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

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:47:35 +0000

Nic,
Two ah ha moments for me in your comment.
First…As Harry Nilsson said, “A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.”
Brilliant.
Second…I always wrote with a beer in hand then as well.
A wise man once said, if Nic is having a beer, shouldn’t you be sociable and have one too? Oh wait…that was me who said that.
Drew

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sun, 04 May 2008 02:00:41 +0000

Drew,
Great post! (Can I keep “transparent” if I’ll give up the rest? Actually, I’m gonna need ROI once in a while, too.)
I want to see the blogosphere (speaking of overused words) just TRY to overuse “linguaocide.” That is a doozy.
Every generation coins or remakes its own words and phrases, then uses them up until they’re unusable by the next folks to come along. (How about “dynamite”?) It just happens that this is not a generation, but a field of professionals crossing generations, with a very loud megaphone which crosses fields (the Internet), so all sorts of people are hearing about engagement and no longer thinking about two months’ salary.
(What’s the ROI on that two months’ salary thing, anyway?)
We’re going to have to come up with some more creative ways of expressing ourselves, in a hurry.
Regards,
Kelly

By: Nic Darling

Nic Darling — Sat, 03 May 2008 23:19:24 +0000

If I was a maker of graphs, I might create one which described the history of a buzz word from conception to comic parody. It would begin with the coining of a phrase, follow through the struggle over its meaning, bear witness to its repetition (growing ever louder while diminishing in meaning) and report on its eventual appearance in a Saturday Night Live sketch or clever IBM ad.
Most interesting, and perhaps the focus of an auxiliary graph, would be the struggle over meaning. As a neophyte in this business world, I have had the problem/good fortune of needing to track certain terms back through their evolution in an effort to discover what they really mean. This has allowed me to review the various efforts that went toward the ownership of the right to define, a process sped by the near instantaneous nature of the online conversation. I have been privileged, by my ignorance, to see words used and reused with subtle changes in meaning as the cultural powers struggle to define a term’s significance. It is a wonderful dance and an important one for it is the period during which lasting ideas arise from the fray.
Of course, this isn’t a new occurrence. Academia has suffered the erosion of language for ages and argued its causes for nearly as long. I remember, during my college life, discovering that I could use the term “hegemony” virtually anywhere and those around me would nod knowingly. It was years before I really understood what it meant.
Language is somewhat fragile. The weight of meaning we pile upon words can and will cause them to collapse beneath it. Buzz words are often a substitute for specificity, an easier way to present a larger, more difficult concept. However, when meaning outweighs a word’s carrying capacity the concept becomes irrational . . . meaningless. The word points in too many directions and the reader/listener is lost. As Harry Nilsson said, “A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.”
Wow, now I remember why my college papers sounded like they did. I always wrote with a beer in hand then as well. My apologies if this comment strayed into the absurd.

By: John Whiteside

John Whiteside — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:06:01 +0000

I am a bit less careful with blog posts than I am with, say, documents for clients, white papers, and so on. I’m also rather terrible at proofreading my own stuff, so typos do creep in – it’s not unusual for me to go back and fix them shortly after posting to my blog (or when a colleague points them out).
And yes, sometimes those quickie posts are more casual.
I do think the point the a very conversational medium like blogging has different standards has merit, and I see that in my own writing; however, it’s worth doing a tired cliche check on everything.
I make no claims of perfection on this, though!

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:05:30 +0000

John,
I believe it was in reference to the blending of colors that normally you wouldn’t put together or something. Honestly, the ad itself only caught my eye because of our conversation about “perfect storm.” But, it made your point for you in spades!
In terms of writing blog posts — do you find yourself less concerned with language there because of the casualness of the medium? Or were you just referencing that on occasion we all have to whip out a quick post so we let ourselves off the hook now and then?
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:02:21 +0000

EID,
Valid point — readers are getting more and more fickle and prone to a sound bite mentality. They’re less likely to wallow in someone’s words.
But I do think there are exceptions to that. Our our Ann Handley here at Marketing Profs has a way of luring you into her writing and wrapping yourself up in it. If you haven’t caught her act, head to: http://www.annhandley.com/
Well, worth the read every time.
Drew

By: John Whiteside

John Whiteside — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:37:08 +0000

“P.S. — opened a magazine and the first ad I saw for for women’s make-up. The headline. Perfect Storm!”
Good grief. I can’t imagine any good connotations of that relating to makeup!
My biggest objection to these phrases is that they make writing dull. I can’t say that I don’t wind up using them (well, not perfect storm) in my own writing – especially things like quick blog posts – but it’s always interesting to go back and edit something and try to get rid of them.
Usually, there’s a way to express the same idea more clearly – and as a bonus, in a way that’s more aesthetically pleasing! But then I’m one of those curmudgeons who loves the art of writing, along with its powers as a medium for expressing ideas. For all the hubbub about video online, i think it pales next to good writing in its ability to express most concepts clearly.

By: EID

EID — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:14:34 +0000

Social media is like a constant conversation going on in my office. Except that I can turn down the volume (not read) or turn up the volume and learn (when I choose to). When I’m in the mood, those well-worn words strike me as familiar context. When I’m not receptive, they’re junky. Writing is a tough job, made tougher by the whims of the reader.

By: EID

EID — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:14:31 +0000

By: EID

EID — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:14:21 +0000

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:30:12 +0000

David,
Interesting point. So wouldn’t you think that if we have more words at our disposal, we’d repeat words less often?
Drew

By: David Brazeal

David Brazeal — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:33:33 +0000

I’m not sure we’re wearing out our words. But we’re exposed to far more words than we used to see in a lifetime. If we’re seeing phrases like “perfect storm” or “return on investment” more than before, it’s because we’re seeing more words. Period.
It’s a symptom of the explosion of ideas brought about by the Internet. We see thousands of ideas, and some of them are bound to be expressed in the same way. There’s nothing new under the sun, after all.

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:54:57 +0000

Gwyneth,
“That isn’t writing at all, it’s typing.”
–Truman Capote
Love it!
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:46:49 +0000

Gavin,
Hmm, lazy. You’re probably right, it’s easier and faster to grab the current “hot” word rather than find a new way.
You’re known as a blogging poet. How do you discipline yourself to avoid that trap?
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:42:36 +0000

Ardath,
“Besides that, if we all sound the same, why would anyone pay attention to our words over someone else’s?”
Unless of course Jeanne is right and it’s a sign of belonging to the club.
Did you find your way to that fresh language for your project?
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:38:44 +0000

Ryan,
So how do you re-fuel your passion for a word or an idea?
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:37:19 +0000

Ann,
Sure…many writers agonize over finding the exact word they’re looking for. I suppose that will never change — or at least I hope not.
I’m just wondering if we’re reducing their choices.
Drew

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:32:44 +0000

John,
P.S. — opened a magazine and the first ad I saw for for women’s make-up. The headline. Perfect Storm!
Drew

By: Gwyneth Dwyer

Gwyneth Dwyer — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:22:16 +0000

Drew,
Thanks for starting a great discussion. Two relevant quotes:
“What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.”
–Samuel Johnson
And one of my favorites:
“That isn’t writing at all, it’s typing.”
–Truman Capote

By: Drew McLellan

Drew McLellan — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:54:47 +0000

John,
No need to for the sorry — that’s why I started the discussion. So for you, it’s a situation like the word bad suddenly meaning good?
Or Lewis’ example for the word engaged?
But all of us using the same words over and over (and over) doesn’t faze you?
Drew