Blog

If you are looking for any business-writing course, UK specialists Emphasis can almost certainly help you.

Archive for the ‘Choose your words wisely’ Category

All together or altogether?

Posted by Catie Holdridge

It would be easy to imagine that these words represent an evolution: two words becoming one. In fact, they have distinct meanings. Here’s how to keep each in its place.

Altogether can mean entirely, utterly or completely; on the whole; or with everything included:
That’s a different point altogether.
Altogether the meeting was a success.
You owe ÂŁ500 altogether.

All together means in or as a group (a physical or conceptual one), collectively; or in one place:
Let’s sing our office theme song: all together now!
Once everyone’s ideas were in, we were able to bring it all together.
We’re all together in this.

A good way to test which version you want is to see if you can put another word (or words) between the all and the together.

Are we altogether convinced we’re all in this together?

Now that’s clear, take a moment to enjoy what, surely, is the best example of people altogether confused over which is which.

<<Read the May 2012 e-bulletin

Helicopter parents, noobs and brain candy

Posted by em-admin

As a new year begins, you can’t help but look back on the one just passed: its gains and losses, its highs and lows, the memorable moments and those best forgotten.

So why not do the same for the words and terms that entered our lives – or at least the dictionaries – in 2011?* You can make your own mind up about which of those categories these words fall into, but – more to the point – can you pick the correct definition for each from the choices below?

1. boomerang child




2. helicopter parent




3. robocall




4. brain candy




5. noob




6. mumpreneur




7. mamil




8. emberrorist




9. foodoir




10. nurdle






Let us know how you got on. Have you used any of the terms? (We’ve already heard from a keen cricketer about an alternative meaning for one of them.) If not, will you be adding any of them to your vocabulary? And which ones (if any) are you hoping to forget long before the year is out?

* Words taken from 2011 entries in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Concise Oxford English Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary

And if that’s put you in a quizzing mood, why not pit yourself against our fiendish spelling test?

<<Read the February 2012 e-bulletin

Easy on the adjectives

Posted by Catie Holdridge

New research suggests that if you want your writing to be shared online then overusing adjectives is not wise, advisable, judicious, big or clever. [Mental note: should probably edit this.]

The findings come from social media scientist Dan Zarrella, who aims – in his book Zarrella’s Hierarchy of Contagiousness – to demystify social media marketing for the masses.

After examining how often online content was shared, he came to one definite conclusion: the less complex the language, the more likely it was to be passed on. And, after studying which types of words were the most mobile, he found the biggest no-nos were adjectives and adverbs.

This is actually a good tip for just about any writing. It’s easy to imagine that cramming in adjectives will give your writing colour or help create more vivid images in your reader’s mind. But more often than not they do just the opposite, and merely add clutter that slows your reader down.

Fledgling fiction writers are taught to adopt the lotus position and chant the mantra ‘show, don’t tell’ over and over until their posture is perfect and they never want to overdo the adjectives and adverbs again. But this advice – evidently – isn’t only for creative writing.

It’s much better to choose verbs (the most-shared word type) and nouns that work hard, rather than using adjectives or adverbs as crutches for your writing to hobble along on. The finished piece will be tighter and more expressive for it. For example, instead of ran quickly, how about sprinted? Or bounded? See how either could replace the phrase, but each gives a very different – and more distinct – mental image?

Sometimes adjectives are simply redundant. Forward planning, for example. Is anyone out there still planning what to do yesterday? Have a look at these (genuine) examples and spot the pointless words:

Teen dies after fatal stabbing

Gunned down by armed rebels

A visual treat for the eyes

Ill-chosen adjectives can also lead to unintentional silliness (which can be delightful – for everyone but the writer):

Stiff opposition expected to casket-less funeral plan

Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25

This isn’t to say that all adjectives should be banned on pain of death. Mark Twain put it nicely, if you’ll forgive the adverb: ‘When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don’t mean utterly, but kill most of them – then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart.’

