A minor point
What is wrong with the word “harm”? Or “damage”? Why is it always “negatively impact” now? Why is a stupid clumsy circumlocution that includes a noun pretending to be a verb preferable to a single blunt word of one or two syllables?
Is it for the same reason that so many people say “poor” when they mean bad? “It’s poor weather for a walk.” Because of some nebulous worry that “bad” might hurt someone’s feelings? Like, say, the weather’s?
Why else would Kathleen Sebelius say it?
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the rule, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, could “negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services.”
Or is it because it sounds more official and like something a cabinet member is supposed to say? But if so, why does it? Why does “negatively impact” now sound somehow superior to “harm”? When it’s so stupid? When “negative” doesn’t mean “bad” and “impact” doesn’t mean “affect”? Why two inexact words when one exact one is readily available?
You tell me.
I think you are correct, it’s a timid way of saying “well, you are going to hurt women, not that I’m saying you shouldn’t be allowed to, but um, erm”.
It’s political polite-speak and it shoots itself in the foot for fear of offending the Powers That Be.
I’m watching the right-wing’s new War on Women in horror from here in Ireland. Things are backwards enough here: only allowed contraceptives in the 80s, only allowed divorce in the 90s and still no abortions at all. Seeing as Ireland & so much of the rest of the world takes its cue from the States, this does not bode well for the future.
We consider issues. We are aware of concerns. We work for the Department of Circumlocutions (and the frightening this is, I do work in Government and this written style is almost second nature to me.)
Because in Washington, “objectivity” means “non-controversial”, and nobody gets upset at cumbersome circumlocutions except the minority of people who like English as a language.
A bureaucratic preference for terms that are considered more “quantifiable” perhaps? Plus bonus points for sounding more Orwellian.
Furthermore, the terms “harm” and “damage” would make it seem like the proposal is bad and the effects ought to be remedied somehow, whereas “negative impact” makes it seem like its just the cost of doing business so to speak.
Here in the UK we have the Plain English Campaign.
Perhaps she used their
Gobbledygook Generator?
Gobbledygook Generator:
Confession 1: I use facilitate all the time.
Confession 2: Were I Kathleen Sebelius, I would not have said negatively impact. I would have said impede.
Oh, what am i to do with myself?
Ah, but this is good news. The idea that health care providers could refuse to provide health care because their mythology mandates requires misogyny was always repulsive.
And you might add, Sister Keehan, if I recall your previous pronouncements, to save a woman’s life.
She achieved just as much of a cotton-wool-in-mouth effect with the word “could”. Could negatively impact? How about does negatively impact?
This is all over the place in diplomacy. They understate things laughably. “we are confused” means “WTF are you doing”? “We are very concerned” means “we’re retargeting our missiles”
Not to mention the hideous turning of “impact” into a verb. Yeah, I know that battle is lost, but it’s still horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Someone actually said to me on the phone the other day that a person he knew was “very impactful.” I literally had to restrain myself from screaming.
It’s too bad Nero Wolfe is no longer with us. He would have given Ms Sebelius an earful, no doubt about it.
Ah Josh I love you with an everlasting love. You too?! The damn thing has been around so long I thought no one your tender age even knew it had ever not been a verb.
I did mention it though! “Why is a stupid clumsy circumlocution that includes a noun pretending to be a verb preferable…”
Yes impactful drives me right straight up the wall. I once heard someone say “inciteful” – not “insightful” but “inciteful.” Full of potential to incite. I’m not lying.
I hate “impact” as a verb more than any other language thingy. One of the joys of being a sub-editor is that every now and then I get to remove one and make the world a better place.
I think we should all be happier in this situation- complaining about wooly language in a statement where a bad regulation is rescinded- than in the reverse situation- hearing a perfectly grammatical and linguistically impeccable statement of pure evil.
I notice that Texas, in addition to outlawing Thomas Jefferson, has also done away with the adverb. I hear people (scientists and managers types, mind you — not yokels) saying and writing things like “The job went perfect.”
Strike that; Nero Wolfe is still alive and well, but he’s now operating under the pseudonym “Benson.”
