Does Language Matter?

Does the size of our vocabulary, our capacity to parse, our ability to comprehend the many meanings that can be resolved from any given phrase in the English language matter?

It matters to me. I spent a good part of my life undertaking discourse analysis in order to understand the motivation and intent behind certain actions that people took. It may not matter to you but if you have the time to read a couple of examples it might give you food for thought. 

A FB post circulating recently was comparing the anguish of parents when their offspring swore to the indifference shown to war, famine, etc. and promoting the thought that the use of “bad” language was really not something to be concerned about. Lots of people appeared to support the notion that swearing was fine and there are more important issues to fill our minds with. But I think that misses the point. A person who feels it necessary to use a four letter word is not generally expressing anything but frustration and anger. They are not moving the argument anywhere, not illuminating.

Where language is concerned we are not all equal, and often this can lead to deceptions being legally played out on unsuspecting communities. The law is a place where the tiniest nuance of language becomes a matter of great importance.

Consider this;

The shire was publishing a document proposing a new subdivision.

Within the documents that our shire advertised for comments they could have described the development proponent in a number of ways. 

Here are just three different ways the beneficiary of any profits from the land development might be described;

a)   A local Karridale developer Michael Hale....”

b)   A NSW corporation contactable only via the Prevelly Development Trust, Redfern, NSW...(please note that NSW is not the most wholesome state when it comes to the manner in which the business of property development is conducted.)”

c)   Mr Michael Hale, who established the Cabinet Office for Brian Burke, former disgraced Premier of Western Australia, and lied under oath when questioned by the Royal Commission investigating the activities of WA Inc. He now claims to be a registered lobbyist with both the Australian and Western Australian Governments but current enquiries as to the validity of these claims remain outstanding. He also has an interest in the Cowaramup Resort development that requires the transfer station to relocate at significant cost to the taxpayer....”

Can you guess which one our shire planners chose?

They chose “A local Karridale developer Michael Hale...” 

Why did they do that?

If we think it means Michael Hale was a local man then it was a direct lie. He isn't. 
His company is not local either. The land being developed is local, but most readers understood that because it was a shire document and they know where Karridale is. 

So why bother to describe him as local at all? I believe it was calculated to create a mindset for the reader. There are many psychological studies that show how important language is in creating conditions within which we think about events. These conditions determine how we order facts. 

Michael Hale is not a local man. Not only is he not a local man but when I sought confirmation about whether our shire planners had been misled about this they made it clear they had not. They all knew he was not a local man, but still they allowed a report to be advertised to the public containing  the false information.

Why did they do this?

Probably because subconsciously the reader will form an opinion early on that this development is going to bring some economic benefit to Karridale. This perception of economic benefit will influence submissions relating to the proposal. 

This could explain why Michael Hale wanted to be described as a local man, but it doesn't give any hint as to why the shire public service planning staff would prefer this.

Consider another example;

Back in 2012 another development that Mr Hale was involved in required a full page Shire Community Update feature all for itself. The moving of the Cowaramup Transfer Station. I have discussed this at length elsewhere but the language is all I am interested in here. This is what was said;

The use of “State Government” early in the sentence gives weight to the proposition that follows. This is not just a few developers standing around with some local planning officers and deciding what works best for them, this is our State Government asking for this.

Or is it?

Does it really mean that there were discussions and debates at State Government level and their considered opinion, a democratic government decision was made to promote the view that the Cowaramup resort needed to go ahead?

Is our State Government urging our shire to assist the developers to use this land so that profits can be made for some anonymous NSW corporation, or whoever Michael Hale is working for?

Or does it just mean that the SWDC is a corporate body allegedly under the control of the State Government? With no more actual government involvement than there was when WADC was in operation and Rothwells was bailed out with taxpayers money.

The SWDC, for some undisclosed reason, wishes to favour Michael Hale, the lobbyist.

If you read that Community Update might your opinion about the transfer station have been different if our shire had stated;

“A lobbyist has approached the shire and the SWDC on behalf of XYZ corporation and they wish to take profits from this development as a matter of urgency.”

There are so many ways to present any situation and we need to understand what we are reading, so that we are not fooled into believing false information that can so quickly cloud our judgement.

For that reason parents do need to be concerned about the language skills their children have. There are times when we can see that government at the local, state and federal level just isn’t working and when that happens it just isn’t good enough to merely "Do a Bob."