Is anywhere still safe from Dudespeak? – an editorial

Once in a while, out of curiosity, I take a hopeful glance at the web sites of institutions that may possibly be resisting, or at least avoiding, America’s decline into Dudespeak – the careless, vague, faddish, infantile diction of dudes and bimbos.

The other day, I read the web page for Harvard University’s Undergraduate Program in Applied Mathematics, a plausible place to expect serious grown-up diction.

Plausible but wrong, it turns out.

The person who wrote the page used the faddish impacts (n.) instead of effects.

He used interest (n.) and interests (n.), then apparently noticed that he had neglected to use the faddish passion, then quickly corrected this failure to conform.

At the end of the text, the writer inserted an “aw-shucks” disclaimer of elitism:

Graduates go on to careers in wide ranging fields, including business, law, medicine, academics, and well, just about anything.

I won’t bother to point out the grammar errors.

The Takeaway: If you want to be taken seriously and be perceived as a grown-up, you need to use grown-up diction. Avoid ingenuousness, coyness, silliness, faddishness and frivolousness – save them for parties.

See disclaimer.

The dehumanizing language of medicine

Last week I discussed an example of the dehumanizing language of medicine. Here are three more examples of dehumanizing language* and how you can help cure it:

“How are we doing?” Many doctors replace the pronoun you with the pronoun we, as in the condescending greeting, “How are we doing?” When I hear this, I help retrain them by responding, “So far as I have observed, you and your staff are doing fine, but I’ve only been here for a few minutes.” (If you try this, make sure to do it with a straight face.)  

“Gender.” On office forms, many doctors ask whether the patient’s “gender” is male or female. When I see this, I check the box for “male,” cross out “gender,” insert the correct word, “sex,” and write this note in the margin: “The word gender is a grammatical term – as in masculine, feminine and neuter. The biological term is sex. I am embarrassed to have to explain this to a medical doctor, but there it is.”

“Medication,” as opposed to the traditional term “medicine.” Medication connotes that a doctor (a medicator) puts substances onto or into the body of a patient (a medicatee), or orders the patient to do so. It also connotes that a patient (who, being only a medicatee and not a medicator) should not decide whether to put anything onto or into his body (self-medicate). When I hear “medication,” I politely insist, “Please speak plainly: Say ‘medicine.’ ”

The Takeaway: Let us take a lesson from the linguistic offenses of doctors: Communication consists not only of what we say, but also of how we say it. People judge us by both, so we must always try to remain consciously aware of both.

*I am generalizing; I am of course aware that not all doctors talk like this.

See disclaimer.

People judge you by your diction

As you have noticed, many people in the professions talk and write like children. By doing so, they detract from their professional credibility, even when they apparently are trying to bolster it. Here’s a good example:

In an interview with Elle magazine, a professor of psychology argues that professional psychologists are better at giving advice than are the authors of self-help books. But she fails in her delivery, by using awkward, juvenile diction:

Professor Sonja Lyubomirsky, who studies happiness at the University of California, Riverside, says, “We [psychologists] just sort of ignore that whole [self-help] section of the bookstore... We set it as so different from what we do, like, ‘Well, we do science, and those people are just spouting off their ideas.’ ” (Highlighting added.)

I do not know Professor Lyubomirsky. I haven’t read her books or papers. I’ve never heard her give a speech. For all I know, she may be the most brilliant and knowledgeable professor of psychology in the world. But that quotation makes her sound like a teenager.

The Takeaway: If you want to be respected as a professional, always talk and write like a professional. People judge you by your diction – even people who insist they would never do such a thing.

See disclaimer.

Don't be trendy – be considerate

Don’t abuse the preposition around

A corporate writer recently wrote “The company wanted to improve its processes around managing change.” The preposition of, or the preposition for, would have been more precise than the preposition around.

A political writer wrote “centering assessment around common work.” It should have been “centering assessment on common work.”

Very likely, these writers abused around simply because they wanted to follow the cutesy trend of promiscuously abusing around. The writers indulged their desire to be cutesy at the expense of their readers, who must pause for a few moments and decode the sentences. In other words, the writers were being fatuous, lazy and inconsiderate.

Other cutesy, semi-literate fads include the abuse of comfortable, drive, excited, issue, passion, self-esteem and sustainability. Such abuse not only confuses your readers but also dulls your mind.

The Takeaway: Be considerate of your readers; don’t follow semi-literate fads. Following semi-literate fads may cause your semi-literate readers to admire you, but it will almost certainly cause your literate readers to disdain you.

See disclaimer.

The maniacal use of “experience”

Many marketers today are trying to portray every mundane and trivial action as AN EXPERIENCE. This trend is becoming ridiculous. Here are four examples:

“To help simplify the login experience at llbean.com, we are in the process of standardizing account login requirements.”

[L.L. Bean’s advertising used to be famous for a simple, direct style; that was before the company started adding frippery like experience and in the process of. If Mr. Bean were alive today, he probably would write “To help simplify login, we are standardizing the requirements.”]*

“Kindle FreeTime... allows parents to create a customized content experience for each of their children.”

[A customized content experience is nothing more than customized content plus two meaningless words.]

“The Philips Norelco NT9110 Precision Nose and Ear Trimmer [pictured]... makes nose and ear hair trimming safe, fast, and easy. The ultra sharp, closed cutting system avoids pulling for a more comfortable trimming experience.”

[I don’t want to have an experience; I just want to trim my nose hair.]

“Scientists based in Boston, Massachusetts recently released Peak Life Prostate, a brand new natural supplement that is in demand by retailers across the country.... all you have to do is take it once a day at breakfast. Many men have reported a positive experience.”

[Does that mean swallowing the pill didn’t make them vomit their orange juice and coffee?]

The Takeaway: Don’t try to glorify every mundane and trivial action by calling it AN EXPERIENCE; the attempt makes you sound histrionic, indiscriminate and callow.

See disclaimer.

Thanks to Paul G. Henning for his assistance.

*Notice that the first version is fully one-half frippery: nine words out of eighteen. Nor is this unusual; writers who are fond of frippery never stop; they use it in paragraph after paragraph. No matter how long their copy gets, it is always 50 percent (or less) substance and 50 percent (or more) frippery (example here).

The five most popular posts

This week is the blog’s fifth anniversary (founded April 20, 2008). I thought I would show you the five all-time most-visited posts. Yes, that’s an obvious thing to do on an anniversary – however, because this is an educational blog, I pay close attention to which topics are attracting readers the most.

Here are the five posts:

“Having said that.” Most writers who use this fad expression confuse and irritate their readers. (October 1, 2008)

The danger of euphemism. How a nurse used a politically correct euphemism in order to increase the self-esteem of an incarcerated serial rapist; the euphemism allowed the rapist to escape. (November 21, 2008)

Empathetic and persuasive writing. Dale Carnegie analyzes a sales letter by telling us – line by line – how he reacts as a reader of the letter. Do this kind of analysis yourself and make your letters (emails, ads, web site) more empathetic and persuasive. (August 30, 2010)

A common fallacy. We writers should diligently strive to avoid using fallacies. One of the more common fallacies is “cherry picking.” (February 7, 2011)

Mixed metaphors. Thomas L. Friedman is a heavy user of mixed metaphors. He appears to be genuinely unaware of how clownish his writing sounds. But with three Pulitzers on his resume, Mr. Friedman can get away with such carelessness. Unfortunately, you and I cannot. (February 25, 2013)

The Takeaway: Thank you for your attention – today and over the years. I welcome your suggestions on topics to cover; please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Best to you.

See disclaimer.

In speech and in writing, be yourself

People who hear what you say or read what you write can’t help judging you by your diction and grammar. That’s because people usually assume that you have deliberately chosen your diction and grammar. So, if you unconsciously or unintentionally imitate a sociolect, your listeners or readers will assume that you are a member of the group that speaks that sociolect.

For example, poseurs speak and write gobbledygook. They do it in an effort to appear knowledgeable. But intelligent listeners and readers perceive that the gobbledygook is gobbledygook and therefore that the poseurs are poseurs.

Unfortunately, gobbledygook has become fashionable, and a lot of knowledgeable people are imitating the poseurs. Intelligent listeners and readers assume that these people are poseurs, too. So, if you are knowledgeable, don’t imitate poseurs.

Here are three more warnings:

If you are intelligent, don’t imitate bimbos.

If you are honest, don’t imitate shysters.

If you are straightforward, don’t imitate politicians.

The Takeaway: If you wish to be taken seriously, don’t imitate the sociolects of poseurs, bimbos, shysters or politicians. Be yourself. Talk like yourself. Write like yourself. You know you have the courage to do it. Do it.

See disclaimer.

