Language

Language and Effective Communication

​

Language is the foundation of human communication, yet its intricacies lead to misunderstandings. Even within the same linguistic community, innocent miscommunications are inevitable and risk festering into conflicts if unaddressed. 

​

Consider a British student who asks his American classmate for “a rubber.” In the UK, this simply means a pencil eraser, but in American English, “a rubber” is more commonly understood as a condom. 

​

This moment of cross-cultural confusion may lead to embarrassment or even conflict, despite both parties speaking the same language, especially if the American perceives the request as a sexual advance. She could be offended and even pursue sexual harassment charges through her school, or she could ask what he meant. 

​

Conflict and misunderstanding can be avoided altogether by prioritizing language that most effectively shares the intended messages with a given audience. Neither “rubber” nor “eraser” is inherently more correct; each is the most accurate term depending on geographical context. In the UK, that makes “rubber” is the best and most precise term, while “eraser” is the most accurate in the US. 

​

Utilizing the most accurate and precise language is essential to achieve the ultimate goal of language: effectively sharing information. Without a commitment to precision and accuracy, language becomes ineffective and incoherent. While imprecise but related terms may evoke a general idea, substituting them for precise terms only confuses. 

​

Imagine someone asking, “How many graphites do I need for the exam?” or “Where do I put my number two when I’m done?” Without a shared understanding that these phrases refer to a pencil, the intent becomes muddled, and misunderstanding or even conflict follows.

​

The consequences of linguistic ambiguity are not always as trivial as calling a pencil a number two. For example, during the Korean War, British officer Brigadier Tom Brodie radioed his American superior, General Robert H. Soule, to report that the situation was “getting a bit sticky.” Brodie used a British understatement, meaning the battle was becoming dire. General Soule, unfamiliar with this idiomatic phrasing, assumed the situation was under control and delayed reinforcements, leading to the capture of the British contingent. 

​

Language is not merely a tool but a shared system of communication governed by mutually accepted definitions. It functions effectively only when both speaker and listener, writer and reader, operate within a common framework. Language, then, is not just a system of communication—it is a social contract. Words derive significance from a collective agreement over exactly what they refer to. When that agreement breaks down—through dialect, slang, idiom, or deliberate misuse—confusion becomes inevitable.

​

Miscommunications based on dialect are natural and often innocent, but do not justify the intentional bending of linguistic norms. Referring to a pencil as a “number two” in the wrong context, for example, may sound clever or subversive, but it only undermines clarity. 

​

Ultimately, the purpose of language is not to obscure meaning, but to reveal it, making clarity the essence of meaningful communication. Accordingly, it’s essential to avoid distorting definitions to be clearly understood and ultimately, to make peace. 

​

Abortion: A Linguistic Perspective

​

The contemporary abortion debate vividly illustrates the consequences of linguistic ambiguity and deliberate violation of linguistic rules. Both proponents and opponents of legalized abortion often resort to slogans and rhetoric that oversimplify complex issues, undermining meaningful discourse and perpetuating division.

​

For one, advocates of legalized abortion employ slogans like "my body, my choice." While catchy, this slogan overlooks the central question of when a fetus obtains their own body and a right to life. Instead of engaging in nuanced ethical discussions surrounding the rights of fetuses and zygotes, proponents of legalized abortion fixate on the possessive "my" and talk past their opponents. 

​

Conversely, opponents of legalized abortion employ emotionally charged language, like labeling abortion as the "murder of unborn children," without fully considering the linguistic implications. The term “child,” for instance, refers to “a boy or girl from the time of birth,” while "unborn" primarily refers to something "not brought into life," directly undermining the argument that a fetus is alive.

​

Both sides of the abortion debate misuse language in such a way that renders meaningful debate impossible. Both sides would be better served by engaging in a difficult but wholly necessary process of painstakingly debating the issue while examining the definitions of the words used. 

​

Understanding the linguistic intricacies of the abortion debate underscores the value of linguistic precision. Though imprecise language doesn't alter truths, misused and non-pertinent words foster societal discord and preclude mutual understanding. Without mutual understanding, peace quickly breaks down as conflict becomes normal. 

​

Fostering productive dialogue and mutual understanding is an essential goal of communication that first requires linguistic precision. By adhering to established definitions and acknowledging the authority of dictionaries, language can serve as a common reference point, facilitating more effective communication and promoting peace. At the same time, language is constantly evolving, and navigating the dynamic nature of language evolution poses its own challenges.

​

Dynamic Language

​

While dictionaries must remain the firm authority within a language, languages are constantly changing to adapt to modern times. For example, some definitions have changed, like the word “call,” which has transformed from a physical action to a technological action using a telephone. 

​​

Spontaneous linguistic evolution is evident in the growing visibility of transgender issues. For example, the term cisgender—introduced in the 1990s—emerged naturally as a way to describe individuals whose gender identity aligns with their biological sex. Such additions show how language can evolve organically in response to social change, often without controversy or coercion.​​​

​

By contrast, top-down efforts to reshape language—especially around gender—have generated far more controversy. In recent years, activists have promoted the adoption of invented pronouns such as ze, zir, or xe to acknowledge nonbinary identities. While these efforts are rooted in a desire for inclusion, they often bypass the gradual, organic process through which language typically evolves.

​

To many, these innovations feel abrupt or confusing—particularly when introduced in educational settings where students are still learning the fundamentals of grammar. Opposition often stems less from prejudice than from uncertainty or discomfort with unfamiliar terms. In many cases, it’s not the change itself that provokes resistance, but the sense that it’s being imposed rather than embraced.

​​​

As the hateful discussion surrounding abortion and transgender rights shows, politicizing language leads to more division than clarity. Attempts to redefine terms—like "unborn"—risk undermining the integrity of communication itself. When language becomes a battleground for ideological control, mutual understanding gives way to confusion and mistrust.

​

Genuine linguistic change cannot be imposed from above. It must emerge naturally, as people gradually adopt new meanings through lived experience and shared understanding—not by decree from a court, a politician, or an activist.

​

By prioritizing linguistic precision and allowing language to evolve organically, we create space for real dialogue, foster mutual respect, and avoid unnecessary conflicts that are, at their root, often more about language than morality.