Language is constantly evolving to reflect changing attitudes. Some words and phrases that people have used for years may now be unacceptable to society. Today’s more ubiquitous reality often seems like a minefield, especially if one has not kept up with 21st century language etiquette. People expect inclusive and considerate language to be used and the feelings and preferences of the people one is communicating with to be reflected, especially when speaking to historically marginalized groups or individuals. One word or misplaced phrase can cause irreparable harm in such a context.
The six principles of inclusive language
Linguistic anthropologist Suzanne Wertheim’s book, “The Inclusive Language Field Guide: 6 Simple Principles for Avoiding Painful Mistakes and Communicating Respectfully”, offers six principles of inclusive language so that one can better understand the dynamics of communication and not hurt others with one’s words. They are reflecting reality, showing respect, engaging people, including other perspectives, preventing erasure, and recognizing pain points.
The use of pronouns may seem insignificant, but they carry a lot of weight, especially among people whom people misgender regularly. Inclusive language reflects scientific reality by recognizing that gender identity is not binary. This language uses respectful terminology that incorporates this awareness.
Three types of linguistic distortions distort and misrepresent reality to the detriment of inclusion. The dominant group may use “masking language” based on the assumption that what it finds normal applies to everyone. They use phrases such as “stay neutral” or “maintain professionalism” to maintain a status quo that works to their advantage. “The ‘obfuscating language’ distorts reality by presenting normal behaviour as unreasonable.
“Mitigating language” downplays the negative behavior of people in the dominant group. The phrase “boys will be boys”, for example, is intended to minimize or dismiss the feelings of those who are hurt. “Just kidding” is a common way in which people deflect criticism for inappropriate statements or behavior by shifting the burden to the victim to accept the unacceptable.
Recognizing the “sore spots” eliminates the factors that reveal false assumptions and biases. The use of mental health terms to exaggerate the description of someone’s behaviour should be avoided. For example, a person with a tidy desk does not have an obsessive disorder, and mood swings are not schizophrenia.
When the dictionary doesn’t help
Dictionary definitions do not capture the nuances of what a word expresses in context. Semantic frames happen when a single word can create a complete image in a person’s head. Seemingly synonymous adjectives illustrate how framing creates double standards and prejudices: for example, a “high-spirited” versus a “disruptive” child; “tousled” versus “unkempt” hair; and an “aggressive” versus an “assertive” personality.
Words carry cultural meanings that transcend dictionary definitions. Societies index the words of those in power as more positive and acceptable. The author calls this phenomenon “Indexicality.”
Words are not neutral. Depending on its context, a word acquires a connotation that extends beyond its dictionary definition.
Semantic frames, indexicality, and inflection are valuable perspectives that help identify problematic language and take action to use more inclusive language.