The Insinuating “You”

The Insinuating You* is the abuse of the Universal You in order to describe one’s actions while slyly asserting that everyone agrees with one’s thoughts, feelings or actions. Usually the abuse takes the form of a single sentence, such as:

The reason I quit my job at Harmonious Arbitration after only two weeks is because you can’t stand the constant bickering of your colleagues.

But occasionally an especially sly person pushes the Insinuating You one step further; he delivers an entire narrative – including his thoughts, conclusions and feelings – in the present tense and the second person.

The purpose is to trick the listener into “reliving” the speaker’s experience. Of course, the narrative is actually the speaker’s self-edited and self-censored recollection of the experience; the thoughts, conclusions and feelings tend to be of the self-justifying sort.

For example, I overheard a man saying this in a country store:

You’re going along, just under the speed limit. You round a turn, and suddenly there he (a deer) is, smack in the middle of the lane. You hit the brakes as fast as you can. But it’s too late – there’s nothing you can do. You feel terrible, but you know it’s not your fault…

The speaker’s listeners looked embarrassed for him. After all, if a grown man honestly wanted someone’s candid opinion, he wouldn’t play silly word games like this. He’d just tell the story straight, and then ask listeners for their opinions.

The Takeaway: Don’t use the Insinuating You when describing a first-person experience. It can make you appear desperate for approval but afraid to ask for it for fear of rejection.

See disclaimer.

*My coinage, so far as I know.

"Addressing issues"

In several posts (e.g., here), I have discussed the abuse of the word issues. Today I discuss the abuse of the transitive verb address., which is often abused with issues.

For example, on September 18, 2011, I received this notice from Adobe Systems:

Update is ready to install

This update addresses customer issues and security vulnerabilities. Adobe recommends that you always install the latest updates

Analysis

I will set aside the question of what a “customer issue” may be; the term is as vague as the term “health issue,” which I discussed here.

To say a software update “addresses issues” is almost certainly an understatement. During my career as a technical writer, I worked with a great many programmers; I never saw any of them write an update that merely addressed (paid attention to or dealt with) something. Their updates did more than address something; for example, they fixed a problem, improved a function, or simplified an process.

So, when Adobe Systems says it has addressed something, the company is understating what it actually did.

The Takeaway: If you write for a company, give the company credit for what it achieves. For example, if the company has fixed a problem, say so. Don’t undersell the company by using effete affectations such as saying “addressed the issue.”

See disclaimer.

Affectations (3) - a list from George Carlin

The late comic George Carlin, a keen observer of language, often satirized silly affectations. For example, here’s one of his routines from the late 1980s, containing a long list of examples. Warning: adult language.

Now I’d like to begin tonight with an opening announcement. Because of the FCC, I’m never sure what it is I’m allowed to say. So I now have my own official policy. This is the language you will not be hearing tonight. You will not hear me say bottom line, game plan, role model, scenario, or hopefully.

I will not kick back, mellow out, or be on a roll. I will not go for it and I will not check it out. I don’t even know what it is. And when I leave here, I definitely will not boogie.

I promise not to refer to anyone as a class act, a beautiful person, or a happy camper. I will also not be saying, What a guy!

And you will not hear me refer to anyone’s lifestyle. If you want to know what a moronic word lifestyle is, all you have to do is realize that in a technical sense Attila the Hun had an active outdoor lifestyle.

I will also not be saying any cute things, like Moi? And I will not use the French adverb tres to modify any English adjectives, such as tres awesome, tres gnarly, tres fabu, tres intense, or tres out of sight.

I will not say concept when I mean idea. I will not say impacted when I mean affected. There will be no hands-on, state-of-the-art networking. We will not maximize, prioritize, or finalize. And we definitely will not interface.

There will also be no New Age lingo spoken here tonight – no support group jargon from the Human Potential Movement. For instance, I will not share anything with you.

I will not relate to you and you will not identify with me. I will give you no input and I will expect no feedback. This will not be a learning experience, nor will it be a growth period. There’ll be no sharing, no caring, no birthing, no bonding, no parenting, no nurturing. We will not establish a relationship, we will not have any meaningful dialog, and we definitely will not spend any quality time.

We will not be supportive of one another so that we can get in touch with our feelings in order to feel good about ourselves. And if you’re one of those people who needs a little space, please, go the f*** outside!

The Takeaway: Affectations may be fine for stand-up comedy. But when you are writing copy intended for serious adults, affectations impair your credibility.

See disclaimer.

