|
Qualifiers, in advertising, are
words or phrases that restrict, limit, or modify the claims made,
or the benefits promised.
Common qualifiers in advertising are controversial
and misunderstood: words such as: "may, can, possibly,
some, many, often, less than, almost, virtually, in some cases,
as many as, save up to 75%. batteries not included, some assembly
required."
Some critics attack qualifiers as being slyly deceptive,
as being "weasel words."
However, qualifiers used in ads today are usually
disclosures, required by consumer protection laws designed
to prevent advertisers from making absolute claims.
Consider the historical context: quack claims, panaceas, and cure-alls
(absolutely promising a "cure") used to be marketed before
federal regulatory agencies were created.
Now, FDA regulations stipulate that certain qualifying
words (e.g."helps, may help to, helps relieve the symptoms
of, alleviates, can aid, in some cases") must be used
in health claims to alert consumers to the limitations of drugs
and medicines.
Required warnings have increased greatly
since the 1990s when prescription drugs were allowed to advertise
directly to patients. Harmful side-effects need to be disclosed,
as well as a final caution, "See your doctor."
Some regulations also require certain qualifiers
to be used in advertising other products to prevent deceptive
statements or implications. Health and safety issues are the main
concern of disclosure laws, such as the required labels on food
and health claims.
Truth-in-Lending laws, for example, also require
disclosure of interest for car loans, installment loans, credit
cards.
Qualifications usually appear in the "small
print" in ads, not designed to attract attention. TV ads
can usually hide them in tiny text scrolling at bottom; radio ads
use fast talkers or speeded-up tapes. The exact wording of such
disclosure laws are usually the focus of bitter fights between consumerists
and advertisers. Read the "small print" before you buy
anything.
Political rhetoric is another area in which
you should pay attention to absolute promises and qualified ones.
Politicians often get condemned or criticized for making qualifications,
but there are many situations in which such qualifiers are needed
and appropriate.
|
Qualifiers are words or phrases that restrict,
limit, or modify statements.
Instead of complete generalizations, using "all"
or "always," you can use certain qualifiers to
indicate frequency, degree, or
limits ("some, many, often, frequently, occasionally,
usually, once in while"), and to express
doubt, lack of certitude, or hypotheticals
("perhaps, maybe, if").
Or we can qualify by making a general statement,
then immediately use a cue word (e.g. "however,
but, yet, on the other hand") to link it with a limiting
statement which follows.
A common paragraph pattern opens with a generalization
in the topic sentence, followed by one or more sentences showing
the qualifications ("however"), then concludes
by reaffirming("nevertheless") the validity of
the opening generalization.
Qualifiers are useful and appropriate ways to
avoid absolute statements, or to express a lack of certitude.
Qualifiers can be used inappropriately. For example,
academic writing is notorious for overqualifying Scholars
sometimes become too cautious in trying to think of all possible
exceptions. Their every verb is cautious ("seems, appears,
tends to be") and their every strong statement is hedged,
or balanced by a qualifier. Thus, some pedants are attacked as
being wishy-washy or mealy-mouthed.
At the other extreme, some people are not aware
of their own absolutism and authoritarianism. They affirm everything
in absolutes ("all, always, every, everyone,
no, none, no one"), or in simple categorical assertions
("it is"), or with question-begging cue
words ("obviously, certainly, as anyone can see").
As you revise, be aware of your own generalizations
and qualifiers. Use them deliberately and appropriately.
|