Are you guilty of crimes against the English language?

By Nishwa Ashraf, Editorial Assistant, Melcrum

“Wellderly”, “disbenefits”, “under-capacitated” – do any of these words mean anything to you? No, me neither.

Jargon – a fact of life in every business sector from accountancy to zoo keeping, and perhaps arguably more so within the world of communication. After all, language is the essence of communication.

Of course jargon has its place at work. It can provide useful shorthand to get across a specific meaning quickly, but at the same time can turn timesaving terminology into just plain gobbledygook. The Local Government Association (LGA) seems to think so clamping down on what it calls “impenetrable words” after a survey revealed that government departments, local authorities and quangos included redundant words and phrases within public information - words that mean everything to the organisations involved in the conversation but nothing to you and I.

No shock there, but at least the Association is doing something about it and has drafted a 250-word list outlawing meaningless and confusing terms including “trialogue”, “clienting” and “goldfish bowl facilitated conversation”.

Margaret Eaton, LGA chairman, said: “Why do we need to have a “webinar trialogue for the wellderly” when the public sector could just talk about caring for the elderly instead?” Why indeed Margaret? But I have to say, while I enjoy the odd webinar, the rest of the jargon I could happily do without. Jargon can’t be evaded every time, but there are occasions when dressing-up words can be to the detriment of the intended message and isolate your audience. As all communicators will know it rapidly becomes a problem when it prevents employees, or your peers, from understanding the intended meaning and can create barriers to getting crucial corporate messages out in the open.

Whatever your reason for juggling with jargon, if it’s out of place and the audience misunderstands it you can soon get into trouble. Not only will you fail to convey information to your audience, you may also succeed in suggesting a more subtle negative message – transmitting insincerity rather than honesty.

What’s worse, you may never know that your audience has not understood – people rarely admit to mistrust and fear appearing unintelligent. So, are you guilty of crimes against language? I’d love to hear your stories.

Comments

[Loren Yaskin]

Ironically, I posted a blog on jargon today as well at:
http://www.theflipsidecommunications.com/blog/

[Robin]

The list seems extensive with some very basic words on it that don't appear to be jargon. I guess, though, when you're dealing with the general public, people from different backgrounds and education levels, you really have to strip down your language. I was most surprised, however, to see in a blog for communicators a real "crime against the English language." You used the phrase "to you and I" and it should have been "to you and me."

[John Clifford]

Yes, and I think you meant that dressing-up words can be 'alienate' your audience rather than isolate them ;o)

Far from being guilty of crimes against the English, I AM THE AVENGOR! I search and destroy. No jargon shall escape my wrath, etc., etc.

I was thinking of inviting contributions to a list of jargon myself, to place into only two catogroies: (1) used under strict supervision and (2) put behind bars, the key then being promptly thrown away!

People hide behind words to make themselves look clever or authoritative, or they don't care whether they're understood or not.

Abandon hope, all ye jargonstrosities who venture in my direction!

[Robin Crumby]

Great first post Nishwa. And controversial too. The BBC World Service website is helpful on the 'You and me/I' question: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv264.shtml

[Jenni Mitchell]

I couldn't agree more Nishwa. I have been longing for such a ban of ridiculous corporate speak ever since I found phrases like 'joined up thinking' and 'toolkit' slipping off the tongue, though I never stooped to the level of 'synergies'. The trouble with language is that it's contagious and if you find yourself in an organisation where this language is the norm it will soon enter your vocabulary. For communication to work messages have to be received in the way they were intended, yet I never did understand the meaning of 'low hanging fruit'?