Cover not available

In:The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 127–162

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

We can do without these words

Investigating prescriptive attitudes to meaning in a specialised discourse

 | University of Macerata
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.06phi
Abstract
This chapter deals with a Style Guide written in 2013 for the British Civil Service. It included a list of words to avoid, from the difficult and vague, to the metaphorical. Viewing the Style Guide as a genuine attempt to resolve problems with the Civil Service’s notoriously convoluted prose style, the study compares and contrasts the proscribed words with their use in the very documents that it was aimed to improve – online policy documents. It highlights discrepancies that are known to exist between the “proper” meanings of words and those that are found in the texts, and also reveals how comprehension problems are not just caused by lexis (metaphor in particular), but also by unusual or unexpected syntactical patternings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Style Guides: “plain language” and “proper meanings”
  • 3.The language of politicians and politics
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1Online policy documents
    • 4.2Investigating the “banned words”
  • 5.Pretexts for banning words
    • 5.1Difficult words, vague words, and metaphors
    • 5.2Always avoid metaphors
  • 6.Metaphors in administrative prose
    • 6.1A closer look at metaphor: ‘fighting and defending’
    • 6.2Collocational specialisation: ‘crime’, ‘disease’ and other collocates of ‘fighting and defending’
    • 6.3Syntactical specialisation
    • 6.4Summary
  • 7.Phraseological environments, “wrong” meanings and vague language
  • 8.A final word about the words
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (66)
References
Aarts, B., Chalker, S. & Weiner, E. 2014. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bache, C. 1995. The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bougher, L. D. 2012. The case for metaphor in political reasoning and cognition. Political Psychology 33(1): 145–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor, 2nd ed. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. & Ilyin, M. 1993. Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the common European house. Discourse and Society 4(1): 7–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. n.d. How to Write Clearly. <[URL]> (25 April 2015).
Crow, P. 1988. Plain English: What counts besides readability? The Journal of Business Communication 25(1): 87–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2000. Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 163–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flesch, R. F. 1946. The Art of Plain Talk. New York: Harper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, J. A. 2007. Why George Orwell’s ideas about language still matter for lawyers. Montana Law Review 68: 129–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2004. The discursive construction of a world-class city. Discourse and Society 15(5): 579–605.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., revised by E. Gowers. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garner, B. 1987. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gowers, E. 1954. The Complete Plain Words. Containing ‘Plain Words’ and ‘The ABC of Plain Words’ rearranged and revised. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. The Complete Plain Words, 2nd ed., revised by S. Greenbaum & J. Whitcut. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 41–53. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gulick, L. 1984. The metaphors of public administration. Public Administration Quarterly Fall 1984: 369–381.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hastings, A. 1998. Connecting linguistic structures and social practices: A discursive approach to social policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy 27(2): 191–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ho, V. 2016. Discourse of persuasion: A preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents. Text & Talk 36(1): 1–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howe, N. 1988. Metaphor in contemporary American political discourse. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 3: 87–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, E. 2005. WAR in the media: Metaphors, ideology, and the formation of language policy. Bilingual Research Journal 29: 621–640.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimble, J. 1996. Writing for dollars, writing to please. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 1(2): 1–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. The elements of plain language. Michigan Bar Journal October 2002: 40–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, V. & Davidson, P. 2008. Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse and Society 19: 307–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, M. J. & Keefer, L. A. 2014. This is like that: Metaphors in public discourse shape attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8(8): 463–473.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A. & Rothschild, Z. K. 2014. Epistemic motives moderate the effect of metaphoric framing on attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 53: 125–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. & Schlesinger, M. 2005. Policy frames, metaphorical reasoning, and support for public policies. Political Psychology 26(1): 77–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, L., MacArthur, F., Cienki, A. & Holloway, J. 2012. How to make yourself understood by international students: The role of metaphor in academic tutorials. ELT Research Papers 12–06. (Available from [URL] (3 April 2018)).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longe, V. 1985. Apects of the textual features of officialese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 23(45): 301–313.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. The linguistic realization of paralinguistic features in administrative language. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(1): 113–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mio, J. S. 1997. Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol 12(2): 113–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. 1998. Metaphors and trains of thought: Spotting journey metaphors in British and German political discourse. In Language, Politics and Society, S. Wright, L. Hanrais & J. Howorth (eds), 100–109. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, C. T. & Richards, I. A. 1936. The Meaning of Meaning. 4th ed. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1946. Politics and the English language. Horizon, April 1946: 252–265.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partridge, E. 1948. Usage and Abusage. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. 2003. The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philip, G. 2011. Colouring Meaning. Collocation and Connotation in Figurative Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 43]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plain English Campaign. 2009. How to Write in Plain English. <[URL]> (25 April 2015).
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1): 1–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events. A Study in the Semantics of Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rundell, M. (ed.). 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (MEDAL). London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saarinen, T. 2008. Persuasive presuppositions in OECD and EU higher education policy documents. Discourse Studies 10(3): 341–359.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiess, W. 2003. What plain English really is. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 9: 43–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools, Version 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (ed.). 2001. Collins COBUILD on CD-ROM v1.0. Glasgow: HarperCollins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. The empty lexicon. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1: 99–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T. & Pasma, T. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 14] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G., Reijnierse, G. & Burgers, C. 2013. When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PLoS ONE 9(12): e113536.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinert, H. 2003. The indispensable metaphor of war: On populist politics and the contradictions of the state’s monopoly of force. Theoretical Criminology (3): 265–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teubert, W. 2010. Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. & Boroditsky, L. 2013. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS ONE 8: e52961.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornborrow, J. 1993. Metaphors of security: A comparison of representation in defense discourse in post-Cold-War France and Britain. Discourse and Society 4(1): 99–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, O. 2013. “Only pizzas are delivered”: Public sector jargon banned in first style guide for Government announcements. The Independent, 24 July 2013.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue