Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research

University of Mosul
College of Arts
Department of Translation

Language Ethics

A summary presented by Ph.D. Candidate

Kasim M. Basil Kasim

Course Instructor
Asst. Prof. Yassir Al-Badrani (Ph.D.)

March 2023
1- The Concept of Ethics
One can recognize what the notion ethics implies through these two dominions.
First, ethics refers to judgments and prescriptive ideas (i.e. demanding) that aim to
control people's actions and behaviors regardless of gender, origin, social status, or
any another particular trait. Second, depending on these prescriptive conceptions
i.e. actions, intentions, and the results of actions are judged to be good or bad, right
or wrong. An essential component of ethics is moral judgment, which is frequently
focused on the people who perform the deeds that are commended or condemned
(as the act's actor) and described as good or terrible, just or unjust.
2- Language Ethics
The notion that views linguistic behaviors as speech actions or language acts was
first put forth by the philosopher John Austin. His book entitled “How to Do
Things with Words” (1976), in particular the study of language use, had a profound
effect on linguistic philosophy. Austin suggests that If the use and functions of
language are interpreted in terms of human action, it is appropriate to morally
evaluate language and its use.
Language Ethics examines how to improve our comprehension of the similarities
between moral and language abilities in humans as well as the differences
presented by linguistic diversity and societal interdependence. Thus, ethical
communication also entails making our best efforts to define or explain our
subjects in words that are as closely related to an objective reality as is practical.
For example, if we characterize something as ethical, we indicate that it is ethically
or morally acceptable. Language ethics is the study of how moral or ethical terms
such as (good, bad, right, and wrong) are employed. It examines the meaning of
the words as well as how they are used and function in our daily life.

2
3- Ethical Issues in Language & Linguistics
The analysis of ethical issues relating to language & linguistics must largely center
around the pragmatic aspect of language since ethics is concerned with human
practices, action, and behavior. So, there is at least a flimsy basis for believing that
pragmatics is the most pertinent of the three linguistic dimensions (Syntax,
Semantics, & Pragmatics) for ethical issues. It is nevertheless important to think
about whether there are any unique ethical issues connected to syntax or semantics.
As a first response, it can be claimed that there are some unique instances of
intellectually intriguing, ethical issues involving syntax and semantics. Although
these issues relate to the pragmatics of language, their main connections are with
syntax and semantics. Such issues, for instance, swearing, incorrect translations,
dictionary word selection, and a lack of linguistic knowledge are examples of these
issues. Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics are aspects of language that can be used
to categorize ethical concerns. The ethical issues pertaining to language vocabulary
and grammar are thus addressed through syntax. The ethical issues linked to how
language represents reality are discussed in the semantics, whereas the ethical
issues relating to linguistic practices are discussed in the pragmatics. These issues
are illustrated in more detail in what comes next.
3-1- Ethical Issues in Syntax
Vocabulary & grammar can only be considered in relation to how they are used
and applied in linguistic practices. The moral employment of vocabulary and
grammar in linguistic activities is a prerequisite for their applicability, as they are
ethical norms governing linguistic conduct and communication. For instance, if
someone used bad language in public, he/she may be criticized for having bad
manners and showing disrespect for other people. This accusation is definitely a
different reproach than being blamed for flawed pronunciation or grammar
mistakes.
3
3-2- Ethical Issues in Semantics

Since the ethical analysis of language is focused on the examination of its

representative role and the way it refers to the world, ethical judgments of
language may be concerned with semantics. For example, the translator's work
might be ethically assessed for reasons relating to the semantic aspect of language.
A translator can be ethically criticized for missing the adequate meaning or
semantic concerns if he/she is negligent with his/her work and does not
appropriately account for various possible interpretations of a text. Also, a
translator may be criticized for making a literal or „static‟ rendering instead of a
stable or „dynamic‟ one, and this criticism may also has an ethical tone.

3-3- Ethical Issues in Pragmatics

Pragmatics, or the use of language, is the broadest and significant category of

ethical linguistic issue. As we've just shown, when ethical issues are related to
syntax or semantics, they also have a pragmatic one. Language users may also be
ethically criticized for behaviors like gossiping, boasting, double-speak, and the
misleading use of rhetorical devices like metaphors, similes, and idiomatic
expressions. Professionals may also be criticized for speaking in a closed and
cryptic way with others. For example, professionals like doctors, lawyers, or
government officials may cause unfamiliarity or misleading to their customers
when they use special language or terminologies with them. Hence, in the use of
language, understandability can be an ethical issue.