Perhaps it’s worth thinking of them like magnets: repellent together, useful kept apart, and not recommended anywhere near computers.

<<Read the February 2012 e-bulletin

Women too apologetic in the boardroom

Posted by Catie Holdridge

The language women use in meetings could be holding them back in business, according to new research.

The study, an 18-month long examination of the speaking patterns of men and women within seven major companies, was run by applied linguistics lecturer Dr Judith Baxter.

The biggest difference Dr Baxter noticed between the sexes was women’s tendency to use humour, self-deprecation and apologetic language, apparently to avoid conflict. Indeed, they were found to be four times more likely to employ these techniques than men, who tended to be more direct and openly confrontational. And this could be undermining their own authority and making them look weak and defensive. ‘[Women] have to work really hard to hit the right note with their colleagues,’ says Dr Baxter. ‘I have seen a woman use all the wrong linguistic strategies, and she lost the room.’

This problematic habit occurs most, it seems, where women feel particularly outnumbered by men in meetings. And given that only 12.5 per cent of FTSE-100 company board members are women, the issue looks to have the makings of a vicious circle.

Idioms don’t travel well

Posted by Catie Holdridge

When writing anything for a global audience, it’s best to leave idioms out of it.

Idioms are groups of words whose meaning is usually metaphorical and cannot necessarily be deduced from looking at each component word. Unsurprisingly, this can make them problematic for anyone who may be attempting to translate word by word. What might you make of these turns of phrase?

Spanish: I have an aunt who plays the guitar. (Yo tengo una tĂ­a que toca la guitarra.)
French: It’s the end of the beans! (C’est la fin des haricots!)
Arabic: The sky doesn’t throw chicks. (El samaa la tohadef katakeet.)
Spanish: To leave Guatemala and arrive in worse cornstalks. (Salir de Guatemala y meterse en guatepeor.)

[You’ll find the answers at the foot of this blog post.]

Talking nonsense

Not that English idioms are any more sensible. On the face of it, there’s no obvious reason why feline nightwear (‘It’s the cat’s pyjamas’, for our readers who speak English as a second language) should indicate the highest of standards. Nor is it clear why a taut top lip (‘Keep a stiff upper lip’) is a desirable feature in the face of adversity.

Every country has its own idioms, which tend to reflect back on the culture they come from. Spend long enough studying translations and you might be able to hazard a guess at the meaning of other countries’ sayings, and sometimes, find the odd crossover.

Spanish: Everyone has their own way to kill fleas. (Cada quien tiene su manera de matar pulgas.)
English: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
German: From a mosquito make an elephant. (Aus einer MĂźcke einen Elefanten machen.)
English: Make a mountain out of a molehill.

The question is: do you want or expect your reader to take that time? Can you be sure they won’t dismiss your communication as gibberish rather than work out you don’t want them literally to push an envelope, put a project in their bed or extract something from a horse’s mouth?

Don’t make work for your reader

And much of the time, we don’t even know where our own language’s idioms came from, or why they mean what they do. We use them based on the context we’ve heard them in and out of habit. Little wonder, then, that they so easily trip up international readers.

In the UK, we may talk of ‘taking a rain check’. But how many of us know the expression is borrowed from baseball in the US, where a ‘rain check’ is the receipt from a ticket, which may be reused if rain prevents play?

Let’s get literal

So let’s not beat around the bush. When writing for global audiences, being as literal as possible is the best method by a long chalk. Anything else just won’t cut the mustard.

Answers:
What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
That’s the last straw!
Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Medicine labels unclear

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Writing messages that are effective for all your readers is not as easy as it may first seem. New research shows that patients may be risking their health because warning labels on medications are not clear enough.

The researchers, led by Professor Theo Raynor at the University of Leeds, found that phrases like ‘may cause drowsiness’ weren’t fully understood. After testing such typical phrases on their 200 volunteers, they concluded that many of them were too vague to be effective.

An instruction such as ‘avoid alcohol’ probably seemed unambiguous to the person who wrote it. But the scientists found that many patients thought this meant merely ‘reduce alcohol’. After presenting the participants with rewritten alternatives, the team deemed that only the very specific ‘do not drink alcohol while taking this medicine’ left no room for misinterpretation.

The results feature in a report published in the British National Formulary, which advises doctors, nurses and pharmacists. This could mean there will soon be increased clarity where it is obviously sorely needed. And perhaps that we should all re-examine our own writing to ensure the message we write has the best chance of being the message our readers receive.

Well, we know it’s big

Posted by Catie Holdridge

David Cameron has referred to it as his ‘mission’ and his ‘passion’, but it does seem that very few people are entirely sure what the ‘Big Society’ is actually all about.

This isn’t too surprising when even those well and truly behind the idea are not helping matters. Phillip Blond, director of the think tank ResPublica, and – according to the Telegraph – ‘a driving force behind David Cameron’s “Big Society” agenda’, has argued the case for the policy in the Independent. He guides the people thus:

‘Public sector mutualisation and budgetary takeover by citizens of the state is a crucial initial phase in endowing ordinary citizens with the power to ensure that the services they run are operated in a way that combines public interest with economic efficiency and localised employee ownership building in all the gains that this model delivers.’

Writing this convoluted and opaque will do very little to clarify the concept for the ‘ordinary citizens’ it claims to want to empower. In relation to this, one letter to the Independent quoted Nobel prize-winner Peter Medawar: ‘People who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief’. The writer then commented: ‘I don’t think Mr Blond is unskilled in writing.’

If Cameron and co. are to defend the ‘Big Society’ as more than (as some rumours have it) a slightly sinister cover for the cuts, they need to put away the thesaurus and use considerably fewer big words.

Word choice betrays your personality

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Whatever online persona you may have chosen to adopt in your blog, your deepest personality traits may be given away by your choice of words, a new study has found.

The specific words bloggers use relate to which of the ‘big five’ personality factors dominates in that person. These factors are: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

For the highly neurotic, the most commonly used words were: ‘awful’, ‘though’, ‘lazy’, ‘worse’ and ‘depressing’; while with wild-child extroverts, ‘bar’, ‘other’, ‘drinks’, ‘restaurant’ and ‘dancing’ kept cropping up. Agreeable people happily repeated ‘wonderful’, ‘together’, ‘visiting’, ‘morning’ and ‘spring’, while the conscientious made sure to reiterate ‘completed’, ‘adventure’, ‘stupid’, ‘boring’ and ‘adventures’. For open types, ‘folk’, ‘humans’, ‘of’, ‘poet’ and ‘art’ appeared most often.

The research project – run by Tal Yarkoni, a psychology and neuroscience postdoctoral fellow at the University of Colorado at Boulder – is one of the largest conducted examining the connection between writing and personality.

Thanks to bloggers’ typically prodigious outpourings, Yarkoni had around 115,000 words from each of the 700 or so participants. This larger-than-usual sample meant that the research could go beyond broad topics focused on, and look at particular words that recur.

The results suggest we can’t completely separate our online and offline selves, however much you might want to maintain a particular facade of yourself. And this is hardly surprising, says Yarkoni: ‘Our personalities don’t dramatically change just because we’ve turned on our computers.’

Still, at the very least, it’s probably best to try to keep work and business blogging separate, no matter how lazy, awful and depressing you may find your boss.

The slang debate

Posted by Catie Holdridge

When actress Emma Thompson warned teenagers against using slang on a recent visit to her former school, she probably didn’t expect to spark a debate. But spark one she did.

It was, apparently, the ‘likes’, ‘innits?’ and ‘it ain’ts’ she heard bouncing around the Camden School for Girls, Thompson’s alma mater, which drove her ‘insane’. She told the students: ‘Don’t do it because it makes you sound stupid and you’re not stupid.’

You’re missing the point, the opposing side promptly retorted. The kids are all right. It’s the moaning adults’ attitudes that need to change. ‘Complaints about the standard of English [...] have gone on for hundreds of years,’ points out Raphael Salkie, a professor of language studies at the University of Brighton. ‘There never was a golden age when everyone used English properly.’

