Meaning: Ambiguous Or Quibbling Speech

Weasel Words

Meaning: Ambiguous or quibbling speech.

Origin: Stewart Chaplin's story “Stained Glass Political Platform”, 1900, contains this line: "Why, weasel words are words that suck the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks the egg and leaves the shell."

The Daily Oklahoman, October 1906 used the term in questioning the sincerity of a set of principles which was being written by the Democratic Party: "If written after the nominations, will it express in plain words the economic demand of the exploited class, or will it be filled in with weasel words, well sounding to the people, but well meaning to corporate greed?"

If Theodore Roosevelt, then Colonel Roosevelt, is to be believed then it was the latter. In 1910, he was reported in various US newspapers as saying that he liked the Republican state platform because it contained no "weasel words", explaining that "weasel words" were words which sucked the meaning out of the words in front of them.

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")

Examples

* "A growing body of evidence..."[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)

* "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, ...?)

* "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?

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.

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?"

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."

* "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.

A related issue is the stylistic qualms held by 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.

Weasel Words and Superfluous Adverbs Hurt in Writing

Students have asked to place on this web site ideas about words to avoid using in memos, letters, and reports. These weasel words (where all the meaning is sucked out of them) include:

* great

* a lot (two words)

* interesting

* wonderful

* feel (feel a desk) or felt

* really (superfluous adverb)

* thing(s)

* aspect(s)

* hope

* wish

* trust

* exciting, excitement, excited

* asset (as in great asset)

* very (superfluous adverb)

* whereas (sounds legalese)

* lack of (Isn't there any other way to say?)

Sometimes superfluous adjectives creep into our writing. For example, the phrase, loud shouting, needs some attention. If we shout, it is probably loud. Therefore, when in doubt, leave it out.

Source:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

* http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/403150.html

* http://www.csun.edu/~vcecn006/jargob.html