Not Everyone Who Does Not Listen Has Failed to Understand
“Please do not smoke” is a common sight in public places. Sometimes the sign is right there, yet people still light up. The words are like air: present, but having no effect.
That makes it hard for me to believe that every problem can be solved simply by making the message clear enough.
I recently read a Japanese article, 「婉曲表現を考える。」, about euphemistic expressions in Japanese. The literal sense of 「お控えください」 is “please exercise restraint,” while 「ご遠慮ください」 literally asks someone to “show consideration and restrain their conduct.”
The article says that some people accordingly interpret the former as “a little is all right” and the latter as “it is all right if I do it considerately.” Yet on the public notices discussed in the article, the speaker’s actual intention is for people to refrain from the activity altogether.
The author worries that people may be finding it increasingly difficult to read meanings that go beyond the literal words. At that point, however, I thought of the Chinese phrase “请勿吸烟”—“Please do not smoke.”
There is hardly anything left to infer in that sentence. It still gets ignored.
Not Complying Does Not, by Itself, Prove a Failure to Understand
Suppose someone lights a cigarette in a no-smoking area. All we know for certain is that they have not complied with the no-smoking rule. That action alone does not tell us why.
They may not have seen the sign. They may not be able to read it. Or they may mistakenly believe that where they are standing falls outside the no-smoking area. In such cases, the notice needs to be easier to see, and the rule and its scope need to be clearer.
But there is another possibility: they know they are not supposed to smoke there and simply think one cigarette will not matter.
In the first set of cases, the information was either not received or not accurately understood. In the last, the information got through; the person simply did not take it seriously.
From the outside, all of these cases look like “telling them made no difference.” But they call for different responses. Someone who did not see the sign needs to be alerted to it. For someone who already knows and carries on anyway, another explanation of what “do not” means is unlikely to help much.
That is why I have reservations about claims such as “people today cannot even understand this anymore.” Some people may indeed not understand. But others may understand perfectly well and simply be unwilling to comply. We should not treat every refusal to cooperate as a problem of comprehension.
Euphemism Can Also Become an Excuse
Those two Japanese expressions do require an extra step of interpretation compared with a direct formulation. Someone unfamiliar with how they are used may genuinely fail to realize that speaking politely does not mean permitting a limited amount of the activity.
In those situations, it is important to state the request clearly. Public notices addressed to strangers, in particular, cannot assume that everyone shares the same linguistic conventions.
But “I only did a little” may be an attempt to claim an exception rather than a misunderstanding.
Someone knows they should not smoke but thinks, “It is only one cigarette.” Someone knows they should not take photographs but thinks, “It is only one photo.” The idea of “only a little” may have less to do with how they understand the words than with the latitude they grant their own behavior. More explicit wording would not prevent them from making the same excuse.
Of course, we should not hear someone say “I thought it was allowed” and immediately decide they are pretending not to understand. Clarifying the rule and its scope, then seeing how they respond, is more useful than guessing at their motives. If they cooperate once the misunderstanding is cleared up, that can be the end of it. If they still insist on continuing, the focus of the discussion should change.
At that point, what may be needed is intervention by staff, a clear instruction to stop, and whatever response the rules already provide—not an endless search for the perfect wording.
Being Clear Does Not Mean Words Alone Will Prevail
The Chinese phrase “请勿吸烟” includes the polite word 请, or “please,” but it is not asking smokers whether they agree.
Politeness is a manner of speaking; whether smoking is allowed is a matter of rules. Both can be true at once. A request does not have to sound harsh to show that it is serious. Nor does a gentle tone turn a clear requirement into something open to negotiation.
Still, a sign cannot do everything by itself. Whether people follow a rule also depends on whether anyone reminds them, what happens after a violation, and what the people around them do. When all of these problems are left to wording, the likely result is that signs grow larger and the language more severe while nothing actually changes.
That is not to say words do not matter. Notices should be visible and understandable. But once that has been done, we still have to acknowledge the distance between understanding and action.
Someone can repeat a requirement perfectly accurately and still decide not to follow it.
Not Understanding and Not Caring Are Different Things
There is one point in the original article with which I still agree: understanding other people cannot always stop at the literal wording. Linguistic conventions are not explained from scratch every time, and no one can fit every consideration they have into a single sentence.
But I do not want to turn “not understanding” too readily into a moral judgment. Being unfamiliar with an expression or not being good at picking up implications does not mean someone is indifferent to others. Asking for clarification and adjusting one’s behavior after an explanation are also ways of taking another person seriously.
Conversely, understanding does not automatically make someone considerate. A person may know perfectly well why others do not want them to smoke and simply decide that their one cigarette matters more.
What matters more to me is the next step: once people know that their behavior affects others, are they willing to change it?
If someone needs one more sentence of explanation, give them one. If they already understand, there is no need to keep wondering forever whether we were somehow still not clear enough.
“Please do not smoke” has already said what needs to be said. What happens next cannot remain solely the responsibility of the person writing the sign.
Reference: 婉曲表現を考える。
Copyright notice: The referenced article remains the copyright of its original author. If this essay infringes any rights, please contact the author of this site and I will take it down immediately.