Comments on: In Defense of Jargon http://blog.shoap.com/2007/12/06/in-defense-of-jargon/ Shoap Technical Services on technical writing, business, and technology Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:37:20 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Shaun http://blog.shoap.com/2007/12/06/in-defense-of-jargon/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Shaun Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:37:20 +0000 http://blog.shoap.com/2007/12/06/in-defense-of-jargon/#comment-68 Steve, thanks for the great comment. You're right that my example phrase could actually be meaningful to some people, but that doesn't make it more valuable. "Leveraging synergistic best practices" doesn't pack any extra meaning into the phrases because it doesn't pack in any specifics. You could rephrase it in plain English to a much stronger effect without bumping up your word count much. In fact, your plain English example was far more powerful. The whole purpose of using a phrase like that is at best to be isolating, at worst to obfuscate the writer's ignorance. On the other hand, if we build on my technical jargon example a little bit, I could say that "We're going to convert our backend to an SOA based on RESTful APIs." And while that is also isolating to the layperson who has no clue what it means, it serves a purpose because it packs in a ton of specifics to the intended audience. The intent here is not isolate or obfuscate; the intent is efficiency of communications. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that rampant overuse compounds the problem. I know I turn off immediately when I hear someone say we're going to leverage anything. So, while "leveraging synergistic best practices" certainly can mean something, my question is what benefit do you get when you could easily say the same thing in plain English to better effect? I'd still contend that corporate jargon of that sort serves no real benefit except to identify the speaker as a member of the club. As you say, "When the giants speak among themselves, they often use a little jargon." Steve, thanks for the great comment. You’re right that my example phrase could actually be meaningful to some people, but that doesn’t make it more valuable. “Leveraging synergistic best practices” doesn’t pack any extra meaning into the phrases because it doesn’t pack in any specifics. You could rephrase it in plain English to a much stronger effect without bumping up your word count much. In fact, your plain English example was far more powerful. The whole purpose of using a phrase like that is at best to be isolating, at worst to obfuscate the writer’s ignorance.

On the other hand, if we build on my technical jargon example a little bit, I could say that “We’re going to convert our backend to an SOA based on RESTful APIs.” And while that is also isolating to the layperson who has no clue what it means, it serves a purpose because it packs in a ton of specifics to the intended audience. The intent here is not isolate or obfuscate; the intent is efficiency of communications.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that rampant overuse compounds the problem. I know I turn off immediately when I hear someone say we’re going to leverage anything. So, while “leveraging synergistic best practices” certainly can mean something, my question is what benefit do you get when you could easily say the same thing in plain English to better effect? I’d still contend that corporate jargon of that sort serves no real benefit except to identify the speaker as a member of the club. As you say, “When the giants speak among themselves, they often use a little jargon.”

]]> By: Strong Language http://blog.shoap.com/2007/12/06/in-defense-of-jargon/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Strong Language Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:25:18 +0000 http://blog.shoap.com/2007/12/06/in-defense-of-jargon/#comment-53 I'm in full agreement . . . almost. Your main points are exactly right. But even a phrase like “leveraging synergistic best practices going forward” can have a specific meaning to a specific audience. For example, I write corpcom (now that's jargon!) for a Fortune 500 company recently acquired by a Global 500 company. When the giants speak between themselves, they often use a little jargon. To simplify a complex business model, what the acquirer bought was synergies. One example is the acquired company's metalcasting expertise and capabilities, which fill a strategic gap in the acquirer's global chain. Some of the acquired company's best practices relate to those synergies. And those will be leveraged going forward, or a few billion bucks will have been wasted. Of course any idiot can string the words together -- Dilbert used to run a great "mission statement generator" that would do it for you -- and rampant overuse compounds the problem. But I can see such a phrase in a C-level communication, and not just to obfuscate the writer's ignorance. But otherwise -- well said. I’m in full agreement . . . almost.

Your main points are exactly right. But even a phrase like “leveraging synergistic best practices going forward” can have a specific meaning to a specific audience.

For example, I write corpcom (now that’s jargon!) for a Fortune 500 company recently acquired by a Global 500 company. When the giants speak between themselves, they often use a little jargon.

To simplify a complex business model, what the acquirer bought was synergies. One example is the acquired company’s metalcasting expertise and capabilities, which fill a strategic gap in the acquirer’s global chain.

Some of the acquired company’s best practices relate to those synergies. And those will be leveraged going forward, or a few billion bucks will have been wasted.

Of course any idiot can string the words together — Dilbert used to run a great “mission statement generator” that would do it for you — and rampant overuse compounds the problem.

But I can see such a phrase in a C-level communication, and not just to obfuscate the writer’s ignorance.

But otherwise — well said.

]]>