{"id":85,"date":"2019-01-16T00:11:50","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T00:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/3-3-using-words-well\/"},"modified":"2019-01-16T00:11:50","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T00:11:50","slug":"3-3-using-words-well","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/3-3-using-words-well\/","title":{"raw":"3.3 Using Words Well","rendered":"3.3 Using Words Well"},"content":{"raw":"\n
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Discuss how the process of abstraction and the creation of whole messages relate to language clarity.<\/li>\n
  2. Employ figurative and evocative language.<\/li>\n
  3. Identify strategies for using language ethically.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    Have you ever gotten lost because someone gave you directions that didn\u2019t make sense to you? Have you ever puzzled over the instructions for how to put something like a bookshelf or grill together? When people don\u2019t use words well, there are consequences that range from mild annoyance to legal actions. 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 words clearly, using words affectively, and using words ethically.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Using Words Clearly<\/h2>\n

    The level of clarity with which we speak varies depending on whom we talk to, the situation we\u2019re 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 and increasing our volume or verbally by saying, \u201cFrankly\u2026\u201d or \u201cLet me be clear\u2026\u201d Sometimes it can be difficult to speak clearly\u2014for example, when we are speaking about something with which we are unfamiliar. Emotions and distractions can also interfere with our clarity. Being aware of the varying levels of abstraction within language can help us create clearer and more \u201cwhole\u201d messages.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Level of Abstraction<\/h2>\n

    The ladder of abstraction is a model used to illustrate how language can range from concrete to abstract. As we follow a concept up the ladder of abstraction, more and more of the \u201cessence\u201d of the original object is lost or left out, which leaves more room for interpretation, which can 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\u2014each referring to one specific thing (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). But it 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 go take a picture of a book, you could do that. If I asked you to go and take a picture of \u201cwork,\u201d you couldn\u2019t because work<\/em> 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 picture of any of those things, but you can\u2019t take a picture of \u201cwork.\u201d<\/p>\n

    <\/p>

    \n
    \n
    \n

    Figure 3.2<\/span> Ladder of Abstraction<\/p>\n

    \"3-3-0\"<\/a>\n

    \n

    Source: Adapted from S. I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action<\/em>, 5th ed. (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1990), 85.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/p><\/div>\n

    You can see the semanticist S. I. Hayakawa\u2019s classic example of the abstraction ladder with \u201cBessie the cow\u201d in Figure 3.2 \"Ladder of Abstraction\"<\/a> (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). At the lowest level, we have something that is very concrete. At this level we are actually in the moment of experiencing the stimuli that is coming in through our senses. We perceive the actual \u201cthing,\u201d which is the \u201ccow\u201d in front of us (either in person or as an image). This is concrete, because it is unmediated, meaning it is actually the moment of experience. As we move up a level, we give the experience a name\u2014we are looking at \u201cBessie.\u201d So now, instead of the direct experience with the \u201cthing\u201d 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\u2019t directly experiencing her. At the next level, the word cow<\/em> now lumps Bessie in with other bovine creatures that share similar characteristics. As we go on up the ladder, cow<\/em> becomes livestock<\/em>, livestock<\/em> becomes an asset<\/em>, and then an asset<\/em> becomes wealth<\/em>. Note that it becomes increasingly difficult to define the meaning of the symbol as we go up the ladder and how with each step we lose more of the characteristics of the original concrete experience.<\/p>\n

    When shared referents are important, we should try to use language that is lower on the ladder of abstraction. Being intentionally concrete is useful when giving directions, for example, and can help prevent misunderstanding. We sometimes intentionally use abstract language. Since abstract language is often unclear or vague, we can use it as a means of testing out a potential topic (like asking a favor), offering negative feedback indirectly (to avoid hurting someone\u2019s feelings or to hint), or avoiding the specifics of a topic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Definitions and Clarity<\/h2>\n

