In Defense of Buzzwords
Lake Superior State University has just published its annual List of Words to be Banished for overuse:
And I agree that some of these can get annoying. Watching the presidential debates and reading the punditry about them, I got thoroughly sick of "maverick," the "Wall Street/Main Street" divide, and Joe the Plumber. But I'd like to lodge a small protest against the kind of thinking that would ban these and other such words--especially insofar as that mindset inspires first-year writing instructors to mark their students down for using them.
First off, let's differentiate a little. "Not so much" is a trendy phrase, which will die out on its own, though not, of course, before millions overuse it some more. Same with the habit of adding -monkey to nouns to make them funnier, like love-monkey. "Staycation" is a totally different kettle of fish, a cutesy nonce word that I would associate with Madison Avenue if it didn't so overwhelmingly have the heartlands written all over it. "Game-changer" seems to me a really useful new concept that should survive. While "maverick" was unquestionably tainted by partisan association with John McCain and Sarah Palin, it is a useful concept that has been around a long time and will be around for decades to come. The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street took on special relevance and urgency in the debates over the $700 billion bailout (how else would you refer to it, LSSU norns?), but it refers to popular synecdoches for the investment banking industry and small-town America, two segments of American culture that are invested with enormous symbolic and emotional capital. So the distinction was overused in political rhetoric for a few months, and we all got tired of hearing it bandied about; that's a reason to ban the terms? And "carbon footprint" may be a buzzword that we hear a lot lately, but doesn't hearing it frequently also constantly remind us that we should be doing more to save energy and reduce emissions?
The larger point to make for first-year writing classrooms, though, is that buzzwords are good things for students to know and use in their writing. The latest trendy words and phrases are "trendy" in the sense that they are being used by the discourse community. They are the godterms, to use Kenneth Burke's word, by which the community organizes reality in the present. Using them signals the speaker's or writer's belonging, his or her inclusion in the community. Knowing them and being able to use them correctly is a form of communicative literacy. Rather than banning them, we should be encouraging our students to compile lists of them themselves, and use them in their papers.
Of course there are students who write well without buzzwords--those who pay close enough attention to the ways the discourse community uses language to enter into conversation through more complex communicative channels. In a sense, in fact, this is the unstated goal of projects like the LSSU word bans: to move sophisticated writers and speakers to this next level. But most of our first-year writers are not sophisticated enough to manage that kind of conversation--not, I suggest, because they're stupid or lazy or illiterate, but because they're young. They haven't been exposed to adult discourse long enough to have mastered it in complex ways.
There are also students who use buzzwords in order not to have to think complexly about a subject--a habit that we should take seriously enough to push on in effective ways. But there are two points to remember there: first, that using buzzwords as conceptual shorthand for huge complex issues (and thus not really thinking about those issues) is typical of pundits and politicians too, seasoned adult professionals, not just 18-year-olds, so we should cut our FYW students some slack if they do it too; and second, that this sort of usage in a draft is an excellent occasion for discussion. "What did you mean here by 'green'?" "Uh, well, you know, green. Like, I don't know, green." "So what does 'green' mean?" "I can't really describe it, exactly." "Environmentally friendly?" "Yeah. That's it." "Is everything that's green environmentally friendly?" "Uh, sure. I don't know." "Golf courses are green. Are they environmentally friendly?"
And so on. Not quite knowing what the word means, but knowing that it's an important word that intelligent adults use when speaking of the environment, is a critical part of our FYW students' transition to membership in the discourse community. And our job is to help them make that transition. It's not to vent our own annoyances at the overuse of certain trendy words.
- green
- carbon footprint or carbon offset
- maverick
- first dude
- bailout
- Wall Street/Main Street
- -monkey
- <3 (heart or love)
- icon or iconic
- game-changer
- staycation
- desperate search
- not so much
- winner of five nominations
- it's that time of year again
And I agree that some of these can get annoying. Watching the presidential debates and reading the punditry about them, I got thoroughly sick of "maverick," the "Wall Street/Main Street" divide, and Joe the Plumber. But I'd like to lodge a small protest against the kind of thinking that would ban these and other such words--especially insofar as that mindset inspires first-year writing instructors to mark their students down for using them.
First off, let's differentiate a little. "Not so much" is a trendy phrase, which will die out on its own, though not, of course, before millions overuse it some more. Same with the habit of adding -monkey to nouns to make them funnier, like love-monkey. "Staycation" is a totally different kettle of fish, a cutesy nonce word that I would associate with Madison Avenue if it didn't so overwhelmingly have the heartlands written all over it. "Game-changer" seems to me a really useful new concept that should survive. While "maverick" was unquestionably tainted by partisan association with John McCain and Sarah Palin, it is a useful concept that has been around a long time and will be around for decades to come. The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street took on special relevance and urgency in the debates over the $700 billion bailout (how else would you refer to it, LSSU norns?), but it refers to popular synecdoches for the investment banking industry and small-town America, two segments of American culture that are invested with enormous symbolic and emotional capital. So the distinction was overused in political rhetoric for a few months, and we all got tired of hearing it bandied about; that's a reason to ban the terms? And "carbon footprint" may be a buzzword that we hear a lot lately, but doesn't hearing it frequently also constantly remind us that we should be doing more to save energy and reduce emissions?
