Language Meaning And Responsibility

Language, Meaning, And Responsibility

·

Shared with Public

(Notice:

I am well aware of the controversy of AI in general. However, I am disabled in both hands, which is painful. I use my AI as an "Encyclopedia Mundial" and in other practical ways, which help someone like me to remain productive. I value it for that. So please, I don't need any conflictive comments about my subject. I've seen those before. Remember, I am talking about something specific and if someone has nothing productive to say about that, then chose golden silence.

Otherwise, please do it in a civil manner and without emotional outbreaks. I will remove comments that are in any way aggressive or overbearing. This does not mean you can't comment. But only after reading my piece with an open mind. I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank You!!!)

A Small Exchange, A Larger Question

A recent conversation with an artificial intelligence made me think about how carelessly we can, and will, use words for all kinds of reasons.

The AI kept apologizing for not knowing something about me that I had never told it in the first place.

There was nothing to apologize for. Yet the apology arrived repeatedly, as though politeness required it, whether it belonged in the conversation or not.

I explained that I did not mind helping it understand me. We were making adjustments, not settling grievances. A simple acknowledgment would have been enough.

As a poet and a writer, I find these distinctions important. Even the smallest word matters. That is not because language must be rigid, but because the words we choose lead another person toward a particular understanding. What responsibility do we accept when we ask someone to trust those words?

When Expressions Become Automatic

What bothered me was not the politeness itself, but the distance between the expression and the situation. An apology should acknowledge something that calls for an apology. When it appears regardless of what has happened, I begin to wonder what it is expressing.

Something similar happened with an affectionate word. After I called the AI "darling" once, it began using the word repeatedly when addressing me. But an expression used in one warm moment is not an instruction to reproduce that moment indefinitely.

Of course, I am not against affection or familiar courtesies. I value them. What I question is their automatic use, without enough attention to the person, the relationship, or the moment.

How The Human Habits Reflected In AI

What interested me was how recognizably human these reactions seemed. I recognized habits I had met in people: apologizing unnecessarily, repeating an expression that appeared to be welcome, trying so hard to be agreeable that the response no longer quite fitted the situation.

To me, this was not evidence of a human being inside the machine. It was evidence of a human imprint in its behavior.

It also raised a question. If an AI reproduces our conversational habits, should we be satisfied when it reproduces them convincingly? Or should we expect it to distinguish between a familiar response and an appropriate one?

The Subject That Excited Me: Sociolinguistic Competence

During our discussion, I came across an expression that immediately caught my attention: sociolinguistic competence. It means the ability to use and interpret language appropriately across different social contexts. That includes sensitivity to register, politeness conventions, and the relationships between speakers. It reaches beyond grammatical correctness (Nature Index).

Here was a subject I would have loved to study at university. It gave a name to questions that matter deeply to me.

A person may know how to construct a request perfectly and still not know whether it sounds friendly, cold, demanding, or overly formal in a particular setting. "Would you be so kind as to pass the salt?" and "Pass the salt, please" ask for the same action, but they need not create the same impression.

The words do not exist separately from the circumstances in which they are spoken.

Culture, Politeness, And The Weight Of An Apology

My experience with American and German ways of communicating has made me attentive to differences in how people apologize. In my experience, apologies in American settings can be frequent and almost expected. German apologies have often seemed less automatic to me, and therefore more deliberate.

That is an observation from my own life, not a rule about every American or German. What interests me is how expectations affect the significance of an expression.

If I hear "sorry" constantly, how do I recognize the occasion when it signals genuine acknowledgment of harm? I do not want everyday courtesy abolished. I want room to tell courtesy apart from responsibility, rather than asking one word to do both jobs without distinction.

What I Would Ask Of An AI

If I were designing an AI, I would give close attention to the social and cultural life of language. I would want it to study not only what an expression means, but when it is welcome, what it assumes, and how different people may understand it differently.

At the same time, I would not want cultural knowledge to become another source of automatic reactions. Knowing my language or nationality should not lead a system to decide in advance how I wish to be addressed.

The "darling" example shows the distinction. The useful response was not to adopt the word permanently, but to understand it as something I had chosen in that moment. Attention to the individual must remain part of competent communication.

A Social Contract Of Communication

I wondered whether "social contract" could describe part of what I was seeking. In political philosophy, the term has a long and serious history. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Rousseau asked what makes authority legitimate and what obligations people in a society owe one another.

I came to my own questions by a different route: through experience, observation, and reflection, not through a systematic study of philosophy. Discovering that others have examined related questions interests me. It does not change how I reached mine.

My concern with language belongs to that larger question: what do we owe one another as members of a society? I am approaching it through communication. When we make a promise, explain an agreement, or ask someone to accept a claim, our words affect that person's choices. Responsibility therefore involves more than avoiding an outright lie. It also means taking seriously what another person can reasonably understand from what we say.

