World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Article Id: WHEBN0000237167
Reproduction Date:

Title:  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Propaganda, Propaganda techniques, Loaded question, No true Scotsman, Newspeak
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes.[1][2][3] Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques.

Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies that all tax is an unreasonable burden to begin with. Examples of loaded language are "You want to go to the mall, don't you?" and "Do you really want to associate with those people?".

The appeal to emotion is often seen as being in contrast to an appeal to logic and reason. However, emotion and reason are not necessarily always in conflict, nor is it true that an emotion cannot be a reason for an action. Authors R. Malcolm Murray and Nebojsa Kujundzic distinguish "prima facie reasons" from "considered reasons" when discussing this. A prima facie reason for, say, not eating mushrooms is that one does not like mushrooms. This is an emotive reason. However, one still may have a considered reason for not eating mushrooms: one might consume enough of the relevant minerals and vitamins that one could obtain from eating mushrooms from other sources. An emotion, elicited via emotive language, may form a prima facie reason for action, but further work is required before one can obtain a considered reason.[3]

Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions".[1][3]

Examples

Politicians cultivate loaded language, and often study how to use it effectively: which words to use or avoid using to gain political advantage or disparage an opponent. Heller gives the example that it is common for a politician to advocate "investment in public services", because it has a more favorable connotation than "public spending".[4] Contrast the extremely negative formulation of "the tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" with the extremely positive formulation of "the public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good", in describing exactly the same thing ("government spending" which is the neutral and accurate phrase).

One aspect of loaded language is that loaded words and phrases occur in pairs, sometimes as political framing techniques by individuals with opposing agendas. Heller calls these "a Boo! version and a Hooray! version" to differentiate those with negative and positive emotional connotations. Examples include bureaucrat versus public servant, pro-death versus pro-choice, regime versus government, and elitist versus expert.[4]

Following the September 11 attacks, the word madrassa (which means "school" in Arabic) was loaded with negative connotations by Westerners who did not speak Arabic and failed to make the distinction between strictly extremist schools and schools that teach primary education subjects. YaleGlobal Online magazine examined bias in U.S. newspaper coverage of Pakistan since the September 11 attacks. They found the term had acquired a loaded political meaning:[5]

When articles mentioned "madrassas", readers were led to infer that all schools so-named are anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist centers having less to do with teaching basic literacy and more to do with political indoctrination.

Some U.S. public figures have used the word madrassa in a negative context, including Newt Gingrich,[5] Donald Rumsfeld,[6] and Colin Powell.[7]

In the 1946 essay "George Orwell discussed the use of loaded language in political discourse.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.[8]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b  
  2. ^ Larry Lavender (1996). Dancers Talking Dance. Human Kinetics. p. 72.  
  3. ^ a b c Malcolm Murray and Nebojsa Kujundzic (2005). Critical Reflection. McGill Queen's University Press. p. 90.  
  4. ^ a b Richard Heller (2002). High Impact Speeches. Pearson Education. p. 54.  
  5. ^ a b Moeller, Susan (2007-06-21). """Jumping on the US Bandwagon for a "War on Terror. Yale Global Online. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. 
  6. ^ Rumsfeld, Donald (2003-10-16). "Rumsfeld's war-on-terror memo" (Transcript). USA Today. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 
  7. ^ "Madrassas breeding grounds of terrorists: Powell".  
  8. ^ "Politics and the English Language",  
Help improve this article
Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.