The larger point to make for first-year writing classrooms, though, is that buzzwords are good things for students to know and use in their writing. The latest trendy words and phrases are "trendy" in the sense that they are being used by the discourse community. They are the godterms, to use Kenneth Burke's word, by which the community organizes reality in the present. Using them signals the speaker's or writer's belonging, his or her inclusion in the community. Knowing them and being able to use them correctly is a form of communicative literacy. Rather than banning them, we should be encouraging our students to compile lists of them themselves, and use them in their papers.
Of course there are students who write well without buzzwords--those who pay close enough attention to the ways the discourse community uses language to enter into conversation through more complex communicative channels. In a sense, in fact, this is the unstated goal of projects like the LSSU word bans: to move sophisticated writers and speakers to this next level. But most of our first-year writers are not sophisticated enough to manage that kind of conversation--not, I suggest, because they're stupid or lazy or illiterate, but because they're young. They haven't been exposed to adult discourse long enough to have mastered it in complex ways.
There are also students who use buzzwords in order not to have to think complexly about a subject--a habit that we should take seriously enough to push on in effective ways. But there are two points to remember there: first, that using buzzwords as conceptual shorthand for huge complex issues (and thus not really thinking about those issues) is typical of pundits and politicians too, seasoned adult professionals, not just 18-year-olds, so we should cut our FYW students some slack if they do it too; and second, that this sort of usage in a draft is an excellent occasion for discussion. "What did you mean here by 'green'?" "Uh, well, you know, green. Like, I don't know, green." "So what does 'green' mean?" "I can't really describe it, exactly." "Environmentally friendly?" "Yeah. That's it." "Is everything that's green environmentally friendly?" "Uh, sure. I don't know." "Golf courses are green. Are they environmentally friendly?"
And so on. Not quite knowing what the word means, but knowing that it's an important word that intelligent adults use when speaking of the environment, is a critical part of our FYW students' transition to membership in the discourse community. And our job is to help them make that transition. It's not to vent our own annoyances at the overuse of certain trendy words.
posted by Doug Robinson at
10:13 AM
8 Comments:
Do I hate these lists? Not so much!
I kind of love them for drawing attention not only to language itself, but also and particularly to how much language matters to people.
The "banned words and phrases" lists, seems to me, are never really about banning. After all, I doubt that anyone seriously imagines that such lists will change anything about day-to-day diction. The lists are a nice reminder that we are paying attention, though, and an interesting snapshot of what we are tending to.
For instance, it's kind of nice to know that "green" bugs people. It ought to, and should be especially annoying for those who are truly interested in being green. It's good to know that folks aren't so hopelessly dense that they can be persuaded that a fancy schmancy hotel is really "green" just because it asks guests to use towels more than once. I mean, that's a nice start and everything, but winging one's way across the world to stay in such a place for a business meeting or some such isn't very "green" at all. Better to stay home and e-commute to the meeting.
Also, I have to confess that it's kind of fun to discover that there are items on others' no-no lists that I've never even considered. The "monkey" thing certainly wasn't on my radar at all.
Well, maybe it's the irreverant streak in me, but because there's no way I'd ever regard such a list as a set of rules that might apply to me (hah--*language* rules? not so much), I think of them as kind of fun. I'd probably invite students to have a look at these to find out what they think. I'd love to hear their additions (bet they're already tired of things that won't make the various lists for a few years, yet), and their objections, and their reasons for all of the above.
Meanwhile, of course their are words and phrases that bug me. I remember when "out of pocket" was widely used in business *not* to describe something reasonable such as "out of pocket" expenses, but to describe being unavailable by phone or email. For awhile there, people were forever reminding each other that they'd be "out of pocket" for a few hours or for a day. Hated it! Never did think that despising it would make it go away, though.
Anyway, I love that we are emotional about language. The fun is in examining all of the reasons why.
Kathy,
I agree completely! I just worry that FYW instructors will take such lists to heart and penalize students for using these words--as in fact one poster to WPA-L just suggested he does. You're right that talk of "banning" is best taken as a kind of terministic screen, a way of paying playful and maybe even loving attention; Paul Lynch just suggested that we use such lists as channels of rhetorical suspicion, which is less playful than your suggestion, but probably equally pedagogically useful. But what about those who decide to use their bully pulpits as teachers to enforce such bans?
Is suspicion different than fun? Well, maybe it is, darn it, but I don't see why it has to be in this instance.