Affectations (2) - “issues around”

Using the expression “issues around” is a quick way to undermine the credibility of your writing. It combines two silly affectations: (1) the abuse of the noun “issues,” which I have discussed here and here; and (2) the use of the preposition “around” in place of “about” or “concerning” or “on” or “having to do with.”

For some time, I had been planning to write a post on “issues around.” Then yesterday I spotted a trenchant piece on this affectation. It was written by Ian Peacock, a witty and insightful radio and television presenter and writer. I readily yield the floor to Mr. Peacock:

I Have Issues Around ‘Issues Around’

Someone phoned me earlier to ask me to do some media training ‘around issues around teenagers’.

I’m going to make myself unpopular among some of my clients, but what is this ‘around’ business about? And why is ‘around’ so preposterously prevalent among people in charities and in social care?

Why is it so un-PC to use the correct, precise preposition? Is using the correct preposition too strident, too controlling, too presumptuous, too macho?

I don’t have issues around the word ‘around’. I have problems with it and objections to it.

As far as I’m concerned, people who are comfortable around the preposition ‘around’ are clearly profoundly uncomfortable with making decisions and coming down off their fluffy, liberal fence.

I’m not some harrumphing Telegraph reader. I’m all for subtle language and avoiding offence. But I’m deeply unhappy around ‘around’ and hereby declare it a swear word.

The Takeaway: Do not abuse the noun “issues.” Do not abuse the preposition “around.” Especially do not abuse them together, as in the credibility-killing affectation “issues around.” Many intelligent readers will stop reading the moment they encounter “issues around.”

See disclaimer.

Affectations (1) – “happens to be”

One of the popular affectations today is the abuse of the expression happens to be.* For example, Richard Russell, a venerable American writer and a man who probably knows better, recently wrote:

“I live in La Jolla, which happens to be a very wealthy community.”

Although I can’t read Mr. Russell’s mind, I have induced from 42 years of copy-editing that most people who abuse happens to be are trying to appear humble about their achievements:

“I happen to be a cardiac surgeon.”

Or about their brains:

“At the time the incident occurred, I happened to have been at Princeton.”

Or about their wealth:

“I live in La Jolla, which happens to be a very wealthy community.”

When the intelligent reader encounters “I live in La Jolla, which happens to be a very wealthy community,” he pauses and thinks sarcastic thoughts. For example:

“Oh, I get it. Once, when you were thinking of relocating, you threw a dart at a map of California and the dart happened to stick in La Jolla. Although you had never happened to have heard of La Jolla before, you packed your belongings into a U-Haul van and drove there. You happened to stroll up to the front window of a real-estate broker’s office and every ad in the window happened to be asking for more than $2 million. And you thought, “I guess La Jolla happens to be a very wealthy community. But fortunately I happen to be able to afford these kinds of prices, so I’ll just go inside and talk to a broker.”

My rewrite

“I live in La Jolla, a wealthy community.”

The Takeaway: When you express false modesty, you invite your reader to wonder what else may be false about you. Unless he already knows and trusts your reputation, he may stop reading you. At that point, the effective clarity of your copy drops to zero. Richard Russell, with his long-established reputation, can afford the risk; you and I cannot.

See disclaimer.

*Does the expression have legitimate uses? Yes; for example, when describing a chance event: “When I pulled the first raffle ticket out of the hat, I noticed that it happened to be my sister-in-law’s ticket.”

Elegant variation (2)

Elegant variation is the gratuitous use of synonyms to avoid repetition of a noun or noun phrase. It is common practice among poorly educated writers, who think it is somehow refined.* It is not refined, but it can be confusing, distracting and irritating.

Example of elegant variation

In a wikiHow article titled “How to Solve a Problem,” the authors use obstacle, challenge and issue as synonyms for problem.

As a sample, here are the first 131 words of the article (boldface added):

Problem solving is one of the most essential [sic] skills in life. Regardless of who you are or what you do, you will face obstacles. How you deal with such challenges will often be a determining factor [sic] in how successful you are at life. While problems come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, this article can give you a rough idea of how to solve one in a general sense.

Steps

1. Approach the issue with clarity. This is the first and most important component to [sic] problem solving. While action and energy can often assist you in overcoming challenges, this effort is a waste if misguided or misplaced. The first step is always to approach any issue in a clear and logical manner, even if under time constraints or pressure.

Analysis of the example

When an intelligent reader encounters “obstacles,” he has to stop reading for a moment, look back, and guess whether the authors intend it as a synonym for “problems.” From the context, he guesses that it could be a synonym for “problems.” Or, the authors might be suggesting that an obstacle could be the occasion of a problem. He continues reading.

