5 - Linguistic Pitfalls
Linguistic pitfalls cover the way in which ideas are expressed in language that hinders the accurate or effective interpretation of what is intended, which is generally the fault of the speaker in failing to make himself clear.
Unclear Meaning
An unclear meaning can arise from a statement that is ambiguous, vague, or imprecise. The author considers these:
Ambiguity
An ambiguous expression has more than one meaning or reference. It is possible to identify each interpretation, but impossible to distinguish which of the alternatives were intended.
Poor grammar is also an issue, in instances where it is unclear what a pronoun is referring to ("George hit Peter in his car, and he died." Who was in their car? Who died?) or there is syntactic ambiguity ("Sharon saw Ralph at the game with binoculars" Which of them had the telescope?)
We can either rewrite the sentences to remove ambiguity, or we can acknowledge the various interpretations and indicate which was meant (which is called "disambiguation")
The danger in ambiguity is misinterpretation, whether it leads to failure to understand or, worse, coming away with the wrong understanding.
Vagueness
Whereas ambiguity deals with an unclear distinction between known alternatives, vagueness deals with imprecise boundaries. When we state that the temperature is "hot," there is no precise definition and it may mean different things to different people.
A term can be vague without being ambiguous - we are clear on what "hot" means and would not be led to the conclusion that the temperature might have been "cold." The question is one of what temperature, exactly, "hot" is meant to signify.
There are also varying degrees of vagueness: to say a person "suffered minor bruises" is more specific than saying they "suffered bruises" which in turn is more specific than saying they "got hurt."
Where a statement is more precise, it offers more details, but runs a higher risk of being wrong. People who make public statements are very careful about the level of vagueness they communicate - they wish to provide enough to satisfy their audience, or to accomplish their goal in giving a certain impression, but do not want to be caught in a misstatement.
There is likewise a problem in being overly specific and providing more information that is necessary. Being specific makes a person more credible, provided the details prove to be true, but if the details are inconsequential, they become tedious and their point is lost.
Imprecise
Take the example of a child's game (or an IQ test question) that asks the respondent to indentify which of the following is different to the others: apple, banana, cantaloupe, and orange. The banana is different because it is not spherical, but the cantaloupe is also different because it does not grow on a tree. Which of the two answers is "most correct" is based on the reason they are being compared.
In some instances, the standard of comparison is not given because it is assumed to be implicit in the discussion. In other instances, it is meant to be purposefully vague - particularly in advertising messages, saying a cereal is "a healthier alternative for breakfast" is meant to imply it is healthier than other cereals, but if fact may mean it is merely healthier than arsenic. Thus can claims without concrete proof be made.
Global Defects
Ambiguity, vagueness, and imprecision apply to statements or phrases that are unclear, but lack of clarity can also happen at a global level. An essay may consist of a number of very precise sentences that have no relation to one another, or whose relation is not clear from context and transitions, or which are jumbled and unintelligible.
Distortion
Distortion involves misconstruing the meaning of words, which can be accidental (the result of our own emotional state) or intentional (done to skew the argument in our advantage).
In general, language provides words that portray sentiment as well as factual information: to declare another person "miserly" rather than "thrifty" is to place a negative rather than positive spin on the essential facts.
There may be a positive intent to distortion - to tell the truth in a manner than saves face for oneself or avoids insulting others.
Similarly, there are "weasel words" that are used to suggest statements that lack substance. It is common in pseudo-scholarly writing to indicate that "studies prove" without citing studies, or in common conversation to use words such as "many" or "often" when the quantity and frequency are not known, or when the opposite is known to be true.
There is a mention of quotes taken out of context, which is "unfortunately quite common." Consider the number of people who quote Charles Darwin without having read him, taking some snatch of what he said out of the context, removing a qualifier or a later contradictory statement. "Some people think X but I find this to be absurd" can be taken out of context to imply the author stated "X"
It is not often a problem of intentional misrepresentation on the level of a sentence, but a sentence taken out of the context of a longer document - a problem exacerbated by the Internet, as a person can quickly jump to a passage that supports their point without reading the entire article, and as such they carelessly miss (rather than intentionally remove) the context in which the statement is made. Particularly when a source considers an argument's merit before communicating his own views, there is the danger of being taken out of context and misrepresented.
(EN: This seems to me a problem of relying on the authority of a source rather than considering the logic of the argument. But I have also seen it interfere with the logic of an argument where a statement was taken out of a study, neglecting to note the conditions under which something is true, and suggesting it to be true even outside of those conditions.)
Another common problems are category mistakes, which may arise from bad grammar or a botched attempt to be dramatic or clever. The slogan "information wants to be free" is a clear category mistake, specifically a reification (ascribing human qualities to a thing or a concept). Aside of the ambiguity of "information" and "free," information is cannot want anything. The statement sounds meaningful, but is utter nonsense.
(EN: It's interesting in political argument that people will often speak to "society" as if it were a thing rather than a concept, and avoid defining whom they believe to constitute society.)
Empty Meaning
Empty meaning is a statement in which the words provide little to no information
Consider the statement that "we must follow god's will rather than indulging our personal desires." It's entirely an empty distinction because "gods' will" is not something that can be demonstrated, or known except for our personal desires. For many, and arguably most, "gods will" and "personal desires" are the same thing.
Consider also the distinction between escort services and prostitutes: the former profession was set apart to specify their customers were paying for companionship that did not include sex, but in practice it often does, so the distinction is an empty one.
Questions can also be empty when they serve no useful purpose except to gather a ritual answer. For example, asking people who wish to become US citizens if they are criminals or terrorists is an empty question because the respondents will reply "no" regardless of their past or intended future activity.
Empty statements are also provided that convey no meaning. A weather forecaster may say "either it will rain tomorrow or it will not" - which goes without saying and provides no useful information.
The author points out that some empty statements may be made in order to be filled. To begin by stating "it will rain or it will not" and then following with a description of the consequences may be a valid way of expressing a conditional relationship or communicating a contingency.
Empty statements can also be used as distractions from the matter at hand. "Democracy cannot cure cancer" is not a valid argument against democracy, for obvious reasons the author nonetheless explains.
Gobbledygook Everywhere
The author despairs at the amount of "gobbledygook" he sees every day. The term describes language that is unnecessary complicated in order to make a simple (or wrong) statement seem to be more accurate or profound than it actually is.
He dredges up a few examples from business communications and legal documents that are long-winded, verbose, and full of jargon - and after carefully scrutiny, are found to say very little or, in some instances, nothing at all.
There is presently a trend toward adopting plain language, but it clearly has a long way to go.