Weasel words

Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication.

Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:

• vague generalizations
• use of the passive voice
• non sequitur statements
• use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
• use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")

[edit] Origin

The expression weasel word derives from the egg-eating habits of weasels. An egg that a weasel has sucked will look intact to the casual observer, while actually being empty. Similarly, 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),^[1] 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."

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."^[2]

[edit] Examples

• "A growing body of evidence..."^[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
• "Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags." (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
• "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." (They're all about the same.)
• "Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us." (In what way would it be beneficial?)
• "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
• "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
• "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..." (Can these mentioners be trusted?)
• "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
• "It is known that..." (By whom and what method is it known?)
• "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
• "History has shown that..." (Which events, date, facts have shown that and who is interpreting these events, dates, ...?)

It 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.

[edit] Generalizations and non sequitur statements

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into non sequitur (logic). (Discuss)

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") conceal the full picture.

Non sequitur statements are often used in advertising to make it appear that the statement is a sales point. Some generalizations are considered unacceptable in writing. This category embraces what is termed a "semantic cop-out", represented by the term allegedly.^[4] This phrase, which became something of a catch phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television series Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion, which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.

[edit] Extrapolating

Extrapolating through the use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive can be used to introduce facts which 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?"

[edit] Passive voice

The passive voice can be used in English to weasel away from blame. A passive construction occurs when the object of an action is made into the subject of a sentence, or the object (usually indicated by "by the") 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."
• "Over 120 different contaminants have been dumped into the river."
• "Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us."
• "It has been suggested that this article or section be..."

In the example: "Mistakes were made," it is clear that the names of the persons who made mistakes is being withheld and the intention of weaseling is obvious.
In the "over 120 different contaminants..." sentence, a more precise number of "contaminants" might have avoided the impression of weaseling, even though we might never know who the "dumpers" were.
"Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us", has more to do with style than weaseling, as it would be much better to use the active voice: "It would be beneficial to us to become involved with this problem". This is a particular issue which engages the attention of many linguists and teachers who discourage the passive voice being used too frequently.^[5][6]

However, in the sentence

• "100 votes are required to pass the bill",

the usage 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 which 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.

[edit] In business

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.^[7] Jargon of this kind is used to describe things euphemistically.

In certain kinds of advertisements, words are missing or withheld deliberately to influence 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.)
• "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!" (Is it really 20% cheaper than the last product?)
• "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)
• "More people are using..." (What does that mean in numbers?)
• "This product helps fight the signs of aging" ("helps" implies that it is the cure)

[edit] Articles and books

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'."^[8]

Carl Wrighter discussed weasel words in his book I Can Sell You Anything (1972).

Australian author Don Watson collected two volumes (Death Sentence and Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words) documenting the increasing use of weasel words in government and corporate language. He maintains a website^[9] encouraging people to identify and nominate examples of weasel words.

[edit] See also

• Essentially contested concept
• Glittering generality
• Newspeak
• Political correctness
• Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
• Wooden language

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Weasel Words and Other Perversions of the Language
• weaselwords.com.au