Distancing language
Distancing language is phrasing used by a person to "distance" themselves from a statement, either to avoid thinking about the subject or to distance themselves from its content. Euphemistic in nature, distancing language is often a means of self-deception, but distancing language used orally may indicate that a person is lying. This is especially apparent when someone is attempting to avoid consequences that they believe may arise from their statements or while trying to justify the unpleasant content of their statements by trivializing it.
Circumlocution, synecdoches, metaphors, trivialization, innuendos, litotes, meiosis, elegant variation, equivocation, etc. are all readily used to this end.
Examples of distancing language
- Distancing clinical language partly shields health workers from the impact of workplace experiences, e.g. "bled to death" substituted with "exsanguinated".
- Military personnel may use a range of distancing terms for combatants either killing or getting killed. They may also employ distancing, dehumanizing terms for enemy combatants. "Collateral damage" for the incidental or accidental killing of non-combatants during attacks on legitimate military targets is an example. Also "blue-on-blue" or "friendly" fire.
- Everyday euphemistic references to death, dying, burial, corpses and to the people and places which deal with death are also protective, distancing terms either formal or informal, respectful or disrespectful, e.g. "croaked", "bought the farm", "expired", "passed on".
- An indirect statement implying an answer, rather than a direct answer, may indicate lying. For example, replies such as "would I do such a thing?" or even "I wouldn't do such a thing", rather than "I didn't do it". Referring to someone known well by the speaker as "that woman" instead of using a name or "her" is another example.[1]
Various other examples of distance language exist, perhaps to the point where no list could be exhaustive.
See also
References