How We Talk About Grief: The Role of Language in Coping with Loss

Understanding Pragmatics and Its Influence on Grief Communication

Pragmatics — the study of how context shapes meaning in communication — is something I think about often, especially during emotionally intense situations like grief and separation. It’s not just an academic concept; it plays a huge role in how we handle loss — both in how we express ourselves and how we understand others. When we grieve, we don’t only deal with emotions; we also navigate the tricky terrain of finding the right words or choosing silence to make sense of our feelings and communicate them to others.

You can read Blog 7 — The Hidden Side of Language: An Introduction to Pragmatics to explore the foundational concepts of pragmatics.

In this article, I explore how pragmatics helps us communicate during times of separation and bereavement. By understanding these linguistic choices, we can better support others while processing our own grief.

I am not a grief counsellor, nor do I have any formal training in the psychology of grief. The insights shared in this article are based on linguistic principles and personal reflections on communication during grief. If you are experiencing grief or bereavement, I strongly encourage you to seek support from a qualified grief counsellor or mental health professional.

Understanding Grief through Pragmatics

Grief is often viewed primarily as an emotional and psychological experience. However, there’s another critical layer: how we communicate our grief to others. Pragmatics shows that grieving is not just an internal process — it’s also deeply social and linguistic. Every time we share our feelings of loss, whether through words, silence, or gestures, we are making pragmatic choices.

At the heart of grief lies the process of meaning-making. We try to bring structure and sense to an experience that can feel chaotic and fragmented. This aligns with Bakhtin’s idea that meaning is an “active task.” We don’t just passively experience our emotions; we actively construct their meaning through how we communicate.

For instance, we often choose particular words or phrases to convey the depth of our loss. A phrase like “I’m heartbroken” communicates devastation, while something more indirect like “They’re in a better place” attempts to soften the harshness of reality. But does this actually work? That depends. The speaker might use these phrases to make the loss more bearable for themselves or for the hearer. For some, such language offers comfort, particularly if it aligns with their beliefs. For others, it may feel empty or dismissive, showing that the intention behind language doesn’t always match how it is received.

Similarly, euphemisms like “passed away” are often chosen to manage the emotional weight of the conversation. These soften the directness of “died,” but their effectiveness depends on context. Language that helps one person feel less overwhelmed may leave another wanting more direct acknowledgment of their pain.

With pragmatics we can see that these choices aren’t made just for the speaker or the listener — they’re part of a social exchange where both parties are trying to manage the emotional landscape. For example, saying “I miss them every day” signals an ongoing attachment to the deceased, inviting empathy and acknowledgment of the lasting impact of the loss.

We can try and navigate the social norms and expectations surrounding grief with the help of pragmatics. We balance expressing our emotions enough to be understood while sometimes holding back to avoid overwhelming ourselves or others.

Pragmatic Tools in Grief Communication

When we communicate grief, we don’t just release raw emotions — we make both conscious and subconscious decisions about presenting our grief to ourselves and those around us. Pragmatics can give us the tools to understand these choices, showing how language becomes a implement for navigating the emotional and social complexities of bereavement.

3.1 Indirect Speech and Euphemisms

One of the most common tools in grief communication is indirect speech. Instead of saying “They died,” people often opt for phrases like “They’ve passed away” or “They’re in a better place.” These phrases aim to soften the emotional blow of death, attempting to make the situation more manageable. However, the effectiveness of such euphemisms depends on both the speaker and the listener. While one person might appreciate the indirectness, another may find it frustrating and long for more direct language.

Indirect speech isn’t always about protecting the listener — it can also shield the speaker from confronting their emotions too directly. When someone says, “We lost him last week,” they’re using a metaphor to distance themselves from the harshness of death. The listener might respond with equally indirect phrases like, “I’m so sorry for your loss,” which helps maintain a gentle, empathetic tone, allowing both parties to engage without overwhelming emotion.

By avoiding direct language, the speaker may feel more in control of the conversation or more comfortable expressing their grief without exposing themselves to its full emotional force.

3.2 Politeness and Face-Saving

In grief communication, people often try to protect social harmony and avoid discomfort. Politeness theory, developed by Brown and Levinson, explains how people use language to preserve their own and others’ ‘face’ — or social image — during conversations. This is especially relevant in grief, where emotions are fragile.

When offering condolences, conventional phrases like “I’m sorry for your loss” are used because they are socially accepted ways of acknowledging grief without pushing the mourner into more painful territory. A colleague might say, “I can’t imagine what you’re going through, but I’m here if you need anything.” This strikes a balance between offering empathy and maintaining appropriate boundaries, avoiding intrusion into the mourner’s emotional space.

These ritualistic phrases allow us to address grief while keeping the interaction within socially acceptable bounds.

3.3 Speech Acts in Consolation

Searle’s theory of speech acts suggests that certain utterances don’t merely convey information but perform actions. In grief communication, phrases like “My deepest condolences” or “Let me know if there’s anything I can do” are performative — they offer comfort and support. However, these speech acts can sometimes feel hollow if they aren’t backed up by meaningful action. For example, “Let me know if you need anything” might sound supportive but can place the burden on the mourner to ask for help, which they may not feel comfortable doing. But, if after hearing about a loss, a friend might say, “I’m bringing dinner tonight — you don’t need to worry about a thing.” This turns a vague offer of help into a concrete action, lightening the mourner’s burden.

