clarification needed] Weasels
- ^ According to The Macmillan Dictionary of Contemporary Phrase and Fable
- ^ New York Times, Sept 2, 1916, "Origin of 'Weasel Words'"
- ^ Merriam-Webster online dictionary def'n: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel
- ^ Crystal, Hilary; David Crystal (2000). Words on Words: Quotations about Language and Languages. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-12201-8. p. 199
- ^ "Stop him before he votes". http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060116_119672_119672. "suggests that today's 18-year-olds are too immature to vote. We should be talking about raising the voting age, not lowering it..."
- ^ Viola Ganter and Michael Strube (2009), "Finding Hedges by Chasing Weasels: Hedge Detection Using Wikipedia Tags and Shallow Linguistic Features", Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, page 175
- ^ Garber, Marjorie B.. Academic Instincts. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11571-0. p. 140 "it is alleged"
- ^ "Passive Voice". Handouts and Links. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html. Retrieved 30 August 2010.
- ^ "Passive Voice". Acadia University. http://ace.acadiau.ca/english/grammar/passive.htm. [dead link]
- ^ "Has Downsizing Gone too Far?". University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA, December, 1995.. http://www.iopsych.org/downsize.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
- ^ Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
- ^ Examples and discussion of weasel words
