13 Sep 2010
The World of Doublespeak
In Lutz’s eyes, doublespeak “is the language that pretends to communicate but really doesn’t. It is the language that makes the bad seems good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable”. Many types of doublespeak are employed in our language to mislead the speaker’s audience in a direction that the truth can come out to hold a different meaning. Lutz illustrates the styles of doublespeak into four categories. In shaping these categories, lie the people who hold the responsibility for the proliferation of doublespeak. The first of such doublespeak involve the use of euphemisms. A euphemism is a means of using a mild or positive phrase to soften a given statement as coming off as harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality. In Lutz’s example of sending condolences to someone who is grieving by saying he/she has “passed away” instead of bluntly telling them he/she “had died”, is a way of demonstrating a euphemism to indicate your sensitivity to the feelings of that grieving person. But it is when a euphemism is used to mislead or swindle, that it becomes a doublespeak. The U.S. State Department is one of such who has used It seems to me that the answer involving any doublespeak doesn’t give you the truth in black and white. Its speakers will utilize all the types of gray in between to skew the truth in the direction the speaker intends, possibly to point the role of being a scapegoat towards something else. The way I see it, is that Lutz believes that doublespeak was brewed up because of politics and it is the politicians’ responsibility to tell the public or audience the truth without misleading. I feel in order to stop the proliferation of doublespeak; you must stop it by targeting its creators, whoever they may be. Lutz’s opinions were found more in his section about the dangers of doublespeak. He shows that doublespeak is not performed on accident,...