Weasel word

A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. Weasel words can be readily identified in a large amount of corporate correspondence, and are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with, but is distinct from, a euphemism. The name is derived from the act of "weaseling out" of providing a reference to support a statement.

Though the imagery of the term suggests that it implies the concept of a weasel as being sneaky and able to wiggle out of a tight spot, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says that the term actually comes from the weasel's ability to suck the contents out of an egg without breaking the shell; thus, weasel words suck the meaning out of a statement while seeming to keep the idea intact.

Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive or draw attention from something the speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result of the speaker's or writer's poor but honest attempt at description.

Weasel words or terms

English speakers are often exhorted to avoid weasel words or terms in public discourse. It is difficult to define exactly what these terms are and all examples vary with the situations in which they are being used.

Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English.

Weasel words are more about feeling than fact, about style than substance. They can be used to smooth over an uncomfortable fact (e.g.: headcount reduction instead of firing staff), or to create a sense of grandeur and importance (e.g.: transitory staffing solution provider instead of temp agency). Most often, weasel words appear in business or political discourse. Hence, there is a strong association between weasel words and the work of spin doctors.

Purposes

Weasel words can be used to draw attention away from adverse evidence.

They are used intentionally to manipulate an audience by heightening audience expectations about the speaker's subject.

Claims about the truth of a subject at an earlier time when the truth could not have been ascertained because of a lack of hard facts, will become much harder to verify when weasel words have been used in the meantime. This may be seen when a politician, for example, later tries to alter the perception of an original speech.

"With all due respect..." a weasel phrase that can be used to avoid criticism sounding like an insult.

Syntax, part of which is missing

In certain kinds of advertisements, for example, the part of the syntax that would normally establish the validity of a statement is missing or is being withheld deliberately in the expectation that the listener or reader will complete the message subliminally and so will be influenced by it:

"... is now 20% cheaper" (It is now 20% cheaper than what?)
"There is more goodness in ..." (How is this goodness measured and what does it consist of?)
"More people than ever are using ..." (What does that mean in numbers?)
"New and improved ..." (Improved in which qualities? If it is improved, how can it also be new ?) Note that some products such as automobiles are improved in some regard every year, but may not be better to an extent that many customers would notice.
"Our ... will never be cheaper." (Is this accounting for inflation? Is your profit margin thin enough that you could not have a cheaper sale next year?)
"Clinically tested..." (but not proven? What did the test results reveal? Does the product work as claimed?)

Generalization using weasel words

Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps the speaker or writer disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what he has said.

"People say…"
"Few of those who knew the truth have spoken up for …"
"Sometimes it is difficult to do something about it."
"It has been decided that..."
"It turns out that..."

Who are the people who say ..., who are the people who knew the truth and who ought to have spoken up, and when are the times when it is difficult to do something about something? What has been decided by whom?

In the following phrases, an indication of where or how the stories started would have removed the weaseling effect:

"It has been mentioned he has embezzled money." (Who mentioned it?)
"Rumour has it that she has left him." (Where was this rumour published or spread?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Where is it? What are the details?)
"A source states that..." (What is the source? Is it reliable?)

There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard 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 show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.

Common grammatical generalizations

Away from the dissembling functions applied to it by the weasellers, generalization through grammatical devices such as quantifiers and the passive voice can be used to introduce facts that are beyond the proof of direct citation.

When it is impractical, if not impossible, to enumerate and cite too many individual voices, or the voices are too remote in time, then the use of these grammatical devices conforms to the standards established by tradition.

Examples here are:

"It is often disputed that…"
"Hard as it may be for modern readers to accept…"
"As the wits put it…"
"For scientists as for so many others, evolution served as an example of a fundamental challenge to long-held convictions".

Also rhetorically valid is the use of the neuter pronoun it and the adverb there as impersonal dummy subjects when an author intends to distance himself from what he has written, 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…"
"Where was it again that we first met?"
"After the end of the Californian gold rush, there were many ghost towns."
"There are people who wash very infrequently"

Furthermore, the personal pronoun one, as a subject or an object in formal English, that refers either to oneself or as a generalisation to anyone in a similar situation, may also be used quite justifiably to distance the speaker from what he says. Even in informal speech, it renders less personal what is being said: "Contrary to the urban legend, one can die from eating a bottle of pills, even if one subsequently clears the stomach by vomiting", rather than "Contrary to the urban legend, you can die from eating a bottle of pills, even if you subsequently (throw up)".

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

Excessive use of words ending in -ly.

The building was absolutely destroyed (destroyed already implies gone).
After the spa treatment she felt completely healed. (healed implies 100% health).
It was utterly chaotic on the streets (chaotic already implies no order).

External links

Rhetoric | Political terms

Unnvikende uttrykk