Linguistic transformation
In linguistic communication the use of vague and ambiguous language often yields more useful results than the use of a direct, authoritarian approach, and there are a number of reasons why this is so.
Our communication with other people is based on our own unique model of the world and, because it's unique, our model of the world differs from that of every person we communicate with.
When we communicate in a very specific manner we make it easy for the person we are communicating with to identify any parts of our communication which conflict with their model of the world and thus we make it easy for them to disagree with or otherwise resist our communication.
In other words, we create a context in which the natural response is resistance.
We can use vague and ambiguous language to create instead a context in which the natural response is acceptance of our communication.
A useful starting point which will assist you in understanding how/why this works and how we process natural language in order to apply meaning to the words is that of transformational grammar.
The transformational grammar (TG) model has evolved over the years but we can express the basic concepts here with a couple of illustrative examples.
According to the TG model every linguistic communication includes two distinct representations:-
- The representation of the way it sounds, if spoken, or the way it appears if written - known as the Surface Structure
- The representation of it's meaning - known as the Deep Structure
Consider the following sentence:-
The window was broken
Here the Surface Structure representation is simply the four words used in the sentence.
The underlying, unspoken Deep Structure could be represented in formal notation as:-
PAST(BREAK [someone, window, with something])
Any native speaker of the English language understands from the Surface Structure that:-
- Some event occured in the past
- The event was a complex event
- It consisted of the following parts:-
- An action, break, which occurred between:
- The agent - some person or thing doing the breaking, here represented by someone, and
- The object - some person or thing being broken, here represented by the window, and
- The instrument - the thing used to do the breaking, here represented by with something
Notice that even though not all parts of the Deep Structure represented appear in the Surface Structure (in this case the agent and the instrument are not represented in the Surface Structure), the native speaker of English has that information available in their understanding of the sentence.
The statement The window was broken implies to native speakers that not only was the window broken, but someone or something had to break the window with something.
The ways in which Surface Structures differ from their associated Deep Structure meanings is the domain of transformational linguists. They have postulated that our linguistic communications undergo a number transformations in order to transform the Deep Structure meaning into the Surface Structures that we actually speak or write.
The entire process which links a Deep Structure to it's Surface Structure is called a derivation.
The process of derivation for very specific language is relatively simple. The very fact that there is no ambiguity makes it highly probable that the Surface Structure has a single, specific Deep Structure meaning. Thus the unconscious processes used to 'translate' the Surface Structure into the underlying Deep Structure meaning operate with relative speed and accuracy.
A Surface Structure constructed using vague and ambiguous language on the other hand, usually has not one but multiple possible Deep Structure meanings. Such a Surface Structure reduces the likelihood of resistance in the person we are communicating with by:-
- Creating a context in which they have to work harder to establish the possible meaning(s) of our communication
- Inducing a mild state of confusion
- Offering them a communication in which they can choose a meaning which best fits their model of the world
- Offering them a communication in which they have to actually supply content from their model of the world to 'fill the gaps' in order to make sense of the communication
These are some of the things which contribute towards providing a context in which the natural response of the person we are communicating with is to willingly accept our communication.