For instance, I remember looking at advertising language and imagery with students when two types of imagery were very common. One was the imagery of cleanliness, purity, and clarity. So, for instance, we had clear Coke (no kidding--do you remember that?), and even some brand of gasoline (I don't remember which) that had gas spilling from the pump quite as if it were as pure as water from an untouched mountain stream. We were rightly suspicious of that, and had great fun with it, too. Gas isn't water. We aren't going to drinking it or swimming in it anytime soon. We wondered, too, what sorts of chemical evil had to happen in order to make it look clear.
At that time, "lite" (never "light") and low-fat/fat free pitches were also very common. Again, both suspicion and fun could be had with this. For instance, we found one great ad that had a car, of all things, positioned on the end of a stick so that it looked like a popsicle. The ad suggested that one great feature of this little car was that it was low-cal--an indulgence that wouldn't negatively influence the waist line. Hah! Are humans so driven by fear of fat that even a car can appeal to us based on that fear? Seems so.
What to do about the teachers who take these things too seriously? Hmm. That's a poser. I suppose we could draw up a list of the ones banished from using banishment lists, but that would seem not to be in the spirit of the thing.
Probably the only thing a person can really do is keep on teaching. If even language teachers don't delight in how *alive* language is--how utterly impervious to our attempts to control its emergence--then I guess we have a good bit of teaching left to do.
Sure would be great if more folks were comfortable utilizing their delight in the teaching sphere, wouldn't it?
Kathy,
"Is suspicion different than fun?"
Not in the abstract; but then nothing is ANYTHING in the abstract!
It all depends on what kind of imaginary body we give these things. I tend to give suspicion the body of irascible negativity, the stern taskmaster whose greatest "joy" (if anything so grim can be called a joy) is pouncing on errors--which is to say, on anything that deviates from what s/he considers normal. I imagine permanent frown lines and a habitual scowl.
But of course suspicion can be bodied forth in playful ways as well!
Oh, yes, and it's definitely the playful ways I have in mind when it comes to such lists, although suspicion of the darker sort might be in order when we move beyond fussing at diction that seems empty or merely fashionable to us and into considering the dangerous and the damaging.
Mostly, I think it would be awfully hard to resist poking back a bit at any teacher who made me justify (to his satisfaction, no less!) using any of the words on his (inherently arbitrary, because how could it help being so) list of banned words.
A writing teacher needs a little streak of the linguist in her, I think. That way, she knows how to observe with absorbed interest, and understands that control over the whole flow of the thing is impossible and quite pointless. (On the other hand, I've loved the teachers who have zeroed in on some bit of diction in the context of something I've written, and have asked a pointed question or two about it. That's a good thing, if done well!)
If "utilize" were of particular interest, then I might ask students simply to note where it is used, and to think about why. Why, for instance, do formal documents about how the square footage in a building will be divided up among departments tend to discuss "utilizing space"? When dorm dwellers loft their narrow beds, they're using space very creatively (and efficiently), but only in the most formal and businessy of writing about that activity would anyone discuss their "efficient utilization of space." Why? Then, it begins to make more sense to examine how and why we pick up such turns of phrase, and to think about whether invoking a word really helps us accomplish our purpose in a given situation.
Just recently, I've had cause to point out to a client that his approach to technology tends not to be as wise as it could be. I did not say, "You don't have any clue how to use what you have, so sinking oodles of money into buying still more techie gadgets strikes me as a bad idea." Nope. This was a place where the far more impersonal "utilize" and its ilk were the far better choices--no matter what the banishment monkeys (the ones whose fears and pet peeves I can understand to a point, but can never really <3) might think.
I <3 this comment!
Doug,
Thanks for posting this!
I think it's interesting that English educators would consider "banning" language when it seems like our job is to encourage the dissemination and investigation of language.
I think Doug's right when he says, "Rather than banning them, we should be encouraging our students to compile lists of them themselves, and use them in their papers."
It seems to me that the most important thing you can give to your FW students is an understanding that written language will effect their lives and careers. They're so used to texting, myspacing, and facebooking, that part of the challenge is to teach them that communicating effectively is an important skill.
If I want my students to understand the importance of language as dialogue, I have to be willing to accept that their mode of communication isn't necessarily mine. For example:
Last summer, I was teaching a writing class and was pretty upset when my students didn't get my Pulp Fiction reference. Simultaneously, my students were using the word "krunk" with abandon, and I had no earthly idea what they were talking about. My options?
1) Get upset that I was getting old, and my students didn't get the "Pulp Fiction" reference.
2) Get upset that I was getting old, and I didn't understand the "krunk" reference.
3) Show my students that scene from "Pulp Fiction," ask them to explain "krunk" to me, and break out the OED in an exercise of fluidity of language. Fascinating!
I think it's important for us to impart upon our FW students that communicating via the standard, written word is still necessary; however, we also have to accept that language is fluid, interesting, watery, and this is probably what we all loved about it in the first place.
acasey,
"we also have to accept that language is fluid, interesting, watery, and this is probably what we all loved about it in the first place"
Agreed! Except maybe that your "we all" doesn't necessarily apply to all FYW instructors? I wish it did! And I wish I knew a way to infect everybody, students and instructors, with that love ...
Doug
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home