Did you know English essays can be the most difficult to write? This does not mean that the English language is difficult per se, but rather, that a lot of analysis is required for the stipulated instructions to be satisfactorily met. In the sample paper, for instance, the writer was required to read the first chapter of Lutz’s essay: “The World of Doublespeak” and then to watch 3 videos on the concept of doublespeak.
After analyzing the materials, the writer had to come up with a 5-page essay agreeing or disagreeing with the view that doublespeak is a necessity in life. Regardless of the standpoint, it was a requirement that relevant examples from the materials are provided.
Such a laborious task can take a heavy toll on even the most avid writers. Essay writing companies like https://www.usgrademiners.com/ exist for a reason, and this is one of them. We help students complete essays such as this one. Our English writers are highly experienced in this form of writing and will do an excellent job for you.
We recently presented the instructions below and asked one of our writers to prepare a sample paper. Enjoy the read!
Question:
Read “The World of Doublespeak” (see upload file Bedford Chapter 10, p337-343) and watch the video1/3 “How Language Is Used to Deceive You” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZpIv7T8oEY In addition to reading Williams Lutz’s “The World of Doublespeak”, watch the video2/3 interview where he discusses his ideas in more detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KDsuui0AI In addition to the interview with William Lutz, watch the short video3/3 on political doublespeak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekkfvUSPFvI&feature=player_embedded
Instructions: Write an essay which incorporates argument and persuasion of your point of view,
- Discuss the importance of doublespeak in our public and private lives today.
- Consider times when you have experienced doublespeak and/or when you have had to use doublespeak either at work, in any public situation, or in your private life with family or friends.
- Select two examples from Lutz’s essay and/or video that support your point of view—agreement or disagreement—with the idea that doublespeak is a necessity in life today.
- Type your essay in MLA format. Use an objective voice that is outside the situation. That means, avoid the use of “I”. Cite Lutz twice in MLA format.
- Include a Works Cited list at the end of your essay
- Minimum word count: 1500
Answer:
Doublespeak
Doublespeak can be defined as intentional fudging, whereby the speaker crafts his speech in such a way that meaning is obscured. Doublespeak takes many forms, and this makes it difficult to expose. There are many situations where doublespeak is important in both private and public lives today. For example, a chairman of a public company may use doublespeak during a press conference in which he does not intend to take a position on a contentious business issue before seeking clarification from the board of the company. The various issues to be highlighted in this essay include the importance of doublespeak, an explanation of personal experiences involving the use of doublespeak, and an analysis of examples from Williams Lutz’s The World of Doublespeak to support the view that doublespeak is a necessity in life today.
ORDER NOW
Doublespeak plays a critical role in the life of every human being. There are many situations where a person just has to make the bad seem good in order to meet the conversational needs of the moment. Moreover, some situations are too unpleasant to listeners or potentially embarrassing to the speaker to be explained using candid language. For example, when the U.S. military kills enemy combatants during the war, it may be unpleasant for the president to stand in front of the world and say that the military of the country that claims to offer a perfect model of democratic governance in the world has killed some enemy soldiers during the war. The president would rather say that the U.S. military has serviced the target and decimated enemy positions.
Do you like this essay? ORDER YOURS NOW!
One type of doublespeak that is widely tolerated and sometimes even encouraged in day-to-day living is a euphemism. Euphemism is the use of a positive word to explain a situation that reflects a distasteful or unpleasant reality. There are many situations in both public and private life when a speaker has to be sensitive to people’s feelings when explaining a situation. For example, in the Christian tradition, there is a tendency to say that a person has gone to be with the Lord instead of saying that he has died. Culture also plays a critical role in reinforcing euphemism, where it is considered taboo to mention words that project unpleasant realities to the public such as death. However, this use of positive words and phrases to explain unpleasant situations or to avoid taboo words does not constitute doublespeak as long as it conveys the intended meaning fairly accurately. In other words, euphemism becomes doublespeak when it is used to provide a deceiving or misleading explanation.
Lutz gives the example of a situation in 1984 when the U.S. State Department replaced the word “killing” with the phrase “arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life” in its annual reports on the human rights situations across the world (339). According to Lutz, this constituted doublespeak disguised as a genuine euphemism because the objective of introducing the phrase was to discourage the international community from discussing embarrassing situations in which countries that were busy violating citizens’ human rights through government-sanctioned killings received praise from the U.S. government as defenders of human rights were (339). Nevertheless, every nation, including the United States has a responsibility to pursue its national interests. The unfortunate reality is that in the pursuit of these interests, the United States is compelled to cooperate with different countries, some of which have a poor human rights record. In spite of its best intention to promote human rights, the United States is always being confronted with such unpleasant realities. One excellent way to dispense with such difficult topics during policy discussions with a view to avoiding embarrassment is through the use of doublespeak that is disguised as a euphemism.
As William Lutz says in an interview on The World of Doublespeak, doublespeak is used by people who are very intelligent and sophisticated in their use of language (The Film Archives). Lutz adds that the people who use this kind of language know that there is a lot that one can achieve with doublespeak (The Film Archives). This may explain why this way of communication is very common in government and business circles. Both government and business leaders encounter numerous difficult situations where popular sentiments compel them to resort to doublespeak in order to achieve the best results. By adding that the rhetoric of mass media advertising and doublespeak come together in interesting ways, Lutz seems to be implicitly suggesting that it may sometimes be wrong to vilify managers who use this strategy to achieve favorable business outcomes (The Film Archives).