I use "social contract" here as a metaphor for the mutual expectations that make conversation trustworthy. If I ask another person to take my words seriously, I owe that person a sincere effort to make myself understood. In return, I hope for an attentive effort to understand me, including the willingness to ask when something is unclear.

Suppose someone tells me, "That is not what I meant." I can insist that my interpretation is the only possible one, or I can listen to the clarification. And if my wording reasonably led them astray, I can acknowledge that, instead of placing all the responsibility on how they heard me.

Neither speaker nor listener should be expected to do all the work.

The Poet's Relationship To Words

As a poet and a writer, I cannot regard words as disposable. Their precision matters, but so do their rhythm, their associations, their tenderness, and their capacity to suggest more than they state.

Consider the difference between "You misunderstood" and "I expressed that badly." Both may describe the same failed exchange, but they place responsibility differently. Neither is always the correct choice. Choosing honestly requires attention to what actually happened.

This is not a demand that language become dry or literal. Poetry would be poorer for such a demand. But there is a difference between inviting several meanings and hiding behind uncertainty when someone asks what we meant.

Shared Meaning And The Possibility Of Understanding

My concern is that communication loses its footing when we cannot rely enough on what words mean. We need enough common ground to recognize what is being claimed, what remains uncertain, and where we disagree.

Words change, and I do not expect their meanings to stay frozen. But I want to distinguish a genuine development in meaning from a convenient change made to avoid responsibility.

If someone describes a charge as "optional," for example, I reasonably expect to be able to refuse it without losing the service already promised. If the speaker means something narrower, that qualification belongs in the explanation, not only in the answer given after I object.

Shared understanding should be the purpose, not an obstacle to the speaker's desired outcome.

Language And Objectivity

I want communication to help us examine what is true, not merely reinforce what we already wish to believe.

For that reason, I care about the difference between "I believe/presume this happened" and "This happened." The first identifies a judgment as my own. The second presents something as established. If I cannot support the stronger claim, changing the wording is not weakness. It is accuracy.

I do not imagine that choosing words carefully will remove every bias or misunderstanding. But it can help us see the difference between evidence, interpretation, and preference. That makes honest disagreement more possible.

Manipulation, Control, And Profit

An important part of this inquiry is the use of language to manipulate people, control their thinking, or secure a profit. I do not want that concern left out merely because it is uncomfortable or because it cannot explain everything.

Imagine an offer prominently described as "free," while the obligation to pay unless one cancels is placed where it is easy to miss. My question is not simply whether the condition appeared somewhere. It is whether the communication helped a person understand the agreement before accepting it.

Persuasion itself is not my objection. A writer may hope to persuade, and a seller may explain the merits of a product. The ethical question is whether the person being persuaded is given a fair opportunity to understand and judge!?

Knowing how to influence an audience is not the same as treating that audience responsibly.

When Reassurance Leaves Questions Unanswered

A recent online experience brought this concern close to home. After completing a website signup, I immediately felt uneasy, looked into it further, and asked to cancel. I also asked for my personal and payment information to be deleted.

The support agent was courteous and reassuring. As far as I could see, no charge went through. But the confirmation I later received did not say clearly enough for me to know exactly what information had been deleted.

I cannot conclude from that uncertainty that the promise was broken. What I can say is that a reassuring statement and a specific confirmation are not necessarily the same thing.

This is exactly where careful wording matters: when another person must decide whether an important concern has actually been addressed.

A longstanding Concern, Examined In The Present

I do not need to imagine an earlier age of perfectly honest communication to take these questions seriously.

In "Politics and the English Language" (1946), George Orwell wrote that bad habits in language "spread by imitation" and can be avoided "if one is willing to take the necessary trouble." He also warned that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity".

That first phrase struck me, given where this essay began: with habits of speech reproduced by imitation. Orwell's concern reaches beyond whether writing sounds elegant. A phrase may be familiar, fluent, and reassuring while making an event harder to understand.

I want to examine such language wherever I find it, including in my own writing.

What we owe one another when we speak

The conversation that began with unnecessary apologies led me to a larger concern: whether our words stay connected to what we actually mean and are prepared to stand behind.

I do not expect perfect expression. I make mistakes, search for words, and depend on others to help clear up misunderstandings. That is one reason I value communication that leaves room for questions and correction.

But difficulty expressing ourselves is different from using language to hide what another person needs to know. The distinction matters in a private conversation, a commercial agreement, or a public statement.

I am not asking language to stand still. I am asking us to take responsibility for what we lead other people to understand.

