In May I posted about Michelle Kern’s list of book review clichés. But, of course, book reviewers are not the only ones – or even the worst, I might suggest – to use clichés. They are rife in politics (as those of us living through a Federal election downunder know better than we’d prefer) and management/business. I was consequently delighted by the following statement in my current read (Kate Jennings’ delicious Trouble which I will be reviewing very soon):
A modest proposal. Every time someone in the business world uses jargon, one of their toys or perks will be taken away. ‘Value-added’: there goes the jet. ‘On the same page’: the Porsche. ‘Proactive’: the cigarette boat. ‘Win-win’: the house in Bermuda. ‘Going forward’: the servants. ‘Knowledge base’: the mistress. ‘Strategic fit’: the fancy school for the kids.
If only, eh!
Anyhow, she calls it jargon (defined*, generally, as “the specialised language of a discipline or profession); I call it cliché (“overused expression that lacks originality”). Probably, in this case, it’s both. Certainly, Alan Braidwood on BBC‘s Radio Scotland Blog post titled A-Z of clichés and jargon rolls them into one without even trying to explain. You might like to see his list. There’s another good one, with a brief discussion, from 2009 on the computerweekly.com blog: The jargon terms council leaders want banned. You may like to read the comments there too.
George Orwell would be proud. Meanwhile, I continue to work on keeping them out of my reviews and would be happy for you, my readers, to pull me up any time you see one (or, heaven forbid, some)!
* Both definitions were chosen, for their clarity, from OwLet at LeTourneau University in Texas.
Whispering Gums 
Happy is the reviewer of a single category (film/book/artwork) who manages to avoid using clichés. Something else to avoid – PLEONASM (see http://www.wordnik.com/words/pleonasm ). I suspect in an effort to maintain my 800 word review target I’m more guilty of that than cliché .
Oh good one, Tom. That’s a new word for me and I like it. My review target is 800-1000 and I try very hard not to be pleonastic (!!) but it’s hard isn’t it? As for clichés, they are so for a reason aren’t they? And sometimes when you try to find a new word it feels forced. Still, I hope that in the trying we manage to only use them when they do add effect!
To my understanding jargon is specialist language, so I go with your reading of it.
Thanks Sean and welcome … I do think the term is misused a bit. I see the effects being quite different: jargon, being specialist language, tends to be incomprehensible to those not part of the particular world from which is comes; cliché, being overused language, tends to lack impact.
I used to be a Hansard reporter and I had a whole lot of smart keys set up on my computer for parliamentary cliches. Sometimes you could get through a whole speech, in about two minutes, just using smart keys. You knew you were on a winner if the speaker began thus: aed, in rar (or to expand the abbreviations, “At the end of the day, in rural and regional Australia” [and what the hell is the difference between rural Australia and regional Australia?])
LOL zmkc. You were obviously a very cluey Hansard reporter. “At the end of the day” is one I dislike too! “Rural” and “regional”. Good one. BTW heard a bit of commentary on Burke and Wills today and thought of you.
Reminds me of the evening two months ago when I went to the first meeting of our new local library’s community liason group. The head librarian, who was sitting next to a man from the local council, handed us a list of proposed group rules and asked us to read through so that we could vote on them. So I read, and discovered that they were written in bolted-together prefab sheets of jargon. It was the kind of jargon that the Plain English people in your link want abolished. The sentences were sort of flapping their arms at meaning without ever pointing to it. After we had finished she asked if we had any questions. Yes, I said. This third rule. I read it aloud and asked, What does it mean? Then there was a huge silence around the table and a terrible moment while I realised that she didn’t know.
But it was worse when she began speaking this jargon herself, speaking it sincerely, and I sat thinking, “But you’re a librarian! You’re a custodian of words! How can you say those things with a straight face? How can you talk about proactively moving forward to maximalise our green footprint potential?” We were maximalising our green footprint potential in a community outreach situation when I said that, for example, we might draw the visitors’ attention to books that would teach them how to set up a compost bin. No! she said. We don’t teach. We promote positive learning outcomes. And she was excited by this knowledge. (Her tone went up, her eyes went wide, she leaned forward.) I think that was my reward for asking about rule three.
Oh great story DKS. Early in my career I felt a failure because I couldn’t talk in cliche/management jargon but I decided after a while that I didn’t need to! One of my (past) colleagues lapped this language up and mystified most of us – I used to pull him up a bit (it was “a thing” between us that he accepted) – but he couldn’t help himself. It seemed like he acquired it by osmosis! Here is one of his from a strategic planning meeting in 2004: “An opportunity to provide a responsive service and to influence an influential service recipient with a strong impression of our service capability.” Got that? I think he meant, more or less, “To provide a good service and prove that we can satisfy our users’ needs”.
I too felt like a failure in my last job (working in joint management in a parks agency, surrounded by park planners) because I disliked and refused to use weasel words and pointed out the futility of using quantitative measures (numbers) on qualitative data (human feelings and perceptions).
My least favourite words:
-deliverables
-measurables
-ramp-up
-go forward
-the get-go (what is the get-go?)
-synergies
I have an email masterpiece somewhere that a colleague put together, taking the mickey out of another colleague in weasel words because this person was renown for speaking in such language (it was never sent, just shared privately as a joke).
My comment…. well it’s all about the exogamous patrilineal moities, isn’t it?
Oh yes, they all sound familiar. “Going forward” is my husband’s favourite. He tells how his workplace handed out new staff passes and told them all “to wear them going forwards”. Someone asked what did they wear when they went backwards!
I try to elaborate on my point when I do use words like “spellbound”, “poignant”, and “gripping.” Most of the novels are gripping one way or another or I would not even bother with them, right? One of the questions in the recent meme asks where book critics stand, I rarely pay attention to those reviews. I’m annoyed by the one-word quotations that appear on the first page of a paperback. Can these be any more vague?
Welcome Matt. That’s a good approach. It is sometimes hard to avoid words like that isn’t it? But following with an explanation surely removes some of their “clichéness”. Compelling is another one…I use that a bit. How can we not use some occasionally, eh?