Saturday, July 19, 2014

The semantics of tragedy

The events of the last 24 hours, with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 falling from the sky having been shot by a missile over the Ukraine, has raised again the semantic distinction between ‘accident’ and ‘crime’. One tweeter called it a ‘crime against humanity’ because of the ‘tens of AIDS researchers’ killed. Many tweets made reference to ‘the MH17 accident’, while others wanted to steer clear of that nomenclature:

JCH999: Has flight been classified an accident now? All media are saying it "crashed" yet I'm pretty sure it was SHOT DOWN. BIG DIFFERENCE!
KJBar: PM on : 'This is not an accident. This is a crime. It was shot down. It did not crash.' http://tinyurl.com/pnemnfg v @abcnews
   shadowb0lt: Calling an "accident" is a bad joke. This is nothing less than an abominable act of war.
sh1bumi: recorded talks between Seperatists and Russian Gov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw … Shooting was an accident
MarkTregonning: Where is 's evidence this is not an accident? That Russian-backed forces did it? He may be right-but evidence shld be given.
danielrhamilton: 's crash is looking more like a crime than an accident. If so; what a wicked and evil act. The perpetrators must be found.

A ‘crime’ is “an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law” (Oxford). An ‘accident’ is “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly or unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury” or “an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause” (Oxford). These definitions do not rule out an overlap between accident and crime, as the first definition of ‘accident’ could constitute a crime if it is something punishable by law.

Australian PM Tony Abbott was reported as saying adamantly that the MH17 incident was no accident (at least by the second definition above). Rather, he said, “it was shot down. It did not crash. It was downed, and it was downed over territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. It was downed by a missile which seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels.

Here, apart from in the second sentence, Abbott consistently uses verbs that express processes of deliberate action that require a ‘doer’ (Agent) - to shoot, to ‘down’. Only in the last clause does he specify the Agent: a missile.

A missile does not have its own volition. It must be operated by a human being. But Abbott is careful not to be too categorical about who the human being(s) might have been. He mentions them only as part of the description of the missile (which missile? one that seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels). And he chooses ‘seems to have been launched’ instead of ‘was launched’ to allow for the fact that the details of the incident are still quite hazy. He presents it as a suggestion or speculation rather than an assertion.

The potential human agents, ‘Russian-backed rebels’, are in turn identified by political affiliation (Russian-backed) and orientation to the law (rebels), rather than by any other feature or characteristic. This is perhaps not surprising as the perpetrators have not been specifically identified. But it is interesting that the action is construed politically, rather than morally. For example, Abbott could have chosen to say ‘a missile which seems to have been launched by irresponsible or careless or murderous individuals’.

Abbott’s construal of the event is as a non-accidental tragedy. An accident would not involve the sense of human volition or the use of processes that imply deliberate action. It may have been accidental in the sense that the perpetrators didn’t mean to shoot a commercial passenger plane, but the action of shooting itself was presumably not accidental. 

But as another tweeter pointed out, the labelling of a significant incident such as this as accident or not often depends largely on political agendas:
dellcam: U.S. agenda dictates response:
* : Not an accident.
* 4 kids children on : A terrible accident.

My heart is grieved by this tragic loss of many lives, and I pray that God will bring comfort and peace to the families and friends of those who died and somehow turn this terrible situation to good. But let us not lose sight of other tragic losses of life, whether ‘accidental’ or not, that occur every day in other parts of the world where people don’t have the means, opportunity or ability to get on an aeroplane and go somewhere else.

3 comments:

  1. I've been interested in the semantics of road way crashes for a couple of years and last year founded a group called Crash Coalition - Drop the "A" Word. I find this discussion closely related to our goals. We are made up a about 50 different highway safety and road crash victim/survivor groups.

    We're working to get media outlets here in the US to be more precise in their use of the word "accident" as it relates to crashes. Many media outlets default to "accident" as a generic reference to all highway crashes.

    We also find media referring to intentional events such as road rage, suicide, insurance fraud crashes as "accidents". These may be a relatively small percentage of the incidents, but it's a good illustration of how the word has become a generic reference to roadway incidents.

    As many of us are victims of these events, we are also bothered that drunk, drugged, distracted and negligent driving events are also generically referred to as "accidents".

    I'm a former traffic reporter and have use the word, incorrectly, thousands of times. In all of my reporting, I was never aware of the cause of a crash. The only information I had at the time of reporting was related to location, number vehicles and impact on traffic.

    I was wondering if you've ever considered the word "accident" specifically as it relates to roadway incidents.

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Jeff, thanks so much for posting your comment! I haven’t done any specific research on the use of the word ‘accident’ in relation to roadway accidents, but it would be an interesting line to pursue. Let me know if you’re interested in commissioning (or collaborating on) a study on this phenomenon :)
    A quick database search brought up the following articles that might be relevant:
    Haight, F., "What Causes Accidents - A Semantic Analysis," SAE Technical Paper 800390, 1980, doi:10.4271/800390.
    Iedema, Rick. (1997). Structure of the Accident News Story. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 95-118.
    Matlock, Teenie; Sparks, David; Matthews, Justin L.; Hunter, Jeremy; Huette, Stephanie. (2012). Smashing new results on aspectual framing: How people talk about car accidents. Studies in Language, Volume 36, Number 3, pp. 699-720(22).
    Rowland, Madeleine. (2012). Blame or no-blame? Themes in media discourse about recent emergencies in Canberra. Social Alternatives, 31(3), 28-32.
    Smith, Katherine C, Girasek, Deborah C, Baker, Susan P, Manganello, Jennifer A, Bowman, Stephen M, Samuels, Alicia, & Gielen, Andrea C. (2012). "It was a freak accident": An analysis of the labelling of injury events in the US press. Injury Prevention, 18(1), 38.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello,

    I'm just now seeing your response. I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

    I've been in contact with Dr. Teenie Matlock, who was involved with some of the work you noted in your comment. She has a keen interested in clarifying the meaning of the word "accident". Perhaps we could put the two of you together. We have a line on some funding for research that we hope comes through soon.

    As a former radio and television traffic reporter, I'm concerned that media often use the word "accident" as a default, without knowing intent, fault or predictability of incidents. There are "accidents" certainly. But using the word to describe an incident, before knowing if it fits the definition is wrong semantically and journalistically. Road rage, insurance fraud, vehicular murder, vehicular suicide are all instances of intentional crashes. There is also a strong opinion on the part of victims, survivors as well as safety and transportation professionals that when crashes occur while in the act of committing a crime, that the word "accident" is not appropriate. Driving drunk is a crime. People knowingly and intentionally drive drunk, knowingly and intentionally commit the crime of driving drunk, and knowingly and intentionally put others at risk in the act of committing this crime. It is predictable that crashes will occur and that people will be injured and killed.

    Crashes that occur during the commission of a crime are not "accidents".

    My feeling is that media should never use the word "accident" in reference to a roadway incident until an investigation has determined that the incident was, in fact, an "accident".

    The Associated Press has stated that reporters should avoid using the word "accident" in because it "draws a conclusion". Crash is neutral to fault and intent.

    Feel free to look at our blog:

    http://droptheaword.blogspot.com

    Please contact me, if you are interested in talking more.

    jeff@saferoadsalliance.org

    ReplyDelete