"Most voters say language didn't trip them up" is an article detailing recent voter confusion due to the awkward language on ballots. On the ballot, voting "for" the proposition meant prohibitting the contruction of a high-speed toll road, while voting "against" it meant that were in favor of the creation of a new road. Most voters, as the title sugjest were not confused by the language on the ballot, although many admit that the language was confusing. More uncertainty over the language arose due to the fact that campeigns posted around the city advertised, voting "yes" or "no" when the ballot actually instructed voters to take positions "for" or "against" the proposition.
What I found interesting about this article was not the fact that there was confusion over seemingly contradictory logic of the ballots. Misleading political langauge is nothing new, and neither are confusing ballots.
What I found interesting was that while language can be a powerful tool of manipulation, used to create possitive or negative associations (prunes vs. dried plums), language can become so obviously confusing that it make people hyper aware of the manipulation (Is anyone really tricked by the use of the word "unborn child" in place of "fetus"?).
Also, a question that was brought up early on in the class was, what makes euphemisms most effective in changing the associations of words.
Most voters say language didn't trip them up:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-confusion_07met.ART.State.Edition1.41c368d.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting post. I think you make a good point that once people become sensitive to certain kinds of manipulations (linguistic or otherwise) they become even more aware of them. However, while many people might not be "tricked by the use of the word "unborn child" in place of "fetus"?)", do you think it's possible that this word choice still has SOME effect? there is some research showing that framing an issue as pro-choice vs. pro-life leads to different feelings about the issue than framing it as pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion, even though presumably people would report being aware (and maybe even hyper-aware) of the fact that these are the "same" issues. how could we test this hypothesis with regards to the confusing ballots? what does this tell us about the human mind and language?
I totally blogged on this earlier in the year (See my post "one rotten word spoils the bunch". I think it's a fascinating concept that the way we frame words and our word choice can have effects on the way we view an issue.
Post a Comment