The language is much less neutral than we usually think: the questions can be directed and the words can be biased, and they are more likely to be biased the more controversial. In general, attempts to manufacture neutrality in language lead to the opposite effect. If something horrible happens, describing it with euhemisms becomes an approval of the horror itself.
In recent months, the second Trump administration has become notorious Sending of masked entertainment agents without mandate to understand American residents outside the judicial systemAnd for having sent them abroad And pretending not to have the power to bring them back When ordered by the Supreme Court to do so. In cases like these, then, what is a neutral observer to do? How can someone like a journalist or a judge aim to be apolitical rather than a supporter during the discussion of these actions?
Certain words and sentences can be neutral and impartial, such as the “primary number”. There is really only one term for a primary number because its meaning (a number divisible only by one and itself) could not be simpler or harmless. There is nothing more than a vision of what makes a number of people, so we don't need more than a term for the concept.
At the other end of the spectrum are such volatile problems that neutral language is almost impossible. There are many terms for supporters of rights that have been guaranteed by Roe against Wade, and many terms for those who have opposed the decision. The “Pro-Choix” label implies that the others are “anti-lash”; The “anti-abortion” label implies that the others are “pro-abortion”.
Linguists and philosophers who study the meaning have long appreciated that a given word has a literal or explicit meaning alongside a more elusive and implicit meaning. The original example The German philosopher Gottlob Frege contrasted “dog”, a neutral term, with “curled”, a kind of canine insult. The other pairs have positive implications for one and negative for the other: is this task a “challenge” or an “slog”? These demonstrators “favor”-they an uprising or “incitement”?
The choices of words can also be used to strengthen or undermine the legitimacy of the government, because as regards the acts of force, we generally have certain terms that we use when we consider that the act is lawful (as “arrest” and “execution”) and other terms when we consider the illegal act (as “kidnapping” and “kill”) and other terms when we consider the unlimited act (as “kidnapping”) other terms when we consider the unlimited act (as “abduction” and “kill”). None of these terms are neutral; They all carry a legal judgment, and it is very difficult to find a way to characterize the acts of force that do not.
The philosopher H. Paul Grice observed that the franchise of the form corresponds to the franchise of meaning; The use of a roundabout euphemism to replace a direct word amounts to moving from direct meaning to direct meaning to indirect meaning, without moving from direct significance to neutral meaning. Direct words like “kill” or “break” often involve the deductible for action, perhaps because their indirect and verbose counterparts (“Cause death” or “provoke rupture”), because of their indirect, implies that the act was accidentally done. This is one of the reasons why the euphemism “shooting involving officers” is widely interpreted and plausible Like a non -neutral wording that often eliminates any agency suggestion on the part of the officer.
Language is therefore full of biased terms, in particular concerning controversial subjects, and attempts to avoid these terms lead to their own bias. What are the linguistic options for someone who wants to remain morally or legally neutral while describing or indicating controversial acts such as recent immigration actions of the federal government? How can we do it without emphasizing the anarchy of the administration (as could a Trump critic), or without playing anarchy (as could a defender of Trump)?
The simple answer, from the point of view of semantics, is that such a thing is practically impossible: language generally does not allow us the capacity to describe the controversial circumstances and with high issues without also weighing them implicitly. Different languages differ in their lexical inventory, of course – there are languages that have innovated Words for concepts that other languages have generally not have – But there is also a general trend under biased terms for controversial subjects. It is not a necessary property of language, but the reflection of the way in which we tend to think of the world.
This message is not new: journalists have long been warned that Objectivity is an impossible idealand there was the support of social movements and political science specialists for the affirmation that To be “apolitical” is equivalent to a political position in support of existing imbalances and injustices of power.
As with most things in life, choosing not to take aside is equivalent to taking one side, and the same goes for the use of language. The sooner we can reconcile with this linguistic reality, the sooner we can start to fight against our socio -political reality, which is in ruins.
Jessica Rett is a Linguistics Professor at the UCLA. His research examines the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in wider contexts.
Knowledge
Times Insights Provides an analysis generated by AI-AI on the content of the voices to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any press article.
Point of view
Prospects
The content generated by AI-AI is powered by perplexity. The editorial staff of Los Angeles Times do not create or modify the content.
Ideas expressed in the play
- The article maintains that The language intrinsically carries the biasesEspecially when you describe controversial or horrible actions, which makes real neutrality impossible. Terms as “arrest” against “kidnapping” or “pro-choix” against “anti-abortion” implicitly transmit legal or moral judgments, strengthening the dynamics of societal power(1)(3).
- Indirect euphemisms and phrasing (For example, “shooting involving officers”) are criticized for the obscuring agency and minimize damage, often used to legitimize authority rather than remain impartial. This is aligned with the observation of H. Paul Grice according to which indirect language changes meaning but does not reach neutrality(1)(3).
- The author says that try to be apolitical through language– as to avoid terms such as “abduction” for government actions – finally on the side with existing power structures. This reflects broader criticism than neutrality in journalism or the academic world perpetuates systemic injustices(1)(3).
Different views on the subject
- Objective language frames Involve the priority of factual and impersonal terms to minimize biases. For example, academic writing directives recommend that it avoid emotionally loaded words as “horrible” or “crazy” in favor of neutral descriptors (for example, “higher than expected” instead of “brilliant”) to maintain credibility(2).
- Some maintain that Structured linguistic standards Can mitigate biases without endorse damage. By focusing on verifiable facts (for example, “masked agents have apprehended residents without mandate”), observers could avoid manifest political alignment while documenting events(2).
- Criticism of the position of the article argue that Explicitly name oppression systems (for example, “cissexism” or “heterosexism”) can question the dynamics of power without counting on an intrinsically biased language, offering a ground of commonness between neutrality and plea(3).
