The Parameters of Language Are State of the Art

In listing vogue words of the past few decades the other day, I seem to have left out more than I listed.

Vogue words are not necessarily neologisms. They are more often words that have been in the dictionary for years, or in some limited use, such as “state of the art” and “parameter,” but which suddenly emerge in common parlance and are inescapable, until, finally, they die of overuse.

I suspect that journalists are the culprits. One uses “state of the art” to describe some gadget, and it is soon applied to everything from lipstick to liposuction.

Journalists are almost surely responsible for the transient popularity of viable, dichotomy, ambiance, communicate and relate , though they probably picked them up from the gurus of psychobabble.

My colleague Gladwin Hill notes that metaphor, paradigm, construct, define, space and arguably are still in vogue. “Nothing exists just as is, on its own feet,” he says. “Everything is a metaphor for something else.”

He wonders how we got along for 1,000 years without using paradigm, construct and arguably in our daily writings. Sportswriters write that Magic Johnson is arguably the best basketball player in the world. Why don’t they just say it and let those argue who will?

Hill also wonders why, in police parlance, a “perpetrator” is described as an “adult male,” rather than simply as a man. Of course police parlance is rather rigid, perhaps for legal reasons, but such stilted usages inevitably seep into detective novels and the movies. I recently read a detective novel in which no one ever simply left a room or a car; he “exited” it.

Fred A. Glienna of South Pasadena reminds me of the current popularity of “impact.” He suspects, as I do, that the word has become inevitable because people can’t remember the difference between effect and affect. “Impact solves the problem,” he says, “while ultimately robbing itself of, well, impact.”

Margaret Lundstrom of Arcadia says she has nearly lost her mind over the proliferation of ambiance and pragmatic . “They cause me to howl with pain, or grieve over our culture, or even stamp my feet in anger.”

Henry Brunell of Chatsworth complains about the overuse of legendary . True. Anyone who has got his name in the paper twice becomes legendary.

W.P. Blair complains about the misuse of individual for person . Yes, we are always hearing that so and so is a good individual.

Walter VanderVort of North Hollywood asks if I remember when viable was the vogue word. Of course I do. Those were the days when we had a viable lifestyle, viable relationships and viable alternatives. One might also have a viable dichotomy.

Joe Goldberg notes the general misuse of literally . It is used to give force to something that is obviously not true: in other words, figurative. (“Kirk Gibson literally hit the ball a mile.”)

Garland C. Ladd disputes my contention that “at this point in time” is redundant and illiterate. He notes that the phrase “point in time” has a legitimate use in technical and scientific language. Good. Let it stay there.

Wilfred H. Shaw of Hermosa Beach observes that “state of the art” does not mean the highest current point of development, as I suggested, but merely the norm. Rather than advertising that their product is “state of the art,” he says, manufacturers should boast that it is “ahead of state of the art.” He concludes, “But who could care less?”

Brian King writes to protest the use of basically . “Am I basically out of my mind or has basically taken over our language? I am basically so tired of this word that I could basically upchuck a dictionary. If you basically don’t believe me, just listen to lawyers, ballplayers, guys in bars and babes on buses. Basically anybody.”

(King might have said that he could literally upchuck a dictionary.)

Barbara McCarthy of Capistrano Beach makes the same complaint. “All of a sudden sentences all are started with this ubiquitous word.”

Michele Mooney also vituperates against basically , complaining that it is the new crutch word used by anyone answering a simple question. “It is the modern hmm , the new errr , the B word which has replaced the hesitations of yesteryear.”

Dr. Marvin H. Leaf of Santa Monica sums it up: “At this point in time, it would seem that, hopefully, somebody who is into the English language could head up a committee to, you know, get us off of the path we’re on and show us where we’re at. But maybe it’s not that important. I mean, most people could care less.”

William M. McNairn of Palos Verdes Estates asks if he may nominate me to President Bush for appointment as Secretary of Semantics--”a new and vital cabinet post that could literally save the nation.”

I urge McNairn not to waste his time. Several readers have already written President Bush suggesting that he invite me and my wife to dinner at the White House. So far they have received nothing but extremely polite rejections from members of the President’s staff. (I voted for Dukakis.)

Anyway, if there is to be a Secretary of Semantics, I suggest William Safire or Tom Middleton, both of whom are much better qualified than I.

Basically, I think the President couldn’t care less.