On the stretching of meanings

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

matticus

Guru
The most vigorously discussed recent example being TERRORISM!!! It's clear that this word referred to violence used to achieve political means.
The government bolted on "criminal damage" (because it suited their needs); the unfortunate by-product of this is people say:
"They're terrorists - look at all the damage they did!"
"But they're non-violent ..."
"Doesn't matter! Look - terrorism includes criminal damage. It's their in black-and-white!!!"

I am against this! It's clearly being done to label someone in a way that suits your argument - a variation of guilt by association?

Another example - being discusssed in the other place - is Vigilante. I do not believe that anyone hearing that word envisions a chap standing in front of a car, asking them to reverse back down the No-Entry they've "strayed" down.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vigilante&udm=2&safe=active&ssui=on
 

C R

Guru
As with many other things, in this many modern institutions are reading 1984 as an instruction manual rather than as a warning. If you control the language, you can control the kind of thoughts people are likely to entertain.
 
OP
OP
matticus

matticus

Guru
As with many other things, in this many modern institutions are reading 1984 as an instruction manual rather than as a warning. If you control the language, you can control the kind of thoughts people are likely to entertain.

Is there a name for this particular type of language control? It's something I've only really noticed in recent years.

(I think partly because people google for a word, then seize on whichever part (of their preffered) definition supports their argument best. Then ignore all the other aspects!)
 
Is there a name for this particular type of language control? It's something I've only really noticed in recent years.

(I think partly because people google for a word, then seize on whichever part (of their preffered) definition supports their argument best. Then ignore all the other aspects!)

Doublespeak?
 

monkers

Shaman
Is there a name for this particular type of language control? It's something I've only really noticed in recent years.

(I think partly because people google for a word, then seize on whichever part (of their preffered) definition supports their argument best. Then ignore all the other aspects!)

It's the deliberate use of a category error that extends beyond rhetoric or hyperbole. You might call this 'catachresis'? Or maybe a 'dysphemism'?

Addendum ... I should also say I agree with your opening post entirely.
 
Last edited:

Ian H

Squire
Is there a name for this particular type of language control? It's something I've only really noticed in recent years.

(I think partly because people google for a word, then seize on whichever part (of their preffered) definition supports their argument best. Then ignore all the other aspects!)

Whatever happened to the Rev Bowdler? And why do Americans piss in the bath?
Language policing ain't new.
 

C R

Guru
Is there a name for this particular type of language control? It's something I've only really noticed in recent years.

(I think partly because people google for a word, then seize on whichever part (of their preffered) definition supports their argument best. Then ignore all the other aspects!)

In 1984 there's a push to change the language to make sure that even the though of rebellion becomes impossible. The new language is called Newspeak. Newspeak is a sort of abridged version of English where complex thoughts are difficult to formulate.

Doublespeak is another aspect of the aim to control people's thoughts through the use of language.
 
Top Bottom