Did someone forward you this? Click here to subscribe.

Linguist. Politician. Wearer of tam o’shanters.

In 1941—before his tenure as president of San Francisco State University and his election to the US Senate—English professor Samuel I. Hayakawa published Language in Action.

The book is an introduction to semantics, often understood as “what words mean” but which Hayakawa defined as “the study of human interaction through communication.”

Hayakawa wrote it in part as a repudiation of Hitler’s propaganda: he believed that any population lacking a firm grasp of how communication works (and works on it) is vulnerable to demagoguery. One way people can fortify themselves is to recognize and grapple with abstraction.

What is abstraction?

When we abstract, we leave details out. Abstracting allows us to discuss higher-order concepts—such as freedom, justice, or equality—we may previously have lacked a word for.

Dictionary definitions are abstract so they can apply broadly. A definition of “vehicle” might omit the various types of vehicles and instead focus on what all vehicles have in common.

But if you’re stuck speaking in the abstract, you can find yourself talking in circles. That’s how we end up with circular definitions, where the dictionary defines condescending as patronizing and vice versa.

To address this challenge, Hayakawa introduced the abstraction ladder.

The abstraction ladder

The ladder shows how language can move from concrete, sensory details to concepts that are increasingly broad. Hayakawa’s example uses a cow named Bessie. Here’s how it works:

• At the bottom, we have the “process” level—molecules, atoms, electrons.

• Next, the cow as our senses perceive it.

• Then Bessie, the specific cow you picture.

• The concept of cow.

• The broader category of livestock.

• And at the top, whatever abstract concept the cow represents—in this example, wealth.

Hayakawa argued that, wherever possible, definitions should point down the abstraction ladder, incorporating concrete examples to ground the concept’s meaning. Abstractions must also be referable to lower levels, meaning a speaker should be able to back up abstract claims with specifics.

Sticking to a single rung (aka “dead-level abstracting”) can drain communications of dynamism. Instead, he writes, communicators should “operate on all levels of the abstraction ladder, moving . . . from higher to lower, from lower to higher, with minds as lithe and deft and beautiful as monkeys in a tree.”

How to apply it

Op-ed writers tackling abstract subjects should use a news hook to anchor the argument in today’s reality.

Experts who default to abstractions can push themselves to be more specific—more like the beautiful monkey and less like a bald eagle in a treetop perch. 

Interviewers can recognize when sources are dead-level abstracting and push them to share details that bring the story to life—or to zoom out to the big picture.

Sometimes, we start with something real that happened, and then we get to make it mean something.

This is the fun part, where our perspective as a meaning-maker comes in. Is a solar eclipse a predictable planetary event, or a tear in the fabric of reality? Is a snowy field the result of winter precipitation, or might it embody loneliness?

Word of the day:

This term strikes me as counter to much of science communication, which often goes to great lengths to help the audience understand scales.

I’m curious: when do you put guardrails around infinity, and when, if ever, do you let it lie?

More on this topic:

• Check out Language in Thought and Action, the most recent edition of Hayakawa’s book.

• Explore Jyoti Madhusoodanan’s piece on how to apply the abstraction ladder to science feature writing in The Open Notebook.

• Read science artist and communicator Mary O’Reilly on visual abstraction and what’s at stake when we mentally divorce science from art.

• Play around with these tools that give concrete points of comparison for abstract counts and measurements. (I am 30% as tall as a giraffe.)

Hi! I’m Alex. I write about scientific research for nonprofits, universities, and brands. I also help experts communicate their own research. Learn more about my work or connect with me on LinkedIn.