5. Breaking Conversational Maxims in Grief

In everyday conversation, we follow unwritten rules or “maxims” to keep interactions efficient and smooth. These rules are known as Grice’s Cooperative Principle, and they guide us to provide the right amount of information, be relevant, tell the truth, and be clear. However, in grief, these maxims often break down as emotions take priority over usual conversational expectations.

Maxim of Quantity: Saying Too Much or Too Little

The Maxim of Quantity advises giving just the right amount of information — not too much, not too little. In conversations around grief, this can fall apart. A mourner might overshare, recounting details of their loss in overwhelming ways: “I wasn’t ready to say goodbye, and I can’t stop thinking about their last moments…” This oversharing reflects the speaker’s need to process their grief, even if it breaches conversational norms. The listener must navigate this emotional overload with empathy.

Alternatively, they might say very little, leaving the other person unsure how to respond.

Maxim of Relevance: Grief Shifting the Focus

Typically, we follow the Maxim of Relevance, contributing information that’s directly related to the conversation. But grief often shifts the focus unexpectedly. Mourners may bring up unrelated topics as their emotions disrupt the usual flow of conversation. In a work conversation, someone might suddenly say, “I’ve been thinking about my mum’s last Christmas…” This reflects how grief takes over thoughts, making it difficult to focus on conventional topics.

Maxim of Manner: Clarity vs. Confusion in Expression

Grice’s Maxim of Manner encourages clarity, but grief often leads to disorganised or contradictory thoughts. Someone might say, “I’m fine… but I’m not okay.” The contradiction reflects the complexity of grief, even if it confuses the listener. Mourners may struggle to express their emotions in a way that makes sense to others.

Maxim of Quality: Bending the Truth

The Maxim of Quality suggests we should tell the truth, but in grief, people sometimes bend the truth to protect themselves or others. A mourner might say, “ I’m okay, really “ even when they’re not, feeling deeply overwhelmed. They are avoiding burdening others with their pain. This breach reflects a protective strategy, shielding themselves from difficult conversations.

Breaking these maxims doesn’t mean communication has failed. Instead, it often signals the intensity of emotions. Pragmatics helps us understand these breaches as adjustments to the emotional reality of grief, rather than conversational breakdowns.

8. Pragmatics as a Healing Tool

Pragmatics not only helps us understand how grief is communicated — it also shows how language can be used to heal. By becoming aware of our linguistic choices, we can shape conversations around grief in ways that offer comfort, understanding, and support.

Empathy through Language

Pragmatics teaches us that language connects us. When talking about grief, our word choices can either bridge the gap between us and the mourner or widen it. Choosing to say, “Would it help if I came over this weekend?” rather than, “Let me know if you need anything,” offers concrete support, making the mourner feel more cared for. Small shifts in how we phrase things can create space for the grieving person to express themselves without feeling pressured.

Reframing Loss through Language

Mourners often reframe loss through language to help make sense of it. Phrases like “They’re in a better place” or “Their suffering is over” are ways of linguistically reshaping the pain. While these phrases may not work for everyone, they provide a pragmatic tool for dealing with grief.

Listening as a Pragmatic Act

Sometimes, pragmatics isn’t about speaking at all. Silence, pauses, and active listening are powerful pragmatic tools. If someone says, “I don’t know how to move forward,” a pause or quiet acknowledgment can be more helpful than trying to offer solutions. In moments of grief, listening can be more supportive than offering words.

Conclusion

Grief is a deeply personal experience, yet it is navigated through language and interaction with others. Pragmatics provides the tools to understand how our communication shifts in response to loss — whether through indirect speech, breaking conversational norms, or using silence as a way to communicate. By understanding these linguistic dimensions of grief, we can communicate more sensitively, offer better support, and find some comfort in the shared experience of mourning.

Grief is a deep emotion which requires more than this article, and linguisitics alone will not be of much use. However, for people who, like me, react more to words than images, or music or even silences, linguistics helps.

If you are interested in this topic and want to read more about it:

1. “How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation” by N. J. Enfield
   Enfield’s exploration of everyday conversation highlights how language works in practice, offering insights into how we communicate in emotional situations, including grief.
2. “Grief Is the Thing with Feathers” by Max Porter
   A moving blend of fiction and poetry, this book deals with grief through both abstract and practical language, offering a literary exploration of how we communicate about loss.
3. Languages of Grief: a model for understanding the expressions of the bereaved by Inge B Corless, Rana Limbo, Regina Szylit Bousso, Robert L Wrenn, David Head, Norelle Lickiss, Hannelore Wass
   This study provides an overview of the key features of the expressions of grief. Grief is a response to loss or anticipated loss. Although universal, its oral and nonverbal expression varies across cultures and individuals. Loss is produced by an event perceived to be negative to varying degrees by the individuals involved and has the potential to trigger long-term changes in a person’s cognitions and relationships. The languages used by the bereaved to express grief differ from the language used by professionals, creating dissonance between the two
4. “On Death and Dying” by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross
   Though focused on the psychological stages of grief, this classic text also provides valuable insights into how people talk about death and dying, making it a useful complement to a pragmatic exploration of grief.
5. “The Pragmatics of Human Communication” by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson
   This book explores the patterns and pragmatics of communication, with sections that can provide insight into how we navigate complex emotional exchanges like those involving grief.

©Antoine Decressac — 2024.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases