“The Bridge” and the Veiling of Meaning: Investigating the Possible Linguistic Effects of Scientology’s Unique Lexicon
Issue: Vol 10 No. 1 (2019)
Subject Areas: Religious Studies
This article examines the possible effects of the unique terminology of theChurch of Scientology on its members. It connects the concepts of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis with experimental data on the linguistic effects of differentword categories and applies them to oft-used terms within the Churchof Scientology. A thematic content analysis of an internal Scientology videoassesses the possible linguistic effects of the Scientological lexicon. The analysisis comprised of quantitative and qualitative elements. Unique words inthe video are cataloged by frequency and then tagged by one or more of sixword categories previously proven to have an associated linguistic effect, andthen qualitatively analyzed in regards to the categories' associated effects. Itwas concluded that key effects were exclusivity, complexity, and ambiguity,with terms veiling meaning, possibly causing an impression of Scientology asarcane and distant. Moreover, it was found that the ambiguity of terms andtheir sense of professionalism may cause Scientologists and non-Scientologistsalike to more easily place faith in the legitimacy of the concepts behindthe words. This shows that the kind of terminology used in Scientology orsimilar groups likely has an effect on perception and/or behavior, and maybetter inform Scientologists on the factors that influence their attitudes. Thepaper opens the gates for deeper studies into the discourse, behaviors, andnature of an enigmatic new religious movement.
Author: Benjamin Fischer
Ariely, D. 2010. The Upside of Irrationality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2011.5747214
Bloom, P. and F.C. Keil. 2001. “Thinking through language.” Mind & Language 16(4): 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00175
Bowers, J. S. and C.W. Pleydell-Pearce. 2011. “Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity.” PLOS ONE 6(7): e22341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022341
Cook, P. 1971. “Scientology and Dianetics.” The Journal of Education 153(4): 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205747115300409
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernst, E. 2004. “Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language.” Complementary Medicine Research 11(3): 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079446
Hales, A. H., K. D. Williams and J. Rector. 2017. “Alienating the audience: How abbreviations hamper scientific communication.” APS Observer 30(2).
Hubbard, L. R. 1950. Dianetics: The modern science of mental health. New York: Hermitage House.
———. 1982. Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology. USA: Bridge Publications.
———. 2017. Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000. Hollywood, CA: Galaxy Press.
Kodish, B. I. 2003. “General semantics: a general theory of evaluation.” ETC.:
A Review of General Semantics 60(3): 286–295.
Lucy, J. A. 2005. “Through the window of language: Assessing the influence of language diversity on thought.” Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 20(3): 299–309.
Macagno, F. and D. Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776
McCall, W. V. 2007. Psychiatry and psychology in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. Journal of Religion and Health 46(3): 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-006-9079-9
Mooney, A. 2005. The Rhetoric of Religious ‘Cults’. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504417
Movsisyan, D. M. 2012. “Polysemy in Context.” Armenian Folia Anglistika. 53–59.
Scientology.org n.d. “Scientology beliefs & practices: What is scientology?” . Accessed October 3, 2019. n.d. “What is the e-meter and how does it work?”