Chiu 1

Joshua Chiu Paper 3

Gregory Kobele
Language & the Human II
March 20, 2014

Beyond Words: Considering Extra-linguistic Factors in Clear Language
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity [] when there is a gap between
ones real and ones declared aims (Orwell). These thoughtful words of George Orwell
resonate with many even now. Perhaps because they are full of hope, as they paint an ideal
picture of mans good will purifying and perfecting the flawed bridge connecting mans
minds called language. Indeed, as John Goldsmith said, one should believe, to the best of his
efforts, in the good will of people who express their thoughts (Goldsmith). But is good will
enough? Even when a man tries his utmost to speak or write as sincere and clear as
possible, it is not certain that his real thoughts and intents would then be communicated
fully to his listener. Though language is often considered natural to man, it is also
considered naturally imperfect as a vehicle for his thoughts and intents. This long-debated
philosophical issue of perfect communication, among various approaches, can be viewed
from a linguistic angle. This paper will examine euphemisms, performatives, and literature
translations in the extreme cases of cross-cultural comparisons, to show that one reason
for this language problem is simply that words alone are not enough. Euphemisms reveal
the layers hiding meaning, performatives reveal the foundations establishing meaning, and
both phenomena are demonstrated in the fundamentally imprecise process of translating
literature.
One reason words are insufficient is that there are societal influences that layer over
intended meaning. This is exemplified by a cross-cultural comparison of euphemisms.
Euphemisms as a linguistic as well as an extra-linguistic area of research is not a recent
Chiu 2
development; these expressions are popularly described as the means by which a
disagreeable, offensive or fear-instilling matter is designated with an indirect or softer
term [] a speaker constantly resorts to euphemisms in order to disguise an unpleasant
truth, veil an offense, or palliate indecency (Kany). In her 2010 article Cultural differences
in Chinese and English euphemisms, Guo Qi presents a contrastive analysis illustrating
societal influences on euphemistic expressions in spite of universal features. She states that
there are universal motivations for the use of euphemisms, such as to avoid taboo, to be
polite, and to disguise. Besides motivations, there are also shared principles in the
formation of euphemisms, and similar classifications of euphemisms. However, her cross-
cultural comparison then showed that, despite a universal core, euphemisms are ultimately
a cultural phenomenon (Guo): Chinese euphemisms for aging contained honorifics and
positive connotations, both of which were generally lacking in English euphemisms;
euphemisms for death revealed the vast differences in religious ideas and social
stratifications, in the contrasting societies of Chinese users and English users. Evidently,
people with different cultural backgrounds would not deal with the same issue in exactly
the same way (Guo). And variations in euphemistic expressions have their roots in extra-
linguistic factors such as cultural ideas, religious ideas, and other societal influences on the
individuals in the society.
Guos findings can then be interpreted in the following way. Euphemisms have a
universal core, containing similar motivations, criteria, and functions; but such a core is
hidden under layers of cultural ideas, religious ideas, and other societal influences that,
when there are cultural differences, there appear to be differences in the meaning of
euphemistic expressions. A Chinese euphemism for aging and an English euphemism for
Chiu 3
aging may bloom from the same seed of meaning, motivation, function; but there are such
vast differences between the societies of Chinese users and English users that the
euphemisms in the two languages consequently appear to have two separate meanings.
This key point about euphemism reveals something about language as a whole, too. Why is
it that sincere, clear language from a man of good will is not enough? Intended meanings of
words may actually be hidden behind layers of societal influences, and in the case of
euphemisms the influences are cultural and religious ideas. And when unbeknownst to the
listener, the words of the speaker may well be vastly misunderstood, as when a Chinese
user tries to understand an English euphemism with no knowledge of the societal
influences on the English user. In this way, words alone are not enough. Euphemisms
reveal that one criteria of perfect communication is for the listener to have perfect
knowledge of the societal influences hiding the intended meanings of the speakers words.
Performatives, another category of expressions, will be also examined, to show how
the meanings of words can be established by social agreements in society. Explicit
performative utterances, simply performatives, are commonly defined as an utterance
that is not true or false but is, or is part of, the doing of an action, thus creating
enduring effects by being uttered in the appropriate circumstances (Austin). Asif Agha
examines such circumstances in his 2006 book, Language and Social Relations. To illustrate
the role of culture-internal enregisterment in shaping performative effects (Agha), he
contrasts performatives in English with those in Ilongot
1
:

1
Language of the indigenous Ilongot people of northern Luzon, Philippines, spoken by about 50,000 people.
Chiu 4

The table shows how explicit performatives create different social effects in Ilongot
compared to in English, despite having similar linguistic structures in both languages. A
good example of this is the comparison of directives. Their uses in English are narrow and
strict and according to institution-specific status, but in Ilongot they are much more varied
and widely seen - Ilongot directives are appropriate even in the everyday family setting.
Agha thus observes that explicit performative utterances cannot be understood by
attending only to its locution-internal metapragmatic frame (Agha), i.e. the structure of the
words
2
. He elaborates that this internal structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for
construing [performative] effects; as seen in the English-Ilongot comparison, a certain
kind of structure is neither necessary nor sufficient to effectively establish a certain kind of

