Dot Wordsworth

Mind Your Language | 1 May 2004

A Lexicographer writes

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

On the Kasslers’ return to England they found a similar card on an otherwise bare shelf of their local Tesco. ‘It informed customers that the absence of fresh food was due to “issues at our distribution centre”.’ This neatly illustrates the interplay between lexical choice and cultural presuppositions. Neither rules out silliness.

In countries with a more ingrained habit of socialism, public notices often invoke what we English call ‘industrial action’. Just as this phrase denotes the opposite, that is, inaction, so mouvements sociaux suggest to some people antisocial behaviour.

From Tesco’s explanation it is not clear whether there is a strike at the distribution centre or whether perhaps a fire had broken out or someone had lost a key. What do we learn from the adoption of issues as an English analogue to the French explanatory terms? That is not so easy to tell, for issues is a weasel word, at its worst when coupled with around, as in ‘issues around sexuality’. But it can be used unreflectingly as a synonym for either ‘problem’ or ‘dispute’. I hate it.

By the way, I began with a ‘well’. This verbal tick annoys Mr James Bothwell of Edinburgh, who blames Mr Jack Straw for being its chief exponent. There are parallels in Greek and Latin and modern European languages. I am not quite sure what the objection is. Presumably the word’s usefulness to a politician being interviewed is to provide a response which is neither an assent nor a denial, and which can serve as a buffer separating the suggestions of the question from the approach intended by the answerer. That is a lot for a little word. In any case it is better than ‘er’, I’d have thought. Do you have an issue with it?

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in