It’s almost inevitable. People who say “we’ve gotten too PC” about language will, at some point in the discussion, claim that if we stop using certain words or phrases, we’ll run out of words to write and talk.
Arriving at this spot
Who is having these discussions and how does this line of thinking work?
I help moderate several editing communities of practice on Facebook. About once a month, an editor will post a question like “Do we still say [fill in the blank]?” Or they will post an article about biased language or oppressive language.
These discussions are usually about words related to people our society has marginalized. As editors, we have a duty to stay on top of the latest shifts in language, including expanding our own awareness of words and phrases that seem innocuous but are hurtful and harmful to our fellow human beings.
The discussions are usually quite informative and useful. But at some point, someone will usually say that we’re all being “too politically correct.” Often included with this pronouncement is the claim that if we ban certain words, we won’t have any words left.
The slippery slope
This is the form of the argument we usually see: “If we stop using word x because it upsets a small number of people, then we are on the slippery slope of political correctness, and soon we won’t have any words left.”
Let’s break this argument down, starting with the slippery slope section. Here’s the problem with it: it’s a well-known logical fallacy. In fact, it’s so basic that it’s taught in introductory philosophy courses. That’s where I first learned about it. And if you google “slippery slope,” the first thing that comes up is the Wikipedia article on the fallacy.
Word shortages
OK, so we won’t use the term slippery slope. What about this claim that we will run out of ways to say certain things? There are only so many words at our disposal, right?
I find that hard to believe. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary contains over 600,000 words. And it adds hundreds of new words each year.
I can has experts?
I decided to ask a couple of experts what they thought about the risk of running out of words. As lexicographers, these two have more knowledge about words than most of us combined.
Katherine Barber, former editor-in-chief of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, has this to say. “The statement that we soon won’t have any words left is staggeringly hyperbolic and ridiculous. Of course, we will have words; people concerned about sensitivity are suggesting new replacement words, not just eliminating words.”
And Peter Sokolowski, editor at large at Merriam-Webster, says this: “Becoming aware of the potential offensiveness of language makes us all better communicators and allows us to make our points more clearly without the possible distractions that can weigh down our writing. Clear writing is good writing, for which there will always be enough words.”
If editors can’t think of another word to substitute for the one they want to use but they know is hurtful, either they have a small grasp of English vocabulary or something else is going on. That something else might be their own biases.
We have a huge set of words to choose from. What less-biased words and phrases have you learned recently?
(If you don’t understand the “I can has?” heading, just google it. Then you’ll get it.)
___
Previous post from Gael Spivak: Grammar Matters
The Editors’ Weekly is the official blog of Editors Canada. Contact us.
Discover more from The Editors' Weekly
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gael Spivak
Gael Spivak leads a writing and editing team at a Government of Canada agency. She is a plain language expert and is one of Canada’s representatives on the working group that’s developing the ISO plain language standard. An editor for 15 years, Gael has worked on topics such as food safety and food labelling, biotechnology, influenza, zoonoses and road salts. She likes to collect things, including squirrels, tiny books and articles on the singular they.