Unsanctioning Sanction
by
Howard Richler
In
Crazy English, Richard
Lederer points out the many anomalies of the English language such
as greyhounds not necessarily being grey, and fireflies being beetles
not flies. However, this book is probably best known for this quip:
“In what other language do people drive in a parkway and park on a
driveway?”
Some
months ago here in my Lexpert column
I dealt with the seemingly contradictory usage of the non-literal
sense of “literally,”; this is but one example of many words
that can have contradictory meanings. For example, “cleave” can
mean adhere or separate; “dust,” add fine particles or remove
them; “oversight,” monitor or fail to oversee; “ravel,”
entangle or disentangle; and “with,” alongside or against.
Sometimes,
we can explain how particular words evolved contradictory senses.
With the word “fast” we start off with the sense of “immovable”
or “firm, as in “standing fast.” From this meaning we developed
the concept of “running fast,” and hence the “rapid” sense of
the word. Similarly, “fine” originally denoted something
“slender,” and this led to a sense of “highly finished,”
which in turn led to a sense of “beautiful.” In situations where
large growth is desirable,such as, a “fine head of hair,” the
word “fine” can be seen as “large,” even though the word
started its life as “slender.”
Words
that possess contradictory meanings are sometimes called contronyms
“Contronym” is now being researched for inclusion in the OED;
it does,
however, appear in Oxford Dictionaries Online
its first citation being in 1962. An alternate designation for this
type of word is Janus-faced; the term coming from the Roman god Janus
whose name derives from the Latin ianua,
“entrance gate.” Janus was the god of doorways and gateways and
as they can be passed in and out, his face looked in opposite
directions.
As
mentioned in my “literally” article, the context in which the
seemingly contradictory word is used should clarify the intended
meaning. The word “sanction,” however, drives many to distraction
due to its uncertain meaning. Complicating matters further,
“sanction” does double duty as a noun and a verb where different
rules apply. Its first usage was as a noun in the 16th
century when it referred to a law or decree and in particular an
ecclesiastical decree that if violated resulted in a penalty. In the
late 18th
century we see sanction used as a verb with the sense of to confirm
or to permit in an authoritative manner.
According
to linguist Ben Zimmer, the word has headed in opposite directions
– “One relating to legal or ethical rules, and one relating to
penalties against infringing such rules. Since the 18th
century, the verb formed from 'sanction' has generally accorded with
the positive sense as when Thomas Jefferson wrote in his
autobiography of preserving 'the very words of the established law,
wherever their meaning has been sanctioned by judicial decisions.' ”
As
a noun, the dominant sense of “sanction” is economic or military
action taken by a government or governments against another country;
e.g.,“USA and Canada imposed sanctions on Russia.” Confusingly,
however, it can mean the opposite, e.g.,“USA and Britain seek UN
sanction against Iraq.” Interestingly, definition 2a in the OED
states “Law: The specific penalty enacted in order to enforce
obedience to a law”; however definition 2b states “Extended to
include the provisions of reward for obedience.”
As
I mention in my book How Happy Became
Homosexual,
the meaning of words is in constant flux and by the mid-20th
century the “penalize” sense of the verb sanction arose and its
use has recently started to become the dominant one. This probably
developed because the usage of the “reward” sense of the noun
became rarer. For example, in 2010 Bloomberg
News reported
that “{US congressman}Rangel would be the first lawmaker sanctioned
by the full House since..” Just this past May a Los
Angeles Times
headline read “Donald Sterling Sanctioned” and a Business
Insider one
declared “Obama Just Sanctioned The Scariest Man on Earth,”(Russian
oil tycoon) Igor Sechin. Often the sense of the verb isn't apparent
from the headline. For example, the Jerusalem
Post in 2011
stated that “Normal China-Iran business ties shouldn't be
sanctioned.” Only by reading the full article, however, does it
become apparent that the author is saying that business ties
shouldn't be penalized. I particularly enjoyed this headline that
appeared in Slate
in January 2013: “Is There Anything Left To Sanction in North
Korea?” Only North Korea's egregious reputation makes it clear that
the author came to bury Kim Jong-un not to praise him.
My
advice to the careful writer is to avoid the verbal use of the word
“sanction” by itself if there is any possibility of the meaning
being misconstrued. Comprehension can be enhanced by specifying
“issue (or levy) sanctions against” or disapproval and “give
sanction to” for approval. As a noun,because the negative sense of
the word is dominant, I would avoid sentences such as “USA and
Britain sought UN sanction against Russia” and replace “sanction”
with a word such as “authorization.”
Howard
next book Word Play:
Arranged & Deranged Wit will
be published in 2015.