3-3-1- Implicature

For a good communication, Paul Grice in 1975 proposed the notion implicature
which means, what is said goes beyond what is meant i.e. we say something but we

4
mean something else. Implicature depends on the context of the utterance and on
the shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer. For example:
Ali: “Who are those two standing by the door?”
Noor: “That’s my mother and her husband”.
The implicature here is that man is not her father.

Grice tried to account implicature by suggesting cooperative principles between

the speaker and the hearer. He put a set of maxims, they are:

1- Quantity: the contribution should be informative.

ex: “It may be raining”.

It implies that the speaker doesn‟t know whether it is raining or not.

2- Quality: tell something that you are sure about it.

ex: Ahmed- Is there an opened market around?

Adel- There is a super market round the corner.

It implies that the super market may be opened.

3- Relevance: your contribution must be relevant to the conversation.

ex: Noor- Ali can be a genius sometimes.

Sara- Lovely garden, isn’t it?

Irrelevant answer.

4- Manner: “make your comment in a way that is appropriate to the idea you wish
to convey”.

ex: Noor’s lips turned slightly upwards.

It implies that John didn‟t exactly smile.

5
3-3-2- Politeness

Politeness is another way for a good communication which is used to describe

human‟s behavior that shows respect and consideration for others. In politeness,
form is not important because we are after the social behavior that we make as
speakers. According to Leech (1980), politeness is an essential asymmetric i.e.
what speaker says may refer to something polite according to his culture, and
impolite according to the hearer‟s culture. Leech proposed a set of maxims to be
followed for a polite communication:

1- Tact maxim
The aim of tact maxim is to minimize cost to others and maximize the benefit to
others. For example:
e.g. Answer the phone.
The cost here is on the part of the hearer and the benefit is on the part of the
speaker. Contrast the following example:
e.g. Could you possibly answer the phone?
The cost here is on the part of the speaker and the benefit is on the part of the
hearer.
2- Generosity Maxim
The aim of generosity maxim is to minimize the benefit for the speaker and
maximize the benefit for the hearer. For example:
e.g. I can lend you my car.
The benefit here is for the hearer, and the cost is on the part of the speaker.
3- Approbation Maxim
The aim of this maxim is to minimize dispraise of others, and maximize praise
of others i.e. to avoid to say unpleasant things on the part of the hearer. For
example:
6
 e.g. What a marvelous meal you cocked!
The speaker praises the hearer. Contrast the following example:
e.g. What an awful meal you cooked!
The speaker dispraises the hearer.
4- Modesty Maxim
The aim of modesty maxim is to minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise
of self ( i.e. to be polite, you have to dispraise yourself). For example:
e.g. How stupid I am!
5- Agreement Maxim
The aim of this maxim has tendency to exaggerate agreement with others. For
example:
e.g. A: The referendum will satisfy everybody.
B: Yes, definitely.
(B) answer means that there is an agreement with the speaker. But when we
have to disagree with others, we can use euphemism expressions, humorous
language, or by giving partial agreement to avoid direct disagreement. For
example:
e.g. A: English is difficult language to learn.
B: True, but the grammar is quiet easy.
There is disagreement but in politely way i.e. partial disagreement.
6- Sympathy Maxim
The aim of this maxim is to express the relationship between the speaker and
the hearer. For example:
e.g. A: I have caught a cold these days.
B1: I know, you went to swim several days before, so you caught cold.
B2: How didn’t you take a good care of yourself?
B3: You would better have a rest these days.
7
 Both (B1) & (B2) answers don‟t make sympathy, whereas (B3) answer did
make sympathy on the part of the hearer.
7- Phatic Maxim
It is an additional maxim of politeness. Leech stated that politeness is not only
confined in the context of the conversation, but also by the structure of the
conversation managed by its participants. For example, speaking at the wrong
time i.e. interrupting someone else, or being silent when somebody talks to you
is considered unethical issue.

References
1. Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Penguin Books Ltd,
Middlesex, England.
2. Austin, J. (1976). How to Do Things with Words 2nd(ed) . by J.O. Urmson &
Marina Sbisa. Oxford paperbacks. Oxford: Oxford University Press
3. Leech, G. (1980). Principles of Pragmatics. London, Longman Group Ltd.
4. Grice, Paul (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press.
5. Lehtonen,T (2011). Ethical Problems Related to Language and Linguistic
Practices. University of Vaasa Press.
6. Yule, G. (2014). The Study of Language 5th(ed) . Cambridge University Press.
England.
7. www.languagemagazine.com
8. www.en.wikipedia.org