“Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity” – Daniel Oppenheimer
After my last blog, I thought I should confess that there are some words and phrases that bother me. Don’t get me wrong – I LOVE words and I love playing with them and I believe their creative use can entertain, enrich and educate. I love what other people do with them. Words can be powerful, moving, poignant and inspiring. The breadth of the English language is truly something to delight in. For example, in some situations, it could be fun to use the word “floccinaucinihilipilification”, but I believe that in most cases “estimating as worthless” will do.
What I don’t like is when language is used to obscure understanding, whether deliberately or thoughtlessly. I’m talking about jargon, or the use of excessively complex phrases or lesser-known vocabulary, which excludes readers who don’t belong to that particular ‘club’. It can be a form of elitism, snobbery, tribalism or an attempt to safeguard the exclusivity of a profession (thereby ensuring unrealistically high incomes). Frequently, there is an assumption that you should know this stuff – recently my wife was referred to something called the “third sector interface”. Sometimes it is used to muddy the truth, for example when the military use the phrase “collateral damage” they mean “unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and damage that is caused to their homes, hospitals, schools…”
Of course, some subjects require specialist vocabulary, and I’m not against the evolution of language – new words often need to be added with advances in technology, or meanings change over time or in novel contexts to improve communication or enhance artistic practice. At my age, I have read thousands of books and studied for two degrees. Basically, this means I know a lot of words, yet at times, I still find myself baffled when I hear or read what some people are saying.
Some of the cases that annoy me the most are to be found in academic papers, regardless of the sphere of study. Here the author may be trying to impress their peers or gain kudos within that community. Or perhaps they believe that only those who understand them are worthy to be their audience. As a reader who is interested in the subject and who may be able to understand the concepts discussed, if I find a paper peppered with words I have to look up in the dictionary only to find simpler ones would suffice, I am likely to think the author is a pretentious tosser.
The legal profession is particularly guilty of jargonic[1] crimes, but sadly they can’t be prosecuted for their wrongdoings in this area. The business world is another culprit, although I don’t have a problem with phrases that are obvious to decipher. For example, whether you like it or not, the meaning of “blue sky thinking” is self-evident, whereas “aggressive mediocrity”[2] is not.
On the other side of the coin are the politicians or civil servants adept at conveying little or nothing even when using simple language. So you may understand all the vocabulary, but fail to grasp the meaning. Although fictitious, this example from the BBCs Yes Minister illustrates the point well: “Well, Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I should say that as far as we can see, looking at it, by and large, taking one time with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis, it is probably true to say that at the end of the day in general terms, you’d probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there wasn’t probably much weight in it in one way or the other, as far as one can see at this stage.”
Accordingly, at this moment, having conveyed a perspicuous elucidation of my appraisal of this ratiocination, I will articulate my valediction until I formulate my subsequential cybernated missive. In the intervening temporal period, I shall excogitate the potentiality of facilitating the provision of adornment solutions for lignophilic accessorisers in the downtown entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Ciao.
[1] I thought I’d made this up, but the Oxford English Dictionary tells me it was first used in 1819.
[2] A conscious effort to ensure that the bare minimum, and nothing more, is achieved.
Geoff King 