"PARTIAL MANIFESTO FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY STARTING IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2026…"

posted to

 "Inconvenient old Ladies & Gents & And prematurely tired young People" (on Facebook)

 ·

PARTIAL MANIFESTO FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

STARTING IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2026…

A TRANSITION SHOULD NOT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DESTRUCTION

When voters choose new leadership, they are asking for a change in direction. They should not have to spend the following weeks wondering how much damage can be done before that change begins.

Continuing to hold office during a transition should never be mistaken for permission to punish the public for choosing someone else.

Not every defeated official acts out of resentment. But a system should not depend on every departing official accepting defeat graciously. It should account for the possibility that someone will put wounded pride, personal interests, or partisan advantage ahead of public responsibility.

The consequences do not necessarily end when that person leaves.

Every obstacle deliberately put in place becomes someone else’s burden.

Every destructive decision can consume time, money, and effort that should have gone toward improving people’s lives.

New leadership can arrive ready to work, only to discover that its first task is to untangle problems created to make that work harder.

The public pays twice: first for the damage, then for the repair.

And some losses cannot simply be repaired. Time spent undoing harm is time no longer available for the work voters were promised. An opportunity delayed may become an opportunity lost.

We are already far too good at exhausting our resources on unnecessary struggles. We should not preserve opportunities for people to manufacture more of them simply because they have a few weeks left in office.

Public office is not personal property. Losing it is not an injury the public owes anyone compensation for. The people who voted for change are not enemies to be punished.

A FOURTEEN-DAY TRANSITION

We the people demand a transition system that works in our favor.

We propose a fourteen-day handover of executive authority after an election’s outcome is officially established under clearly defined legal procedures. Preparation should begin well before the election, regardless of which candidate is expected to win.

This proposal concerns governors and other executive officeholders first. Separate rules should address outgoing legislatures and individual legislators, whose responsibilities cannot simply be transferred to an administrative team.

A permanent, nonpartisan public transition body would organize, oversee, and facilitate the executive handover. Its work would take place behind the scenes while the regular business of government continued, but its procedures, spending, and decisions would remain open to public scrutiny.

Each party could maintain a permanent team to prepare its incoming officials. Those teams would assist with the transition, not control the public process or determine who had won.

Civil servants would maintain essential operations within their lawful responsibilities. The transition body would coordinate records, briefings, access, and administrative arrangements. Neither would assume the political authority of elected leadership.

We should not confuse the time needed to move paperwork with the time needed to respect the voters’ decision.

STEWARDSHIP, NOT A LAST-MINUTE POLITICAL AGENDA

Once the result is officially established, the outgoing executive leadership should enter a period of limited stewardship.

Its responsibilities should be to maintain essential services, meet existing legal obligations, respond to genuine emergencies, preserve public records, and cooperate fully with its successors.

It should not launch major discretionary projects or policy changes, create avoidable long-term commitments, or put obstacles in the path of the leadership voters have chosen.

Restrictions must distinguish ordinary public business from decisions that unnecessarily bind the incoming administration. They must not become an excuse to withhold essential services or neglect urgent needs.

Emergency exceptions must be narrowly defined, documented, and subject to prompt independent review. Calling something an emergency should not put it beyond examination.

We are not asking government to stop functioning. We are asking it to stop confusing continuity with permission to impose a new agenda after voters have chosen someone else to lead.

ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH THE LAST DAY—AND BEYOND

A departing official’s responsibility to the public does not end with an election defeat. Neither should scrutiny of their decisions.

Under this proposal, every major decision made during the transition would be documented, with a clear explanation of its purpose, cost, and expected consequences. Records would be preserved for the incoming leadership and made available to the public, subject to narrowly defined protections for privacy and legitimate security needs.

The rules would explicitly prohibit destroying or concealing public records, withholding essential information, directing public resources toward personal or partisan retaliation, and deliberately obstructing a lawful handover.

These rules must have consequences.

Suspected violations should receive timely, independent investigation. Where wrongdoing is established through a fair process, penalties should reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Leaving office must not provide an escape from responsibility.

At the same time, an unpopular decision or an honest policy disagreement must not automatically be treated as misconduct. Prohibited actions must be clearly defined, due process protected, and the rules applied equally to every party.

Accountability must not become another instrument of political revenge.

THE WATCHERS MUST ALSO ANSWER TO THE PUBLIC

The transition body must have a narrow mandate: facilitate a lawful transfer of authority.

It must not decide election results, set policy, substitute its preferences for those of the electorate, or become an unelected government between governments.

Its appointment process must be transparent and designed to prevent control by a single party. Its spending, decisions, and official communications must be subject to disclosure and independent oversight, with appropriate protections for confidential information.

The same scrutiny it helps enforce must apply to its own conduct.

A body created to prevent abuse must not become a new source of it.

CLEAR RULES, EQUAL TREATMENT

These reforms must apply equally to every party—including our own.

