983. This week, we explore "skunked" words — terms going through hotly disputed meaning changes. We look at the debate between prescriptivists who stick to traditional meanings and descriptivists who accept new usages and what you should do with these words in your own writing. Plus, we learn how using "we" versus "I" alters perceptions of leadership, inclusivity, and status.
983. This week, we explore "skunked" words — terms going through hotly disputed meaning changes. We look at the debate between prescriptivists who stick to traditional meanings and descriptivists who accept new usages and what you should do with these words in your own writing. Plus, we learn how using "we" versus "I" alters perceptions of leadership, inclusivity, and status.
The "skunked words" segment was written by Mignon Fogarty and Susan K. Herman. Susan is a retired multidisciplined language analyst, analytic editor, and instructor for the federal government.
The pronoun segment was written by Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno and the author of "Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English." A version of the piece originally appeared on Psychology Today, and you can find her at valeriefridland.com.
| Edited transcript with links: https://grammar-girl.simplecast.com/episodes/skunked/transcript
| Please take our advertising survey. It helps! https://podsurvey.com/GRAMMAR
| Grammarpalooza (Get texts from Mignon!): https://joinsubtext.com/grammar or text "hello" to (917) 540-0876.
| Subscribe to the newsletter for regular updates.
| Watch my LinkedIn Learning writing courses.
| HOST: Mignon Fogarty
| VOICEMAIL: 833-214-GIRL (833-214-4475).
| Grammar Girl is part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network.
| Theme music by Catherine Rannus.
| Grammar Girl Social Media Links: YouTube. TikTok. Facebook. Instagram. LinkedIn. Mastodon.
Grammar Girl here. I’m Mignon Fogarty, your friendly guide to the English language. We talk about writing, history, rules, and other cool stuff. Today, we'll talk about smelly skunked words and how you can use pronouns to be more persuasive.
by Susan Herman and Mignon Fogarty
As we've discussed many times, language is constantly changing, and one phenomenon that shines a light on language change is the "skunking" of words. Do you get your knickers in a knot when someone uses a word in a way that doesn't match its original meaning or when someone uses a word that sounds old fashioned? Well, it's probably because that word has been skunked.
The term "skunked" was introduced by lexicographer Bryan A. Garner in his book Garner's Modern American Usage, where he describes a skunked word as one whose meaning is going through a change that is hotly disputed. Words change or take on new meanings all the time without any problems, but skunked words are something different.
Prescriptivists – those who stand by the traditional usage of language and its rules – typically hold firm to the original meaning of skunked terms, while descriptivists – those who are more progressive and accepting of new usages – are more likely to welcome their new meanings. As an article in Thebettereditor of New England blog notes, during the transition, the "skunked" term "… may smell bad to both sides."
For example, the very first word Garner labeled as skunked was "hopefully," which originally was an adverb meaning "with hope," as in "Squiggly waited hopefully for a piece of chocolate" (with "hopefully" modifying the verb "waited"). But way back in 1702, someone used it to mean "I hope" to modify a whole sentence, as in "Hopefully, chocolate will be on sale soon." That use has grown ever since, and linguistic sticklers who don't like it have been impressively resistant to giving up the fight.
Today, even though nearly all style guides and dictionaries include the "I hope" meaning for "hopefully," Garner continues to call it skunked and recommends against it, but also acknowledges that "hopefully" to mean "it is hoped" or "let's hope" is "now part of American English and has all but lost its traditional meaning." Given that statement, it's actually surprising he still calls it skunked because by his own definition, it doesn't seem to fit anymore.
The other words Garner calls skunked, though, more clearly fall into the unsettled phase of a meaning transition including "data" (which was originally plural but is now often used as singular), "decimate" (which originally meant to kill one in ten, but is now often used to mean simply massive killing or destruction), "enormity" (which originally meant "great wickedness," but is now often used to refer to something vastly huge), and "fulsome" (which originally meant "copious," in a neutral sense, but is now often used to mean "excessively flattering or insincerely earnest").
With all these terms, you could get grief for using them, or people may not understand your meaning however you use them, making them problematic for professional writing. Sometimes, you just can't win!