It’s an attempt to sound official. People often use more words and bigger words than needed to try and sound smart. I also think that “negatively impact” sounds, somehow, more clinical than “harm”.
So you did mention it – mea culpa! Yes, impact as a verb is my most hated thing too. Has been for at least five years. . that’s when I think I started noticing it. It really wasn’t common before then. I’m very stodgy wrt language for someone in his 30s; I hate most new constructions (not Gnu constructions, though), and I want to disembowel people who don’t use the subjunctive. No, no dear, it’s not “If I was there, I woulda.” :))))
Oh honey it’s been common for a lot more than 5 years – I know this thanks to scientific measurement of how far down I have ground my teeth. I daresay you started noticing it at time X about 5 years ago, and once you noticed it you kept noticing it. You know how that goes.
Putting in the subjunctive is the other big reward in subbing! I’m sure I annoy a lot of UK types who never ever use the subjunctive, thinking it’s a plebeian American thing, and are shocked to find a subjunctive in their own articles. Tough; yaboosucks. I wouldn’t scowl like that if I were you.
Oooh thank you Hamilton. :- )
She really means “reduce” doesn’t she? It will reduce access (and so harm women who need it).
Why do some locutions sound more blunt to us, while others sound evasive or obtuse? I’ve attended linguistics conferences for a long time, and this is an essential question. I can’t say I can explain it definitively.
Some experts are focusing on just how much our expectations inform how we perceive someone’s use of language. I.e., if my expectation is that Secretary Sebelius is going to try to spin me or obfuscate, then I’m going to be more vigilant about “catching” her using language in this way—using “negatively impact” rather than “harm,” etc.—but if it’s someone else, I might not even notice. Or if I do notice, I might rationalize it. Or when I’m really not paying attention, I might do it myself. That’s the real kicker—how often do we commit our language pet peeves ourselves?! (I know I do.) Orwell gives us 6 rules for writing in his essay “Politics and the English Language”—but he then very quickly concedes that’s he’s no doubt violated the rules in that very same essay! Smart fella.
I wish I could agree, Ophelia and Josh, because I dislike the use of the verb to mean “affect”. But the verb predates the noun. It derives from the Latin verb “impingere” (past participle “impactus”). OED gives 1601 as the date of the earliest recorded instance of “impacted”, and says that the English verb derives from this (presumably as a back-formation). The earliest record of what I take to be the precursor of the meaning we don’t like (“make impact with” – note wording) is 1916. The noun, on the other hand, is formed from the verb, earliest known instance 1781, and as it already had this meaning (“collision”) it’s not very surprising that the verb should be used in the same sense. “Affect” (“have an impact on”) is a natural development of this, and I doubt whether there’s a lot that can be done about it.
On the other hand, “negatively impact” is objectionable, not only because it avoids precision (and thus leaves people with nothing to go on), but because it is pretentious and alienating. Insulting on all counts, in fact.
Josh, the reason I mentioned Nero Wolfe was his blistering diatribe against Webster’s “new” dictionary endorsing the use of the word “impact” as a verb. That story was from the 1940’s, if I remember correctly, so it’s been around a few more than 5 years.
Nero also hated the word “flammable” — although he grudgingly accepted it as an invention necessary for the safety of children and illiterates.
“In the language of the bourgeoisie, the grandeur of the words is in direct proportion to the pettiness of the sentiments.” Edmond de Goncourt
I am not certain that this is true of Secretary Sibelius, but it did seem apt to a discussion of tarting up language in order to make the ordinary more impressive.
Gordon – well I knew it was a verb of sorts, but I thought it was one with a very narrow meaning – as in impacted wisdom tooth. But if it goes all the way back to 1916, I should just get used to it. But I probably can’t at this point – it’s fingernails on blackboard.
I know one thing: whatever Andy says, I would never fail to notice it. Other things yes, but that – impossible.
