Ambiguities in Language

“Words Don't Mean What They Mean” discusses how people use linguistic strategies to hint at a meaning that is different from what they are explicitly saying. While there are examples in which speaking ambiguously or with figurative language can lead to are, these ambiguities are largely beneficial to maintaining strong relationships. If people were completely straightforward with their intentions, it can lead to disrespect between people. For example, after a loss, competitors, despite feeling dejected, shake hands with their opponents, heartily congratulating  them. While congratulating someone, you profusely praise them for their accomplishment even if you don’t completely mean it. However, after a heartbreaking loss, people will often feel reluctant to congratulate their opponent. Maybe there was a bad call or an unlucky play and the loser feels they deserved the win over the victor. Still, it would not be proper to reveal your true emotions to your opponent. You could be called a sore loser. The press would ruthlessly villainize you for disrespecting the opponent.

I also thought that “whimperatives” were fitting name for a surprisingly common linguistic device. “Whimperatives” can be a tactful way of persuading someone because they appear to offer a choice in the matter when there actually is no choice. Responding to whimperatives actually makes me feel more uncomfortable than responding to more direct orders. However, I think the person issuing the order often feels more comfortable with a whimperative, as it feels like you’re given the receiver a choice in the matter.

While people may use ambiguities and whimperatives when speaking with people they know personally, they often don’t hesitate to criticize those they don’t meet on a regular basis, like public figures. News outlets find it alright to criticize these people because they don’t have to “negotiate that relationship” with them.