The Unsaid: Diplomatic Incidents, Pavilion Theatre, Brighton, May 13

I always used to think speaking frankly was a good thing. Speak honestly and people will respect you and appreciate your sincerity. As we grow older, we discover this isn't the case. This is one of the intriguing topics linguists pore over in the quest for purity in articulation.

“Why aren't we more frank with each other?” asked Dr Biljana Scott, an Oxford lecturer with a passion for linguistics, as her opening gambit. She answered it herself almost immediately; the word “no” is destructive to conversation, she feels, and in some cultures is not an option. Find ways to substitute it by filling in the gaps, she explained, and allow others to gather the gist through “unsaid” logical steps.

The talk shifted towards political situations, explaining how rephrasing certain ideas gives someone room to manoeuvre by not committing to an answer. How often do we feel we’re being treated to this in politics?

Dr Scott, as is to be expected, was very clear in her explanations; I was able to digest the majority of some fairly profound and intricate ideas quite easily.

Dr Scott summarised by saying her aim was to bring linguistic ideas into the open so anyone can better use the language available to them. The counter argument to this is the view of the diplomat, who would say there is a great challenge in choosing the right words for a situation – and no doubt imply it should remain the preserve of the cognitively blessed.

During a lengthy Q&A session, there was a discussion about English as the international language of diplomacy. One view was that Chinese may well take over, while another added that French used to be. Whichever language becomes the next tool of diplomacy, I sense the majority of us will spend the rest of our lives just figuring out how to best apply the one we already know.