And, while Salkie admits Thompson and her critiquing ilk are in highly esteemed company – John Milton, Jonathan Swift and George Orwell to name a few – they are merely ‘middle-aged grumps’ who are ‘wallowing in nostalgia’. But they are, he says, pining for a time that never really existed.

Yet even taking this into account, another of Thompson’s points bears repeating – one on the importance of understanding the context in which you speak: ‘There is a necessity to have two languages – one you use with your mates and the other that you need in any official capacity.’

Well, that’s a different point entirely, isn’t it? Not just slashing a big red line through any and all slang, but knowing when to use a different language. And that’s something we all do every day. It’s unlikely you use the exact same vocabulary at home as you do in a board meeting, or when out on the town.

To many, the word ‘slang’ might have only negative connotations. But David Crystal, former professor of linguistics at the University of Reading, merely defines it as, ‘informal, non-standard vocabulary’, or ‘the jargon of a special group’. So slang is not just a way for young’uns to separate themselves from their elders; it’s also a way for them to show unity with their peers. And, of course, it can do this for any age – or even any class.

Problems could perhaps arise if the speaker couldn’t understand the line between social contexts – and the vocabularies that should accompany different situations.

Interestingly, a study by the Cambridge Assessment Group in 2005 found that GCSE pupil’s literacy was dramatically higher than it had been ten years before, despite the fact that they used more slang. Students used a wider vocabulary, more accurate punctuation and more complex sentences; but they also used more colloquialisms, text message symbols and non-standard English, like double negatives. This was the case even among those receiving the highest grades.

Of course, the perception in the world beyond the classroom is often that using non-standard English is sloppy and a sign of poor literacy. While a teacher may award a high grade in spite of the use of slang and suchlike, it is likely someone using similar language in the workplace would do less well. Potential employers probably wouldn’t read beyond the first ‘gr8’ in a CV, and the rest of the content – however impressive – would be lost.

Cambridge Assessment Group ran another study on teenagers’ ability to recognise non-standard English in 2010. It found that although GCSE pupils’ rates of identifying and correcting non-standard English were ‘quite high’, fewer than six in ten of them recognised that ‘off of’ and ‘she was stood’ were grammatically incorrect. Perhaps more worryingly, almost three in ten didn’t flag up ‘should of’.

But do we expect this to be something they’ll grow out of? Or should we bring back more rigidly taught grammar lessons in school?

The great slang debate may never go away – perhaps because it is endlessly recycled: yesterday’s teens could well be tomorrow’s curmudgeons. Or, is this in fact more than ‘middle-aged’ moaning? What do you think?

Advertising for accuracy

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Cadbury’s Dairy Milk wrappers will no longer bear the long-standing slogan, ‘a glass and a half of full-cream milk’. Instead the less-than-lyrical – but doubtless much more scientifically accurate – ‘the equivalent of 426ml of fresh liquid milk in every 227g of milk chocolate’ will appear in its place.

The makers have clearly picked up on the growing tide of bafflement and rage among the British public at the sheer incongruity of the statement. After all, how the heck did they get a whole glass and a half of milk into one of those little fun-size bars?  ‘The phrase didn’t make sense if the pack stated the bar weighs 49g or 230g,’ a spokesman rightly pointed out.

As yet, Cadbury’s bid for swear-on-a-Bible type honesty won’t actually affect their advertising campaigns. But could those be next?

And what could this mean for other well-known slogans?…

Thank Crunchie it’s Friday, though neither Crunchie nor Cadbury’s can take credit or responsibility for the natural passage of time.

Mr Kipling doesn’t technically make exceedingly good cakes because he is a fictitious, never-seen character created for marketing purposes.

In all honesty, there are times when I wouldn’t rather have a bowl of Coco Pops.

Utterly accurate or not, you can’t help but hope advertisers decide to stick to using a little bit of artistic licence. Because they’re worth it.