Afoluwaso (Year 12)
Editor’s note: “Mrs C is my English language teacher, and I recently did a timed practice for her. I was to write an editorial opinion piece expressing my thoughts on language in the workplace, one of our topics on the spec. Mrs C was very pleased with my work and suggested I request for it to be entered in the GSAL journal.” – and here it is published, well done! CPD
A criticism of language in today’s workplaces
Navigating language in the workplace of today is like being thrown into a battlefield. From corporate jargon that sounds more like Latin than English, to gender neutral terms that feel like the ‘Woke Olympics’, to unnecessary euphemisms that try (and fail) to make redundancy seem ideal, it’s a wonder anybody knows what’s going on anymore. Now Staffordshire Police have banned words such as ‘elderly’ and ‘headquarters’, sparking this oh-so-endless debate.
Do these changes increase inclusivity or do they encourage linguistic bureaucracy?
Let’s start with jargon. On the one hand, jargon (special words and expressions used by a particular occupational group) has its time and its place. A study, conducted in 2009, by Kim and Elder, showed how critical language codes are in the field of aviation. (These linguists concluded that a failure, by American pilots and ground staff, to use internationally agreed terms and phrases when communicating with their Korean counterparts, resulted is several near misses in the sky.) However, do we really ‘need to leverage our competencies and optimise synergetic outcomes’ or should we just ‘do our jobs’? Deborah Cameron in 1995 observed that language benefits those in power rather than prioritising clear communication. So how about we just stop trying to sound clever and start trying to sound clearer?
Then there’s the issue of gender. Gendered language has come very far. I’m all for getting rid of marked terms where the male term is a sort of ‘default setting’ and their female counterparts have some unnecessary addition: think doctor and lady doctor. But, in today’s society, trying to change and edit names simply has no effect on how competent or able the worker is. According to Obarr and Atkins, in 1980, gender no longer shapes superiority of language. Power does. And Deborah Cameron, in 2007, warns against thinking this way. Changing a chairman to a chairperson does not eliminate the bigger gender issues. Real, effective change comes from breaking the glass ceiling, illuminating the gender pay gap, and much more.
How far do we actually have to go in this issue? Some workplaces, because of ‘colonial power dynamics’ have reportedly begun to avoid words like ‘field trip’ and ‘headquarters’. Are you kidding me? By that same logic, we should get rid of ‘master bedroom’ and ‘headmaster’ due to their origins linking to the transatlantic slave trade. If we keep creating political landmines, it will get to the point where nobody will be able to say anything anymore, as all language links back to something, at the end of the day. Constantly changing what we say will only create more problems than solve. We have to stop over complicating this and prioritise speech.
Don’t forget about small talk. In 2014, Koester said it could be beneficial and enforced bonds in the workplace. But we cannot forget those in power lead this chatter. Ever wondered why, when the boss brings up the big game everyone becomes an Arsenal fan? Brown and Levinson’s study shows that workers need to navigate both positive face (needing to be liked) and negative face (protecting professional boundaries.) Having to juggle these leaves little room for genuine, deep conversation, which is key in the workplace.
Lastly, there’s euphemisms. In 2003, Steven Pinker coined the term euphemism treadmill which explains that as new terms are pumped out, they are soon replaced as we constantly find something wrong with them. While some of these changes might be great – perhaps a ‘diabetic person’ will feel more human being referred to as a ‘person with diabetes’, some of them are, well, useless. For example, changing poverty to ‘under-resourced’ does not fix the poverty problem. Don’t even get me started on what they say in prisons now. Calling inmates (yeah, I said it) ‘clients’, ‘residents’ or ‘justice involved person’. Oh, give me a break. Normal ‘residents’ or ‘clients’ have a choice. The only choices an inmate makes that matters in this conversation are the choices that got them into prison in the first place! Deborah Cameron calls this cleaning up of language ‘verbal hygiene’. It might be hygienic, but it disgusts me.
When all’s said and done, language changes and that’s great. But let’s call a spade a spade and stop thinking that renaming issues will solve the problems of the world.
The GSAL Journal 