2
This is most obvious when examining implicit performatives, or indirect speech acts. John Searle gives an
example: X: Lets go to the movies tonight Y: I have to study for an exam (Searle). Person Ys utterance has
the performative effect of refusing Xs offer, despite there being no observable structure that identifies the
utterance as a performative.
Chiu 5
social effect. There are extra-linguistic factors that must be in place, most obviously,
particular institutionalized practices such as named institutions like the Church or
Common Law, or the less-recognized conventions not easily described in decontextualized
ways by members of society (Agha).
Essentially, what is clear is that the very power of performatives comes not from
any feature of the words, be it word choice or word structure. It is the social agreements
institutions, socially accepted conventions that give force to the performatives. Thus,
what is meant by culture-internal enregisterment is that performatives are only viable
within a culture of social agreements, on which the words of the utterances establish their
meaning. This key point is simply a small analogy for the workings of language as a whole.
Again, why is it that a man trying his best to speak sincere, clear words is not enough? The
linguistic meanings of words can be detached from any feature of the words, and fused
instead with the institutions and conventions of the society. It is not enough for the speaker
to use his words plainly and thoughtfully; just as the structures of the performatives
contribute only to a certain extent to its social effect, the structure of the speakers words is
significant only to a certain extent to conveying his full thoughts and ideas. In this way,
words alone are not enough. Performatives reveal that another criterion of perfect
communication is that the listener must have perfect knowledge of the social agreements
establishing the linguistic meanings of the speakers words.
Thus far, this paper has argued that societal influences do layer over meaning and
meaning can be established on social agreements. So to grasp full linguistic meaning
intended by the speaker, the listener needs perfect knowledge of the societal influences
and social agreements that shape the speakers words. The two phenomena, and the
Chiu 6
criteria they consequently reveal, help to understand why communication is fundamentally
imperfect and imprecise, as in the process of translating literature. Translation will now be
examined to illustrate this interaction.
Translation theories generally describe the process as a continuum; one extreme is
source-oriented copying i.e. conveying the writers thoughts in the text as originally as
possible, and the other extreme is target-oriented rhetoric i.e. making the reader
understand the text as best as possible by changing it to suit the reader (Chesterman).
Evidently, translation is a basically imprecise process of trial and error (Eco), as
Umberto Eco stated in his 1994 article A rose by any other name. Eco gives Classical
Greek texts as an example of source-oriented translation: in order to comprehend it at all,
the modern reader must understand what the poets of that age were like and how they
might express themselves (Eco). This suggests that source-oriented translation is aimed at
texts in which there are clearly societal influences layer over the writers meaning. Little to
no change is necessary (copying) because the reader of Classical Greek can uncover a
large portion of meaning by simply understanding more about the cultural ideas, religious
ideas and other societal influences of in the Greek writers life. Target-oriented translation
stands in contrast. Eco describes two instances in which his own works underwent this
contrasting type of translation: a change from an allusion to Italian poetry to an allusion to
a Keats sonnet, and a deletion of a pun that is only understandable in Italian (Eco). Such
notable changes to the text are necessary in some cases, because the linguistic meaning is
established on, and thus virtually inseparable, from conventions of society. A target-
oriented translation may thus be done when a direct copying of the original text is difficult
to understand, even after the reader takes steps to understand the society. Certainly,
Chiu 7
source and target orientation is not an either-or dilemma but is a continuum. And in the
same way, the relationship between meaning and extra-linguistic factors is qualitative,
affecting the texts in ways that are not either/or.
This ambiguity is best seen in Ecos example of reading translated Japanese haiku.
On the one hand, he wonders skeptically, What I am really reading, when I look at the
translation of a Japanese poem (Eco). At the same time, he knows, If I read a haiku after
having read some Zen Buddhist koans, I can perhaps understand why the simple mention
of the moon high over the lake should give me emotions analogous to and yet different
from those that an English romantic poet conveys to me (Eco). There is this core emotion
that he begins to grasp after learning more about Zen Buddhism. The intended meaning of
the haiku is somewhat layered over by Japanese religious ideas, and he does uncover some
meaning by penetrating through these layers; this meaning seems analogous to the
emotions he uncovers from English romantic poetry. At the same time, it is different.
Some of the haiku meaning is undeniably established on aspects of Japanese society, and
romantic poetry of its respective society; the linguistic meaning is inseparable from the
conventions of society. In light of this, one can better understand the impreciseness of
translation: it is not always clear whether a source-oriented or a target-oriented approach
should be used, since it is not always clear whether a texts meaning is simply layered over
by societal influences, or is inseparably established on conventions of society.
Like three mouse holes in a house, euphemisms and performatives and literature
translation each reveal how meaning in language is not conveyed by words alone. Words
alone are not enough, because there can be societal influences layering over intended
meanings, and there can be institutions and conventions on which the linguistic meanings
Chiu 8
are established. Both of these phenomena are seen in the translation of literature,
demonstrating how the phenomena are not separate or exclusive, but can actually occur in
tandem. So then, thinking back to Orwells words, how do we respond to such calls for
sincere, clear language? It is important to remember that the responsibility is not simply on
the speaker to be sincere and clear. These two phenomena are reminders that it is also
important to consider the position of the listener. Does he have knowledge of relevant
societal influences? Of relevant social agreements? What would he know, and not know?
Clear language, then, is not just sincerity on the speakers part. It is also considering these
questions concerning the listener, these things beyond the words. Clear language is not just
the right use of words, because words alone are not enough.

Chiu 9
Works Cited
Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. No. 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.

Austin, John Langshaw. How To Do Things With Words. Vol. 1955. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1975.

Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Vol.
22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 1997.

Eco, Umberto. "A Rose by any other name." Guardian Weekly 17 (1994).

Goldsmith, John. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Course lecture. University of Chicago.
25 Feb. 2014.

Guo, Qi. Cultural differences in Chinese and English euphemisms. Cross-Cultural
Communication 6.4 (2011): 135-141.

Kany, Charles Emil. American-Spanish Euphemisms. California: University of California
Press, 1960.

Orwell, George. Politics and the English language. London: Penguin UK, 2013.

Searle, John R. Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics 3 (1975): 59-82.