William Lutz, former professor of English at Rutgers University, has become closely associated with his favorite topic to write about: doublespeak.� In one of his essays on the subject entitled “Doublespeak,” found in The Longman Writer, Lutz wants to underscore the fact that doublespeak, no matter what form it takes, is highly confused and confusing language. By overlapping the categories, Lutz seems to say that doublespeak is premeditatedly confusing. This communication language is crafted in such a way as to confuse the listeners and readers. It is craftily designed to mislead.

According to Lutz, doublespeak is dangerous because it is designed precisely to alter perception and corrupt the thinking of its listeners and viewers. It is used to cover up reality. It glosses over the negative and unpleasant to make it appear otherwise. It is the language of lying – glamorously. If language and communication serve to unite a people, doublespeak only ends up dividing the potential understanding of people. Doublespeak breeds cynicism and doubt, as well as suspicion and general collapse of trust.

The categories of doublespeak overlap, according to Lutz. All four are pretentious and confusing. Euphemism and inflated language, though both potentially funny, differ in their intention such that euphemism attempts to put the negative in positive light, while inflated language attempts to put the positive under the limelight. Jargon is euphemism with a little dash of cliquish style and humor. Gobbledygook is expanded jargon, where pockets of collective lingo are raised to the level of organizational communication.

Euphemism becomes doublespeak when it is used to mislead or deceive. Salvaging or political and extra-judicial killings is called “summary executions.” The phrase can denote legitimacy in the name of legal logic.

As doublespeak, jargon which is pretentious, obscure, and esoteric terminology can pass as profound and authoritative vocabulary that gives prestige to speakers on their discussion of certain topics and subject matter. Jargon is used to impress, not just express. With jargon, the simple appear complex, the obvious and trite appear deep and insightful, and the ordinary and staid can become profound. Jargon can also be used a means for doublespeak. When a company management team is assailed for inefficiencies, they can easily hide the reality and make people believe that the administrative glitch is merely temporary in pursuit of a better system. The management team can mouth such seemingly legitimate phrases as “upgrade to management quality systems” and “organizational development.”

Gobbledygook or bureaucratese is meant to overwhelm the audience with loads of words where the listeners end up not really being able to understand what is there to understand, in the first place. It is grandstanding that does not make sense. Some analytical journalists haven found that such statements as, “The global war on terror is aimed to cripple the nihilistic attempts of hardliner Muslim extremists who have launched their grand jihad in the name of Allah,” as nothing more than saying or meaning that the West is paranoid that their superior position is now threatened by non-Western countries, with special concern over the fact that Muslims number 5 percent of the whole global population.

Inflated language makes the ordinary extraordinary, and elevates what is normally regarded as mundane, commonplace, and routine to a position of higher importance. Mothers are no longer just housewives and doting parents. Their work is really measured scientifically in terms of timelines and desired outputs. They are now “domestic engineers.”

Doublespeak is a language that pretends to communicate, but really does not.� It is an irresponsible form of communication that prevents logical and truthful thinking. It is the expert craft of words used in negative manner for the intention of lying and covering up of reality.

According to Lutz, four questions help people spot “doublespeak,” namely: who is saying what to whom, under what conditions and circumstances, with what intent, and with what results.

Asking these questions will help one discern between that which appears to be legitimate communication and that which, at first glance, doesn’t even appear to be doublespeak. These questions help filter the intention and motivation behind the language of the message and its spoken words.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Via BBC