    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\u2014the official or agreed-on definition. 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\u2014otherwise 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 I asked you to define the word blue<\/em>, you\u2019d likely say it\u2019s a color. If I asked you what a color is, you\u2019d tell me it\u2019s a tint or characteristic of the appearance of a particular thing. To define more clearly, by going down the ladder of abstraction, you could say, \u201cIt\u2019s the color of Frank Sinatra\u2019s eyes,\u201d or \u201cIt\u2019s what the sky looks like on a clear day.\u201d People often come to understanding more quickly when a definition is descriptive and\/or ties into their personal experiences. Definitions aren\u2019t useless, but they are usually best when paired with examples. You\u2019ll notice that I include many key terms and definitions in this book, but knowing some of the challenges of generating meaning through language, I also include many examples and narratives that come from real life. Jargon<\/a><\/span> 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\u2014or at least be clearly defined when it is used.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Creating Whole Messages<\/h2>\n

    Earlier we learned about the four types of expressions, which are observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs. Whole messages<\/a><\/span> 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, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). Partial messages<\/a><\/span> are missing a relevant type of expression and can lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Whole messages help keep lines of communication open, which can help build solid relationships. On the other hand, people can often figure out a message is partial even if they can\u2019t readily identify what is left out. For example, if Roscoe says to Rachel, \u201cI don\u2019t trust Bob anymore,\u201d Rachel may be turned off or angered by Roscoe\u2019s conclusion (an expression of thought) about their mutual friend. However, if Roscoe recounted his observation of Bob\u2019s behavior, how that behavior made him feel, and what he needs from Rachel in this situation, she will be better able to respond.<\/p>\n

    While partial messages lack relevant expressions needed to clearly communicate, contaminated messages<\/a><\/span> include mixed or misleading expressions (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995). For example, if Alyssa says to her college-aged daughter, \u201cIt looks like you wasted another semester,\u201d she has contaminated observations, feelings, and thoughts. Although the message appears to be an observation, there are underlying messages that are 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, \u201cYour dad and I talked, and he said you told him you failed your sociology class and are thinking about changing your major\u201d (observation). \u201cI think you\u2019re hurting your chances of graduating on time and getting started on your career\u201d (thought). \u201cI feel anxious because you and I are both taking out loans to pay for your education\u201d (feeling).<\/p>\n

    Messages in which needs are contaminated with observations or feelings can be confusing. For example, if Shea says to Duste, \u201cYou\u2019re so lucky that you don\u2019t have to worry about losing your scholarship over this stupid biology final,\u201d it seems like he\u2019s expressing an observation, but it\u2019s really a thought, with an underlying feeling and need. To make the message more whole, Shea could bring the need and feeling to the surface: \u201cI noticed you did really well on the last exam in our biology class\u201d (observation). \u201cI\u2019m really stressed about the exam next week and the possibility of losing my scholarship if I fail it\u201d (feeling). \u201cWould you be willing to put together a study group with me?\u201d (need). More clarity in language is important, but as we already know, communication isn\u2019t just about exchanging information\u2014the words we use also influence our emotions and relationships.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Using Words Affectively<\/h2>\n

    Affective language<\/a><\/span> refers to language used to express a person\u2019s feelings and create similar feelings in another person (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Affective language can be intentionally used 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 \u201cspeak from the heart\u201d connect well with others due to 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, \u201cI\u2019m so happy!\u201d can evoke similar feelings of joy, while hearing someone exclaim, \u201cWhy me!?\u201d while sobbing conjures up similar feelings of sadness and frustration. There are also specific linguistic devices that facilitate affective communication.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>

    \n
    \n
    \n \"3-3-1n\"<\/a>\n

    Affective language expresses a person\u2019s feelings and creates similar feelings in another person.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Marcia furman - spoken<\/a> - CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/p><\/div>\n

    \n

    Figurative Language<\/h2>\n

    When people say something is a \u201cfigure of speech,\u201d they are referring to a word or phrase that deviates from expectations in some way in 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 and\/or language group, which makes it difficult for nonnative speakers to grasp. Figurative language has the ability to convey much meaning in fewer 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 his or her personal experience). Some examples of figurative speech include simile, metaphor, and personification.<\/p>\n

    A simile<\/a><\/span> is a direct comparison of two things using the words like<\/em> or as<\/em>. 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 since they have to visualize the comparison in their mind. For example, Forrest Gump\u2019s famous simile, \u201cLife is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you\u2019re gonna get,\u201d conjures up feelings of uncertainty and excitement. More direct similes like \u201cI slept like a baby\u201d and \u201cThat bread was hard as a rock\u201d do not necessarily stir the imagination but still offer an alternative way of expressing something.<\/p>\n

    A metaphor<\/a><\/span> is an implicit comparison of two things that are not alike and\/or are not typically associated. They become meaningful as people realize the speaker\u2019s purpose for relating the two seemingly disparate ideas. Metaphors 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 nonliteral 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 his or her own way (Olbricht, 1968).<\/p>\n

    In 1946, just after World War II ended, Winston Churchill stated the following in a speech: \u201cAn iron curtain has descended across the continent of Europe.\u201d Even though people knew there was no literal heavy metal curtain that had been lowered over Europe, the concepts of iron being strong and impenetrable and curtains being a divider combined to create a stirring and powerful image of a continent divided by the dark events of the previous years (Carpenter, 1999). Some communication scholars argue that metaphors serve a much larger purpose and function to structure our human thought processes (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The metaphor \u201ctime is money\u201d doesn\u2019t just represent an imaginative connection; it shapes our social realities. We engage in specific actions that \u201csave time,\u201d \u201cspend time,\u201d or \u201cwaste time\u201d because we have been socialized to see time as a resource.<\/p>\n

    Many metaphors spring from our everyday experiences. For example, many objects have been implicitly compared to human body parts; for example, we say a clock has hands and a face. Personification<\/a><\/span> refers to the attribution of human qualities or characteristics of other living things to nonhuman objects or abstract concepts. This can be useful when trying to make something abstract more concrete and can create a sense of urgency or \u201crealness\u201d out of something that is hard for people to conceive. 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 examples: \u201cHuman 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.\u201d \u201cCrystal meth is a stalking your children whether you see it or not. You never know where it\u2019s hiding.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Evocative Language<\/h2>\n

    Vivid language captures people\u2019s 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<\/em> and heartbroken<\/em> can lead people to remember previous physical sensations related to the word. As a speaker, there may be times when evoking 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\u2019 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. The rich fantasy worlds conceived in Star Trek<\/em>, The Lord of the Rings<\/em>, Twilight<\/em>, and Harry Potter<\/em> show the power of figurative and evocative language to capture our attention and our imagination.<\/p>\n

    Some words are so evocative that their usage violates the social norms of appropriate conversations. Although we could use such words to intentionally shock people, we can also use euphemisms, or less evocative synonyms for or indirect references to words or ideas that are deemed inappropriate to discuss directly. We have many euphemisms for things like excretory acts, sex, and death (Allan & Burridge, 2006). While euphemisms can be socially useful and creative, they can also lead to misunderstanding and problems in cases where more direct communication is warranted despite social conventions.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cGetting Competent\u201d<\/h4>\n

    Using Words Well<\/p>\n

    This chapter discusses several playful, creative, and engaging aspects of verbal communication. Employing language in an engaging way requires some effort for most people in terms of learning the rules of a language system, practicing, and expanding your vocabulary and expressive repertoire. Only milliseconds pass before a thought is verbalized and \u201cout there\u201d in the world. Since we\u2019ve already learned that we have to be accountable for the short- and long-term effects of our communication, we know being able to monitor our verbal communication and follow the old adage to \u201cthink before we speak\u201d is an asset. Using language for effect is difficult, but it can make your speech unique whether it is in a conversation or in front of a larger audience. Aside from communicating ideas, speech also leaves lasting impressions. The following are some tips for using words well that can apply to various settings but may be particularly useful in situations where one person is trying to engage the attention of an audience.<\/p>\n