3.3: Using Words Well

Learning Objectives

• Discuss how the process of abstraction and the creation of messages relate to language clarity.
• Employ figurative and evocative language.
• Identify strategies for using language ethically.

Have you ever gotten lost because someone gave you directions that didn’t make sense to you? Have you ever puzzled over the instructions for how to put something like a bookshelf or grill together? When people don’t use words well, there are consequences that range from mild annoyance to legal actions. When people do use words well, they can be inspiring and make us better people. In this section, we will learn how to use words well by using words clearly, using words affectively, and using words ethically.

Using Words Clearly

The level of clarity with which we speak varies depending on whom we talk to, the situation we’re in, and our own intentions and motives. We sometimes make a deliberate effort to speak as clearly as possible. We can indicate this concern for clarity nonverbally by slowing our rate and increasing our volume or verbally by saying, “Frankly…” or “Let me be clear…” Sometimes it can be difficult to speak clearly—for example, when we are speaking about something with which we are unfamiliar. Emotions and distractions can also interfere with our clarity. Being aware of the varying levels of abstraction within language can help us create clearer and more “whole” messages.

Level of Abstraction

The ladder of abstraction is a model used to illustrate how language can range from concrete to abstract. As we follow a concept up the ladder of abstraction, more and more of the “essence” of the original object is lost or left out, which leaves more room for interpretation, which can lead to misunderstanding. This process of abstracting, of leaving things out, allows us to communicate more effectively because it serves as a shorthand that keeps us from having a completely unmanageable language filled with millions of words—each referring to one specific thing (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). But it requires us to use context and often other words to generate shared meaning. Some words are more directly related to a concept or idea than others. If I asked you to go take a picture of a book, you could do that. If I asked you to go and take a picture of “work,” you couldn’t because work is an abstract word that was developed to refer to any number of possibilities from the act of writing a book, to repairing an air conditioner, to fertilizing an organic garden. You could take a picture of any of those things, but you can’t take a picture of “work.”

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Ladder of Abstraction: Source: Adapted from S. I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 5th ed. (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1990), 85.

Language can be more or less concrete, which affects how easily we are understood. Hayakawa’s “ladder of abstraction” shows this: at the bottom, we have concrete terms (e.g., Bessie the cow), while at the top, we have abstract ones (e.g., animal or book). As we move up the ladder, words become vaguer and less tied to real experiences. Because of this, we should use more concrete language when clarity is especially important—like giving directions or explaining a new idea. Abstract language can be useful too, especially when we want to soften criticism, test out an idea, or avoid details.

Definitions help, but they also rely on other words, which can send us up the abstraction ladder. People understand best when we move down the ladder—linking terms to personal experiences or vivid examples. Saying “blue is the color of the sky on a clear day” is more helpful than saying “blue is a color.” Similarly, jargon should be avoided or explained, since specialized terms can alienate people outside a group.

Whole and Clear Messages

Good communication depends not only on word choice but also on message completeness. Whole messages include four parts: observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs. Leaving parts out (partial messages) or mixing them together (contaminated messages) often causes confusion and conflict. For example, instead of saying, “I don’t trust Bob anymore,” which only shares a thought, a clearer version would also explain what happened (observation), how it made you feel, and what you need from the listener. Complete messages reduce misunderstandings and strengthen relationships.

Affective and Figurative Language

Language also carries emotion. Affective language—“speaking from the heart”—helps people connect by sharing feelings directly. Figurative language, like similes (“life is like a box of chocolates”) and metaphors (“time is money”), enriches meaning and can shape how we see the world. Personification, giving human qualities to nonhuman things, can also make abstract issues feel more urgent or real.

Evocative and Euphemistic Language

Vivid, evocative words engage the senses and stir emotion. They can calm, motivate, or inspire people to act, which is why they are powerful in both conversations and public speaking. However, some words are so strong they may shock or offend. Euphemisms—indirect or gentler terms (like “passed away” instead of “died”)—help us discuss sensitive topics, but overusing them can reduce clarity.

Using Words Ethically

We learned in Chapter 1 that communication is irreversible. We also learned that, among other things, the National Communication Association’s “Credo for Ethical Communication” states that we should be accountable for the long- and short-term effects of our communication (National Communication Association, 2012). The way we talk, the words we choose to use, and the actions we take after we are done speaking are all important aspects of communication ethics. Earlier we learned that language is performative, meaning that it can exceed the exchange of information and actually perform certain actions. Knowing that language can have real effects for people increases our need to be aware of the ethical implications of what we say. In this section, we will focus on civility and accountability.

Civility in Communication

Strong emotions tied to our beliefs and values can sometimes lead to incivility—behavior that goes against social norms. Incivility can include insults, bragging, bullying, gossip, swearing, deception, or defensiveness. While many worry that civility is declining, standards for what counts as “civil” have always shifted with culture and time. In diverse societies, people often express their identities more openly, which can be seen as either healthy individuality or a lack of restraint.

Online spaces also raise new questions about civility. Comment sections, blogs, and social media can encourage name-calling, personal attacks, and obscenity. Some see this as harmful to democracy, while others argue it allows marginalized voices to be heard.

What leads to incivility?

• Individual differences – Some personalities are more prone to uncivil behavior.
• Ignorance – People may not know the norms in unfamiliar situations.
• Lack of skill – In conflict, some resort to attacks because they don’t know better strategies.
• Loss of control – Even skilled communicators can “slip up.”
• Negative intent – Some deliberately break norms to rebel, hurt others, or gain attention.

Polarizing Language

When stressed or threatened, people often use polarizing language, which presents issues as “all or nothing.” Statements like “All cops are corrupt” or “All drug users are scum” oversimplify reality and shut down dialogue. Avoiding such extremes helps keep discussions civil, open-minded, and more productive.

Swearing

Swearing serves different functions.

• Social swearing builds bonds or manages impressions (e.g., sounding “cool”).
• Annoyance swearing helps release frustration and manage stress, sometimes preventing aggression.

Swearing is shaped by context and social expectations—for instance, women are often judged more harshly for swearing than men.

Accountability

Clear communication requires distinguishing between facts, inferences, and judgments:

• Facts – based on direct observation (“I worked three days on my paper and got a C”).
• Inferences – conclusions drawn from limited evidence (“The professor plays favorites”).
• Judgments – personal opinions or evaluations (“The professor is unfair”).

Confusing these categories leads to misunderstandings. Ethical speakers clarify their statements, use descriptive language, and own their feelings with “I” language. This accountability makes communication clearer, fairer, and more trustworthy.