Comments on: Are We Wearing Out Our Words?

By: Nancy

Nancy — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:16:36 +0000

Wanted 100 To 200-seater ready to use International Call Center
Hi,
One of our business partners is looking for a 100 to 200-seater International call center on lease in Bangalore immediately.
If you have one, reach us immediately on aws@kcsbpo.com.
Thanks,
Nancy,
Biz-partner.

By: Shekar Prabhakar

Shekar Prabhakar — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:12:26 +0000

You are not being an alarmist, but we marketers have much to blame ourselves for. It is not overuse alone that is responsible, but the liberal latitude in meaning or usage context that has diluted the power of the written word as used by marketers. I have just started a blog on marketing in India (literally two posts young), and I struggled to find words that are uncorrupted. I nearly threw up when I realized I had used ‘value’ some 16 times. (I did manage to cut it down, but it is still tooo many:)).
However, in a developing country like India, the very act of writing helps us improve how we express our ideas and the reciprocal cause-effect relationship ensures that our ideas are clearer and more precise as well.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:02:31 +0000

Drew,
I agree with your comment that “misuse = overuse.” You chose the word transparency as an example, and in fact, the industry agrees with you. In PRWeek’s 2007 Book of Lists, they named “5 terms we hope not to hear again” and the word Transparent was number one.
The fact that the leading publication for the PR industry even has a category like this clearly shows that we are wearing out our words. So, I guess the question now is, how do we stop?

By: Jim Hewitt

Jim Hewitt — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:00:22 +0000

I can’t conceptualize how deeply your loquacity has impacted me.
Thank you for honoring us sharing your story here.
Oh … right … I guessed I just help support your point, eh?

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:41:44 +0000

Hi, Drew. I agree with Jason and John. Language is an ever-evolving thing. Popular culture can introduce us to an expression or idiom and it gets adopted in breakneck speed only to be shelved into obscurity after its 15 minutes of fame.
Like almost everything in western society today, we chew things up, spit them out and then try the newest and latest. When was the last time you heard, “Far out!”

By: John Whiteside

John Whiteside — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:51:57 +0000

Jason’s point is a good one; language does evolve. New words enter, others fall into disuse, and some change meaning. (I always think of “lunatic” in this case; its meaning has changed in English; on the other hand, a friend of mine has a little sign that reads “Chat Lunatique” by his door in honor of his cat, and it doesn’t mean what most non-French speakers would assume!)
But that is a bit different that use of cliche, which often hides sloppy thinking. Consider “perfect storm;” it initially was coined to describe an highly unlikely set of circumstances that produce an effect far greater than any of the individual circumstances would have on their own. It describes something very rare that had enormous consequences.
Now it just means any combination of events; judging by the frequency with which we hear it, we’d have to assume that the laws of probability have changed, or we are being wracked by an endless series of dramatic events. I just did a Google News search on the phrase, and high up the list was someone at a food bank describing that increased demand for their services, brought on by high food prices and a sluggish economy, as a “perfect storm.”
That’s not evolution of language, it’s devolution of thinking.
On a more practical note: cliche-ridden prose is dull and unclear. If you want to write effectively, precision and tone do matter; clearing your writing of cliches will make it more effective. That doesn’t mean never use them – sometimes, after all, the storm really is perfect. Using these phrases sparingly and correctly will make you a better communicator.
This discussion has led to a resolution to revisit my blog posts before publishing them as often as I can. After all, I don’t want a perfect storm of cliches and typos to drive readers away!
[ducking]

By: Kelly

Kelly — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:42:51 +0000

Drew,
Oops, I forgot the correct ca-1978 (?) spelling of dynOmite.
To choose juicy words, first, I steal “linguaocide.”
Beyond that, I try to remember all the teachers who used to get nuts if we used a term more than once in a paper, encouraging us to discover that there are more than 20,000 words in the dictionary.
They also reminded us that jargon makes you sound like a dork to anyone but another jargon-head. I don’t preach to the choir at my blog, so after I introduce a bit of lingo so my readers know of it, then it’s time to stop. Right before the dork-meter points to me.
A lot–a LOT–of people are writing at their blogs that they are tired of blogs and semi-recycled thought. (Sadly, this means I am tired of reading that, though it is a good point.) I think what they are tired of is exactly what you’re writing about here. Everybody uses the same words, so even a fresh angle sounds like the same thing we read yesterday at so-n-so’s blog. I’m not sure the thoughts are being recycled (mainly), but a tiny group of words is being trampled into the ground.
I agree with Jason about evolution. If we don’t want the dork-meter to point to each of us, we’ll have to evolve faster and faster–so many cycles are speeding up in the electronic age–or we’ll have to get creative, with words that aren’t on the endangered list.
Until later,
Kelly

By: Jason Cipriano

Jason Cipriano — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:42 +0000

Is it possible that there’s something else at work here, something more natural and evolutionary? In fact, let’s just call it the evolution of language, the development of the modern lexicon, or however else you choose to represent it.
Throughout our own history, words of an age have faded into the collective history as they are replaced by other, more contemporary words that essentially mean the same thing. When was the last time someone you know was referred to as deboshed? Much more likely, they’ve been called drunken…they both mean the same thing, the difference is that deboshed is a Victorian term used in Shakespeare, while drunken is far more contemporary.
My point is only this – as times change, so to does the popular lexicon. A term like ‘google-ing’ or ‘googling’ may have been unheard of 10 years ago, but is likely understood today by everyone reading this post. In 10 more years, the term may fade from use, only to be replaced by other, more contemporary words.
The fact that more people are writing today doesn’t signal an end to language, but perhaps an acceleration of the evolution of language.

By: John Whiteside

John Whiteside — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:15:37 +0000

I’m in the middle of reading Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason.” It’s a book about politics, but with a healthy dose of American political and cultural history, and she has quite a lot to say about speech and writing. It’s interesting, and has me wondering if trying to be “juicy” is part of the problem – there are some great examples of the days when politicians were much more formal when they spoke to the public, and what’s really striking about it is how powerful those statements were – one example was FDR in 1940 trying to prepare the country for the coming war.
It’s not juicy, but it’s impressive (and effective) rhetoric.

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:52:43 +0000

Kelly,
Thank you for appreciating “linguaocide.” I have to say, I enjoyed creating that one. I suspect it will not be overused any time soon!
My kid sister had a t-shirt with dynomite on it. One vacation we stayed in a cabin/resort sort of place for a week. One the first day, she wore that shirt and everyone at the resort called her Dynomite all week! Pretty sure that didn’t get worn again.
So how do you stay mindful of choosing juicy words rather than the squeezed dry ones?
Drew