Other words lexicographers have called out as skunked include "bemused" (which traditionally means "confused" or "bewildered," even though many people today use it to mean "amused") and "nonplussed" (which traditionally meant "to baffle or confuse," and is now increasingly being used to mean "unfazed"). There's something especially funny about people being confused about the meaning of words that originally meant "confused"! Nevertheless, the confusion is so widespread that these words have generally been skunked, meaning it's best to avoid them, especially in writing.
You may have noticed that most of these aren't the most common words we use, and being uncommon is something that sometimes seems to help a word get skunked. One example Garner highlights is "effete," which traditionally meant "worn out or exhausted," but came to be used to mean "sophisticated or snobbish" after Vice President Spiro Agnew popularized that meaning in the phrase "effete corps of impudent snobs." This originally mistaken meaning probably gained traction from the rhyme between "effete" and "elite." Dictionaries list both meanings today, but there's also a third meaning becoming common that isn't in dictionaries yet: "effeminate," again probably because of the similar sounds. If you use "effete" and the context isn't clear, people may misinterpret your meaning, so it's best to avoid it for now. It's skunked until people agree on its meaning (if they ever do).
Skunking can happen quickly or gradually. Garner says, "It might take ten years or a hundred," but it is still temporary. During that time, the old-school and new-school camps battle it out in academia, writing, and on social media. The new usage is deemed "wrong" by the first camp, and the old usage seems "weird" to the second.
To add to the conundrum, editor Erin Brenner cautions us in an article for Visual Thesaurus that "words in the middle of a meaning change aren't the only ones at risk of being 'skunked.' Those only perceived to be going through a meaning change can become victims, as well."
An example is "literally." Many would say it reeks, given its newer, colloquial usage meaning, well, "figuratively," as in "I literally died laughing." But did you know it's been used in that sense since 1769? As Brenner points out, it "isn't in the middle of a change, but it has carried an unpleasant odor about it for over 100 years now that hasn't dissipated with time."
So what happens when a word smells so bad no one can agree on its usage? Well, sometimes it gets "bleached"! In his interview with Rob Watts of RobWords on YouTube, Merriam-Webster lexicographer Peter Sokolowski describes the infamous "literally" as an example of not only skunking but "semantic bleaching," which, he defines as "when a word loses some of its meaning or has been diluted through a change in usage."
Let's look at the sentence "I literally died laughing" again. According to Sokolowski, the words "died" and "laughing" carry the meaning of the sentence, so "literally" has been "bleached." "Literally" literally isn't necessary to understand the sentence.
So what's more important? The origin of words or common usage? After all, language is about communication, and if common usage overwhelmingly sways one way, we start to use it to be understood. Remember: language is always evolving, and the goal of modern dictionaries is to describe how language is actually used, not just how it should be used. As Watts emphasizes, "Words DO matter: Do they mean the same thing to the person saying them as to the person who is hearing them?"
And that's the problem with skunked terms. You can't be sure the person hearing them will think they mean the same thing you think they mean. These terms just aren't to the point yet where you can always use them clearly, regardless of their original or more modern meaning. Plus, some readers may even view your use as an error, which can hurt your credibility.
All of this doesn't mean, though, that you should never use skunked terms. If you're fairly certain your audience only uses these words one way, go for it. And they're also fine in informal, colloquial speech or writing, and fiction, where you may even want the ambiguity or tone such words convey. Skunked words actually get used all the time, and their meanings can be explained. Just navigate the skunks in the road carefully!
That segment was co-written by Susan K. Herman and me. Susan is a retired multidisciplined language analyst, analytic editor, and instructor for the federal government.
by Valerie Fridland
How we use pronouns has long been at the crux of heated debate and social reform — not only in how we talk about gender, but also in what they reveal about how we relate to each other.
By looking at what pronouns people use in a variety of high-stakes situations, psychologists and linguists have discovered that the pronouns we use reveal a lot about how we express power and social status.
For example, looking at the way higher status people and lower status people use pronouns when they're talking at work, psychologist James Pennebaker and his colleagues found that people who took on leadership roles used fewer first-person singular words (so less "I," "me," and "my") and more plural words (so more "we," "our," and "they"), while those in subordinate roles used the singular words more.