In this interview, Lutz also shares his experiences regarding the overwhelming evidence on the use of doublespeak in the federal government while he was writing The World of Doublespeak (The Film Archives). He explains that he encountered too much evidence on government’s use of doublespeak that the “government dimension” threatened to “take over the book” (The Film Archives). This is a powerful indication that doublespeak has become so much an integral part of government operations that it is a necessity. For leaders who face the high political risk of being accused of laxity and complacency for refusing to speak out on contentious issues, doublespeak always provides a crucial talking point. These examples from the interview with Lutz demonstrate that doublespeak is a necessity in life today.
There are also two examples from The World of Doublespeak that support the view that doublespeak is a crucial communication skill in life. The first example entails efforts to make the ordinary appear extraordinary, which, according to Lutz, is an attempt by the speaker is to avoid responsibility and alter the way people perceive reality (343). To understand the reason why a person may want to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, it is imperative to examine the circumstances in which the exaggerated message is being communicated. For instance, when a defense secretary in the U.S. administration is addressing the media following a deadly ambush on American troops during the war, he or she may be compelled to use doublespeak to avoid creating the impression that the troops are being outmaneuvered by enemy combatants on the battleground or that they were ill-prepared for the war. Instead of saying that the U.S. military has been ambushed, it may be better for the defense secretary to tell the public that the U.S. forces have started “engaging enemy forces on all sides” Lutz 341). Saying that the military has been ambushed may be misinterpreted by the public to mean that America has as good as lost the war.
In the second example, Lutz admits that many manifestations of doublespeak are relatively harmless and sometimes even humorous (343). Through quiet introspection, one gets the impression that rather than destroying communication and breeding suspicion as claimed by Lutz, doublespeak actually opens up more room for candid debates. In many situations, heated exchanges among politicians are triggered by a lack of clarity in terms of the ideas that are being expressed in a bipartisan environment. Efforts by one side of the political divide to identify and uncover evidence on the use of doublespeak by the other side should be viewed as one of the hallmarks of a healthy debate. In most cases, the discourse that arises from such situations often drives the participants into abandoning their hardline positions in the debate with a view to reaching consensus.
The failures that arise from doublespeak should not be attributed exclusively to the speaker but also to listeners who fail to demand clarity as well. The involved listeners should also take the blame for failing to “read between the lines”. When listening to a speech, people should learn to derive meaning not just based on what is said but also what is left unsaid. For example, when the term “coalition of the willing” is used, one must go beyond political rhetoric and raise the question on whether the members of that coalition were in fact coerced to join it. When a U.S. president talks about the need to start a preemptive war, Americans should raise their voice by promoting the idea that it is not desirable for a country to start one war in order to prevent another.
Can we have a look at your essay instructions?
Contrary to conventional views, doublespeak is perpetuated not just by governments and political leaders but also by civil society. For example, many non-governmental organizations prefer to use the term “undocumented immigrants” when they actually mean illegal aliens who have broken the law by trespassing into another country. Another common way in which the civil society uses doublespeak is through its support for affirmative action on the one hand and opposition to discrimination on the other. Yet affirmative action is technically speaking a form of discrimination on the basis of gender, racial, ethnic, and/or religious discrimination, only that it has been mandated by law. The use of the term “hate speech” also exemplifies doublespeak. Both governmental and non-governmental organizations often raise concerns regarding what they regard as hate speech. However, there are also many situations where dissent is dismissed as hate speech. In this case, those who dismiss dissent as hate speech are in essence trying to control public debate using doublespeak.
These illustrations are day-to-day examples of situations where doublespeak has been used to achieve desirable outcomes. For example, through affirmative action, many women have gained access to career opportunities in professions that were traditionally dominated by men. Similarly, the use of the term “undocumented immigrants” has somewhat eased off the level of hostility that citizens of the host countries mete out against illegal aliens. In another example, U.S. leaders tend to talk about promoting American interests when they are actually talking about protecting their own individual interests. Nevertheless, there are many situations where their individual interests tend to overlap with American interests. For example, it is possible for a president to secure his or her bid for reelection into office by redoubling efforts to promote better trading relations with other countries for the benefit of local companies.
In conclusion, doublespeak is a necessity in life today. When used responsibly, it can enable business and political leaders to talk about contentious issues in public while maintaining a non-partisan stance. William Lutz’s book The World of Doublespeak focuses too much on the negative side of doublespeak while neglecting numerous day-to-day situations where this form of communication can easily lead to desirable outcomes. Instead of viewing doublespeak as a source of suspicion and deceit, people should learn to view it as an effective conversational tactic that is widely accepted in both public and private domains of speech.
Works Cited
Lutz, William. The World of Doublespeak. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1990. Print.
The Film Archives. “How Language Is Used to Deceive You: Politics, Business, World Events, Sports, and Law.” Online video clip. YouTube. 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 31 Dec. 1989.