I was rereading Getting
to Yes, the classic on negotiation from Roger Fischer and William Ury, when
I came upon this wonderfully nuanced sentence: “You will have not only a
strong interest in affecting any
agreement you reach, but also one in effecting
an agreement.” [italics authors’] What a difference a letter makes, I thought,
and what a fine-tuned distinction.
A
moment later, though, it struck me that, in the not too distant future, that
sentence may be not admirable, but incomprehensible. (Compare for example, this sentence: “She was a buxom maid, but I determined
that her homely sister would make me a much better wife.” A few centuries ago, any reader would
have realized that the speaker was not referring to the torso of one lady or
the face of the other, but rather to one’s lively, cheerful disposition and the
other’s domestic skills.)
The
villain in the piece is, of course, impact. Technically, impact first meant “to pack together,” or “to
strike against, collide.” This is
why we still say, “the passengers died upon impact.” It also had two very special use: bones and especially teeth are impacted when they are jammed together in a way requiring surgical
intervention, and impact wrenches combine torque with car-crash force. These are the only definitions accepted
by the 1971 American Heritage, for example, nor is any sense of affect for
impact mentioned in the OED.
With
almost unimaginable speed, however, impact became, first a noun for the effect
on something, and then a verb for affecting something. The Free Online Dictionary notes that
as recently as 2001, 80-85% of its usage panel objected to impact as a verb
meaning affect. Now, in the mere space of a decade, the dictionary concedes
“the verbal use of impact has become
so common in the working language of corporations and institutions that many
speakers have begun to regard it as standard.”
I
am a descriptive linguist. I
believe that a word means what its users mean by it. I am sad, for example, that “gay” has a
new meaning that makes lines like “Glitter and be Gay” from Bernstein’s Candide strike the ear a bit oddly,
but I can accept the new meaning, because it gives us a simple and
judgment-free word for the clinical label formerly employed to marginalize a
group of people. After all, trying
to prevent language changing is exactly like King Cnut sitting by the shore and
commanding the oncoming tides not to wet his robes.
Yet
when a word change costs us something in specificity and nuance, I retain the
right to object, however futilely.
Impact not only seems to me a lazy way to avoid learning the distinction
between affect and effect (a problem enhanced by psychology’s cooption of
affect to mean the physical expression of one’s emotions). It is also a matter of lost
connotation. Impact, after all, always meant something bad. No couple ever ran towards each other
and kissed upon impact. No
returning soldier was ever impacted by a spouse’s or child’s hug.
Things
now not only impact, they impact on, and are impactful. We have businesses named “Impact Racing
“ (helmets for potential collisions), Impact Supplies (cleaning, maintenance
and safety supplies?), and Impact Guns (I’ll let that that one pass). Does the word merely appeal to our
desire to avoid complicated distinctions? Or is it a sign of our penchant for
the violent, the aggressive, the biggest bang for the buck? (A feminist
colleague of mine once stopped a speaker who had used that cliché with the
announcement, “that metaphor is either military or sexual, and in either case,
I object.”)
I
doubt this screed will impact upon impact’s impactful impact on our language,
but I persevere in the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s most misunderstood
observation: “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to
function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
I
promise no more linguistic curmudgeonry for at least a month.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
No comments:
Post a Comment