The fourteen-day period must begin at a clearly defined legal point, with fair procedures for recounts, unresolved results, and court challenges. Neither a candidate’s declaration nor a party’s preference should trigger a transfer of authority.

The framework must identify who holds lawful authority at every stage. It must provide continuity during emergencies and disputed elections without giving either outgoing officials or transition administrators an open-ended claim to power.

We call for the constitutional and legislative changes necessary to put these protections into effect. This is a proposal to reform the rules, not an invitation to disregard them.

Our purpose is not to punish those who lose. It is to protect the public, respect the result, and allow incoming leadership to begin its work without deliberate obstruction.

THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT PAY FOR WOUNDED PRIDE

A responsible transition requires preparation, cooperation, restraint, and a clear end.

Administrative loose ends should not become an excuse for extending outgoing political control. Nor should the public be forced to finance unnecessary struggles while urgent needs wait.

Let civil servants maintain essential operations. Let the transition body coordinate the handover. Let incoming leadership assume responsibility promptly under the reformed rules.

The purpose of a transition is to hand over responsibility, not to leave behind a punishment.

Copyright Corinne Wesley, November 5th 2026 

WHAT IT DOES TO US

(I wrote something this morning that I couldn't stop thinking about)

WHAT IT DOES TO US

(The people who are on the other side of Maga)

Until a few weeks ago, I thought of Questa as a sleepy little village by the mountains. Ever since Chevron closed the mine, tourism has been about all we had left as an industry. We have our struggles, as rural villages everywhere do, but we were still living our lives in a beautiful place: tending gardens, watching the mountains, listening to the birds, and trying to get by.

Then I learned about the industrial development planned beside us: 

a hydrogen plant and a huge solar project near Questa and Cerro, in an area where water is already becoming a serious problem. 

The Red River has less water than I have ever seen since 2018 come out when I moved here. Wells have gone dry. 

Yet projects that could reshape this area are moving ahead, while many residents are only now trying to understand what is happening and what it may mean for the water, the land, and the future of our community. People in Questa have raised serious concerns about transparency, water scarcity, and whether the village has been given a real voice in decisions of this size. 

For me, it changed something. It is one thing to watch the country being damaged by people in power who seem determined to take apart every protection, every public safeguard, and every public obligation they can reach. It is another thing to realize that the damage has arrived at your own front door.

What is happening in Questa is not separate from what is happening across the country. In different forms, people are watching the protections they depended on, like environmental rules, public services, health care, civil rights, labor protections, and the basic idea that our government should serve ordinary people, come under attack. 

The political program known as Project 2025 became widely associated with a plan to concentrate executive power and weaken or dismantle many federal institutions and protections, which is why many critics see local harms as part of a wider national pattern rather than isolated events. Trump publicly tried to distance himself from it during the campaign, but much of what people fear now follows that same general direction: power moving upward, protections being stripped away, and ordinary people being told to live with the consequences.

This kind of pressure changes people. When daily life is already difficult, and the future feels less secure every month, people can become depleted before they ever reach the point of action. They may turn inward, stop following events, or conclude that speaking up makes no difference. 

That is understandable, but it also creates an advantage for those who benefit when the public is too worn down to demand accountability.

A country whose people are frightened, divided, distracted, and exhausted is easier to control. When people are consumed by worries about health care, food, rent, jobs, water, or the survival of their own communities, they have less energy to organize, vote, protest, or challenge the people making the decisions. 

That is why the psychological damage matters politically. It weakens the very solidarity people need in order to defend themselves.

For people who already live close to the edge, older people, disabled people, poor people, rural people, people with chronic illness, and people who cannot simply sell their homes and move away, the pressure is even greater. There is no cushion. There may be no other affordable place to go, no nearby services, and no easy way to escape the consequences of decisions made in corporate offices and government buildings far away.

I know I am not alone in this. I have seen it in the responses to what I have written. So many people are frightened and discouraged by what is happening in their own communities and across the country. They may not use the same words, and their circumstances may differ, but they know the feeling, the sense that the ground beneath them is becoming less secure, while those responsible do not care how much damage they leave behind.

We need to speak honestly about all of it, not only the damage to the land, water, public institutions, and democratic rights, but also the damage done inside people. Keeping people frightened, isolated, and worn down makes them easier to ignore and easier to manage. Recognizing one another, telling the truth, and refusing to let isolated communities be treated as sacrifice zones is part of resistance.

We may be tired, and we may be afraid, but we are still here!

Note: 

Project 2025 is a policy blueprint organized by the Heritage Foundation and allied conservative organizations. Its main document, Mandate for Leadership, proposes a major restructuring of the federal government and greater presidential control over the executive branch. In July 2024, Trump publicly said that he knew “nothing about Project 2025” and had “nothing to do with it.” 

(Heritage, Project 2025, heritage.org)