When he encounters “challenges,” he stops reading again. The word “such” preceding “challenges” helps him guess that the authors mean “challenges” as a synonym for “obstacles,” which in turn may or may not be a synonym for “problems.” He is becoming distracted, but he continues reading.

In the next sentence, he encounters “problems,” and feels a little better.

Then, in the next paragraph (Step 1), he reads, “Approach the issue with clarity.” His distraction is becoming irritation. He silently asks, “Are they using issue as yet another synonym for problem? “Why are these people fooling around like this? They promised to explain how to solve a problem, and now they’re playing games with me.” He continues reading.

During the remainder of Step 1, he encounters “problem,” “challenges” and “issue.” His irritation is becoming resentment. He silently thinks, “They’re not going to stop this. I’ll just look somewhere else.” He returns to Google to look for another article on how to solve problems.

The Takeaway: Try to avoid elegant variation. If you persistently use elegant variation, you will repel your intelligent readers.

See disclaimer.

*The phrase elegant variation was coined during the 1920s by Henry Watson Fowler, the British philologist and author of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926). At that time, the word elegant connoted over-refinement. That connotation of elegant is now forgotten, so elegant variation has become a confusing misnomer. Today, gratuitous variation would be more accurate; however, elegant variation remains in wide use.

Get to the point

Clear writing helps you make your point, but only if you get to the point before your readers flee or fall asleep.

In your first paragraph, don’t lower your credibility with puerile language, grammar errors, or poor sentence construction.

Then, try not to use too many words before you get to the point.

Example

For example, “Cassandra” wrote a 796-word article about how to stop executives from implementing dumb communication ideas. She spent 406 words, more than half the article, describing the problem and teasing her readers with claims that her solution was magic and powerful.

Finally, at word 407, she got to her point, with “Here’s how to do it: Start by…”

I wondered how many readers were still paying attention. (I was; but of course I was not seeking content, but evaluating the article as a “how not to write” example.)

The Takeaway: If you have a point to make, make it early in the copy. Get to the point before your readers flee or fall asleep.

See disclaimer.

The Wall Street Journal goes cutesy

Not many years ago, it was a rare event to spot an example of cutesy diction in The Wall Street Journal. The paper was a bastion of maturity and seriousness.

But cutesy diction is becoming more frequent in The Wall Street Journal. The trend is deliberate, as indicated by the diction in a recent letter from the managing editor (boldface added):

Dear Reader,

The Wall Street Journal [sic – no italics] has a crucial role each weekday to inform readers about the world and the world of business, but our personality has always been a tad different on weekends. From this Saturday, that personality will be distinctly different, with a refurbished front page and two new sections that will provide you with an entire weekend’s worth of compelling and amusing reading.

A features section will offer a combination of great reportage, original writing and unpredictable wit, and include a book review lift-out that will carry comprehensive critiques of the books you should read and warn you about those tomes better left on the shelf.

...

An even better indicator of the paper’s eagerness to become cutesy is its cutesy, bromidic tagline, “live in the know” [sic – no caps or punctuation].

The Takeaway: Don’t let careless diction distract your readers. For example, don’t use cutesy language to describe your company or yourself, unless you’re in a cute business such as baby clothes. If you distract your readers with precious language, they may infer that you are not a serious grown-up.

See disclaimer.

George Carlin on silly mantras (1) - "happens to be"

The great comedian George Carlin (pictured) often ridiculed silly mantras. For example, he made fun of “guilty white liberals” who speak in silly mantras when referring to minorities.

In one of Mr. Carlin’s routines, he has a conversation with an imaginary liberal:

LIBERAL: “I have a friend who happens to be Black.”

CARLIN (aside): “Like it’s a f***ing accident, you know?”

CARLIN (to the liberal): “Happens to be Black?”

LIBERAL: “Yes, he happens to be Black.”

CARLIN: “Ahhh, yes yes yes yes yes. He had two Black parents?”

LIBERAL: “Oh, yes, that’s right. Two Black parents, yes.”

CARLIN: “And they f***ed?”

LIBERAL: “Oh, indeed they did. Yes.”

CARLIN: “So, where does the surprise part come in? I should think it would be more unusual if he just happened to be Scandinavian.”

The Takeaway: Silly mantras are good raw material for comedy. But they are useless – even counterproductive – when we are trying to communicate seriously and clearly.