There’s a very good show on NPR – yes really! a good show on NPR! I haven’t said that in years – called A Way With Words, I think; a couple of linguists sitting around talking. They have a nice compromise: you can’t say X isn’t a word when it’s in common use and widely understood, but you don’t have to like it, much less use it. The example at issue was “irregardless.” The thing is, they said (one of them said) it’s pretty much universal, and highly literate educated people use it. I don’t think that’s true. I never see it or hear it used by highly literate educated people. The reason is probably that it’s obvious what’s wrong with the word. Anyway I think that was just a mistake. I thought I would mention it.
Oddly enough, Ophelia, I always associate “impacted” with the phrase “impacted molar”. Dentists must have used it a lot, at one time (probably 1849 or something – I often feel that where usage is concerned I’m perpetually catching up!) I now make it a rule that any word or usage new to me has probably been around for at least 50 years. I could go on and on about this, so perhaps I’d better shut up. However, I can truthfully say, with hand on heart and absolutely no fingers crossed, that until I read your post just now I had never heard of “irregardless”. Sounds terrible. I really, really hope it is not even common. Universal? Mercy, please!
I think you’re all being way too irreimpacted about these gnarmless words.
Using ‘impact’ to mean ‘affect’ and ’cause’ to mean ‘effect’ seems like progress to me. Less confusion and fewer chances for students to be shocked into apathy by mind-numbing homophones and near synonyms. My physics brain is still upset that affect and effect are considered to have differing definitions. After all every reaction requires an action, thus that which is affected is also effected, and vice versa.
/endrant
Well, I stand educated about the use of impact as a verb (outside of the dental context, which is the only one I knew existed before this popular travesty). I had no idea what a long and vulgar history it had, and I’m the sadder for that knowledge. It does seem, though, that it really took off and became universal in the past five years or so. But, my experience is short compared to those of you with decades more of it than I have. When did you start noticing it?
I don’t care how many people use it; I don’t care about the date of the earliest dictionary citation. I hates it precious. Hates it.
Wait, Ophelia. . the Brits are eschewing the subjunctive? Really? They’re more likely to say, “If I was a rich guy, I would have done it perfect?” Oh dear lord. I thought this was a stupid Americanism.
“Irregardless.” No. No. No. No. No educated person or anyone of even ordinary linguistic competence says that. No. These kinds of language pecadillos make me insanely angry; out of proportion to the crime. I get almost as flushed over these as I do about actual crimes. Can’t help it. Makes me want to slap the living shit out of people who utter them, and I’m the kind of guy who wouldn’t strike someone under any but the most dire circumstances.
Much as I dislike ‘impact’ as a verb, I find ‘action’ worse. As in ‘We’ll get this actioned’ (because ‘done’ implies a greater level of commitment to actually, you know, doing it.Something I first encountered about 10 years ago – though that might only be because that’s when I first fell down the rabbit-hole that is the world of work.
Well Josh, I finally threw Webster’s out when, several years ago, it included “irregardless” as an acceptable alternate for “regardless”. It’s claims to be a dictionary irrevocably refuted.
I recall attending a meeting once in the UK and being handed a form to play “wank word bingo”……do the Brits still play that, I wonder? I hope so
So, it sounds more official (much obfuscation does – but that may be confusing chicken/egg), but would you say it’s because with “harm” the value judgment is explicit, wheras “negatively impact” is one step removed?
Josh – heh – yes – the Brits are damn near allergic to the subjunctive. Even Hitchens will say “if I was.” As for the present subjunctive – that’s right out. Some Brits actually call that “the American subjunctive.” So you have to say “it is important that she is there” not “it is important that she be there.” That’s idiotic because the first doesn’t mean the second, but it’s treated as if it did, which can be confusing.
Gordon – quite! I really don’t think “irregardless” is common…but these linguists insisted that it is. Maybe it’s regional or occupational or something.
Sometimes, you have to admit, new usages of an old word do perform a valuable service to humanity. For example: “I gifted him with ten gift certificates for a free Brazilian wax.” In the olden days when there was no verb corresponding to the noun “gift”, we would have had to say something much more clumsy. So perhaps we should be more accepting of these linguistic innovations, as without them there would be no forward progress.