Weasel word

Weasel words are said by some to be an informal term are sometimes claimed to be substituted for words and phrases that, while communicating a vague or ambiguous claim, create an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said. Weasel words manage to vaguely imply meaning far beyond the claim actually made. For example, authorities on the subject believe that advertisements use weasel phrases such as "up to 50% off": this is misleading because readers are invited to imagine many reduced items and many of them reduced by as much as the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally allow for much less. It is believed that some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example, many believe that weasel word usage includes using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects".

Origin

The expression weasel word is thought by some to be derived from the egg-eating habits of weasels. Some think that an egg that a weasel has sucked will look intact to the casual observer, while actually being empty. Thus, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon analysis are known by the majority of people as "weasel words". The expression is thought by experts to have first appeared in Stewart Chaplin's short story Stained Glass Political Platform (published in 1900 in The Century Magazine), 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." Theodore Roosevelt is thought to have attributed the term to Dave Sewall, claiming that Sewall used the term in a private conversation in 1879.

In the political sphere, this type of language is thought to be used to "spin" or alter the public's perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt is said to have 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."

Forms

Examples

• "A growing body of evidence..." (Where is the raw data for your review?)
• "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
• "It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)
• "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
• "Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)
• "It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)
• "Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
• "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..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
• "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
• "Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)
• "It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
• "Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
• "It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
• "It was noted that..." (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)
• "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." (What is the evidence of this?)
• "Studies show..." (what studies?)
• "(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)
• "Some argue..." (who?)
• "Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
• "More than seventy percent...(How many more? 80%? 90%?)
• "The vast majority..." (All, almost all, more than half—how many?)

Some feel 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.

A 2009 study of Wikipedia, which many feel is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:

1. Numerically vague expressions (eg "some people", "experts", "many")
2. Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (eg "it is said")
3. Adverbs that detensify (eg "often", "probably")

Other forms of weasel words are thought to include:

• vague generalizations
• 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")

Generalizations and non sequitur statements

The vagueness of a statement is thought to disguise the validity or the aim of that statement in some cases. Generalizing by means of quantifiers, such as many or better, and the passive voice ("it has been decided") conceal the full picture, in the opinion of most readers.

Non sequitur statements are often believed to be 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. 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.

Extrapolating

Some feel that extrapolating through the use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive can be used to introduce facts that are beyond the proof of the cited work. This is generally considered to be a legitimate function of language, though others feel that it resembles weaseling. When it is impractical to enumerate and cite many individual works, then the use of these grammatical devices are generally believed to conform 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 thought by most writes to be 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, in the opinion of the general population.

• "One wonders what else was being discussed that evening."
• "What can one do in circumstances such as these?"

Passive and middle voice

The passive voice and middle voice can both be used in English to weasel away from blame. A passive construction occurs when the object of an action is made the focus of the sentence (by moving it to the front). In some cases, the agent (the subject in active voice, usually indicated by "by" in the passive voice) 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. However, in the sentence

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

the usage of the passive voice is not necessarily connected with weaseling, some argue. The phrase, "100 votes are required to pass the bill", is probably a statement of fact in the opinion of most, that it is exactly 100 votes that 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.

Examples of weasel words using the middle voice are thought by some to include:

• "It stands to reason that most people will be better off after the changes."
• "There are great fears that most people will be worse off after the changes."
• "Experience insists that most people will not be better off after the changes."

Not all sentences using the middle voice are necessarily weasel words, others argue. The above sentence: "It stands to reason that most people will be better off after the changes", is clearly an instance of redundancy rather than weaseling, in the opinion of some. There is no need for "it stands to reason...," most authors would claim. All that is thought to be needed is: "More people will be better off after the changes". What is relevant to most is what has been said before or is going to be said afterwards in the context of the discussion where the sentence occurs.

Style is another point more important in the discernment of the use of middle or passive voice, in the opinion of many readers. The above sentence: "There are great fears..." would have been better in the passive voice: "It is feared that most people will be worse off after the changes," according to some people. The passive voice is the more logical choice here for the reason that this sentence would not stand on its own, but would occur in the course of a discussion, according to others. If the reasoning behind the sentence is so obvious within the discussion that it does not need substantiating by citing thousands of sources then the passive is perfectly alright in the opinion of a third group.

In business

It is believed that 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. 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!" (Cheaper than what? The last model? Some arbitrarily inflated price?)
• "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, or even 101/100)
• "More people are using..." (What does that mean in numbers?)
• "Nothing Is Stronger/Longer Lasting/Safer." (How many are equally as strong/long lasting/safe?)

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'."

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 encouraging people to identify and nominate examples of weasel words.

See also

• Essentially contested concept
• Glittering generality
• Linguistic relativity
• Newspeak
• Political correctness
• Wooden language

External links

• Jason, Gary (1988) "Hedging as a Fallacy of Language", Informal Logic X.3, Fall 1988