From Geoffrey Chaucer to Jeff Sessions, misspeaking is when you lie about lying
This article by , Lecturer in Law and Criminology, was originally published on . Read the .
When US attorney-general Jeff Sessions told his confirmation hearing he had not had any communication with any Russians during the presidential election campaign, only for it to turn out that he had with the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, he was apparently 鈥渕isspeaking鈥�. So that鈥檚 ok then. 
But maybe not 鈥� while 鈥渕isspeak鈥� undoubtedly has the innocent connotation of 鈥渟peaking incorrectly鈥� or even 鈥渕ispronouncing鈥�, it is a sad reflection on contemporary life that whenever a politician uses a word, no matter how blameless the context might appear, people are less and less inclined to take the meaning of that word at face value.
There is no other word quite like 鈥渕isspeak鈥�. This is because to claim to have misspoken 鈥� as used by our political overlords 鈥� is essentially to tell a lie about a lie. So it not only relates to untruth, the phrase itself contains an untruth.
, and all used the word. Even at first blush, we can see that it has a phylogenetic relationship 鈥� that is, it shares common roots 鈥� with other expressions prefixed with 鈥渕is-鈥�, some of which have blameless connotations, such as 鈥渕istake鈥�, 鈥渕islay鈥� and 鈥渕ishap鈥�. Others, though, are less innocent 鈥� notably 鈥渕islead鈥� and 鈥渕isuse鈥�.
The English seem to have borrowed the mis prefix from their Norman cousins at some time in the 14th century: so the Old French word 尘茅蝉辫补谤濒别谤 meaning to traduce or calumniate may be a worthy progenitor of 鈥渕isspeak鈥�.
Fessing up
As George Orwell pointed out in his essay Politics and the English Language, politicians routinely misuse language. Orwell鈥檚 main point about political speech is that it is essentially stale: politicians mindlessly recycle expressions 鈥� and misspeak is a prime example. We have seen this word used in two ways, the Hillary Clinton way and the Ted Cruz way. Unexpectedly, both owe a debt to Bill Clinton.
First, let us deal with the Hillary Clinton variety. Clinton famously asserted that when it was established that her aircraft, upon landing in Bosnia, had not been fired at, as she had previously stated. In her defence she claimed:
I say a lot of things 鈥� millions of words a day 鈥� so if I misspoke it was just a misstatement.
However, it was pointed out that she had made her claim in a prepared speech. In other words, at some point in time, she and her speech writers had sat down and typed or written the words that she later 鈥渕isspoke鈥�.
Clearly, this is not 鈥渕isspeaking鈥� of the 鈥渟peaking incorrectly鈥� or 鈥渕ispronouncing鈥� variety. It was, in other words, a planned, premeditated industrial production of invented or distorted facts. When Clinton claimed to have 鈥渕isspoken鈥� she was simply dressing up a lie: not only had she lied, she was now lying about lying. She had invented facts and then attempted to attribute that invention to error.
The second variety is that espoused by Ted Cruz, a luminary from the other side of the political spectrum. Referring to the recent debacle surrounding US attorney鈥慻eneral Jeff Sessions鈥� omission of certain facts relating to meetings with the Russian ambassador, :
His answer was less than clear, he misspoke and did not answer as clearly as he should and that鈥檚 unfortunate.
Cruz went on to describe Sessions鈥� lexical misadventure as 鈥渁n oversight鈥�.
However, the claim that Sessions did not 鈥渁nswer as clearly as he should鈥� cannot be substantiated because Sessions was quite clear in his Senate confirmation hearing: 鈥淚 did not have communications with the Russians鈥�. This unequivocal construction begins with the words 鈥淚 did not have鈥�, reminiscent of Bill Clinton鈥檚 鈥淚 did not have鈥� 鈥� in his case 鈥渟exual relations鈥�. Notice that both 鈥渉ave communications with鈥� and 鈥渉ave sexual relations with鈥� are themselves less cognate forms of 鈥渟peak to鈥� (or similar expressions) and 鈥渉ave sex with鈥� respectively.
Looked at together, the two denials are linguistically fascinating not only for their structural similarities, but also for their euphemising of 鈥渟peak to鈥� and 鈥渉ave sex with鈥� as 鈥渉ave communications with鈥� and 鈥渉ave sexual relations with鈥� respectively, as the table below shows:
As we can see from the above, the provenance of Sessions鈥� denial owes its syntax entirely to Bill Clinton who 鈥� although it was not claimed on his behalf 鈥� clearly 鈥渕isspoke鈥�. It could thus be that Hillary Clinton鈥檚 鈥渕isspeech鈥� is the indirect progeny of her husband鈥檚 misadventure, which 鈥� in turn 鈥� spawned Sessions鈥� misleading comment. What we take from this is that mendacity crosses party lines effortlessly.
Weasel words
Here is a simple test to determine the ethics behind 鈥渕isspeak鈥�: imagine you are a lawyer in court and you give the judge incorrect information. It can be guaranteed that if you later on tell the judge that you 鈥渕isspoke鈥�, there will be a raised judicial eyebrow. In court, a lawyer鈥檚 first duty is to the court 鈥� not only must a lawyer not mislead a court, they must not allow the court to be misled, directly or indirectly, knowingly or recklessly, by commission or omission.
To sum up, to claim misspeech when what actually occurred was a distortion of the truth, an invention of a fact, or the denial of a reality, is clearly to misuse the word 鈥渕isspeak鈥�. The person is not holding up their hand and admitting to having lied; they are still in denial. They are sugarcoating the fact that they did not speak the truth. They are using 鈥渕isspeak鈥� because 鈥渓ying鈥� is an ugly word and they do not wish to be associated with it.
So 鈥渕isspeak鈥� is wheeled in to rescue a reputation, but in doing so the person is lying yet again. As Orwell cautioned all those years ago: we must be on our guard not to allow ourselves to be anaesthetised by the deceptions of political rhetoric. Politicians lie because a lot of the time they are doing things we would not agree with. 鈥淢isspeak鈥� suggests that some politicians have taken lying to a new level: they have learned to lie about lying. You might think of this as simply a phenomenon of the post-truth era. Nope 鈥� it鈥檚 just lying.
Publication date: 6 March 2017