This may seem surprising when you first hear it, since "I" might seem like the ultimate power word — as in “I expect” or “I need.” But as anyone trying to effectively parent or supervise has learned, telling someone what they need to do by couching it in termsin it terms of what you want rarely works. Instead, to build a team, to motivate people, you have to convince people you're in it together and that it benefits them as well as you. So, welcome to the world of "we" and "us," rather than "I."
Since using "we" more than "I" seems to carry with it a sense of collective experience and a correlation with leadership, politicians have, not surprisingly, also jumped on that rhetorical bandwagon.
A study that examined campaign speeches of Australian Prime Minister candidates found that the winning candidates used more inclusive "we" and "us" pronouns than those who lost in 80% of all elections. What's more, a series of data analyses for the "Language Log" blog run by the University of Pennsylvania Professor Mark Liberman found that there has been a clear increase in the first person plural pronouns — again, "we" and "us" — across presidential State of the Union addresses since World War II.
This research suggests that we prefer leaders whose language suggests they see themselves as "one of us" and that they socially identify as part of a collective rather than leaders who set themselves apart by using pronouns that refer to themselves a lot. But this tendency to favor political leaders who prioritize social connectedness rather than exceptionality and unique experience does not seem to have always been the case, since the pattern only emerged in the last century.
Of course, first-person pronoun use ("I" or "me") isn't negative; it may simply reflect a status difference or an awareness of the language that you need to use to get things done in different contexts. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of how the way we use pronouns comes across.
When we have to manage people and achieve group goals, whether in a boardroom or as a family unit, we tend to start using words that signal inclusivity and highlight connectedness. In contrast, when we're trying to please someone who has higher status than we do or when we're more focused on a specific role we’re performing, we use more “I” words—as in “I did X” or “I am trying to Y.”
And not all "I" is created equally, as Dr. Pennebaker’s work suggests — sometimes "I" can express narcissism (as in "I need" or "I want X"), but just as often it can also express politeness or softening (as in "I hope" or "I think X"), which we often have to do when we're in less powerful positions.
Likewise, the "we" pronoun can also be used in ways that highlight separation and division — for example, when working within departments or groups that define a "we" in opposition to, and not in concert with, other groups, rather than seeing themselves working toward shared goals — an "us" versus "them" position. And of course, there's also the royal "We" used by lofty kings and queens ruling over their subjects.
In short, though, researchers do find clear patterns that show advantages when people use more pronouns that focus on others. For example, in a computational analysis of speech in mock job interviews, Naim et al (2018) found that people who used using more inclusive or outward-focused pronouns, such as "we" and "they," were rated more positively and as friendlier than people who used more “I” pronouns.
So the next time you're in a high-stakes situation, be it a job interview or broaching a delicate topic with a spouse or teenager, let the research guide you, and pay close attention to your pronouns.
That segment was written by Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno and the author of "Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English." A version of the piece originally appeared on Psychology Today, and you can find her at valeriefridland.com.
Finally, I have a familect story.
"Hi, Mignon. My name is Corin, and I have a family act to share. In the early 90s, my mother gave my children a set of video cassettes called Quigley's Village. It featured a group of cute animal puppets who would sing songs and learn about Christian values. The videos were very hokey, but they got a lot of play during those years. This was a time when my children were at their peak preschool cuteness with big eyes and big mouths and lots of energy. And to my husband and me, they looked like cute little puppets. So we began referring to them as the Quigleys. And to this day, he and I still use the noun 'Quigley' to describe any child, small child, particularly one that has lots of energy or is very talkative. I am pleased to report that my children have begun having Quigleys of their own. We have Quigley number six arriving later this year, and it's always a happy time when the house is full of Quigley. Bye-bye."
Thanks so much Corin. I love it. Congratulations on all the Quigleys in your life, including the pending arrival.
If you want to share the story of your familect, your family dialect, a word your family and only your family uses, call the voicemail line at 83-321-4-GIRL. It’s in the show notes, and be sure to tell me the story behind your familect because that’s always the best part.
And if you're a Grammarpalooza subscriber, you can also send a voice memo. I send text messages with fun facts a couple of times a week. It's a great way to support the show and the first two weeks are free. To sign up, visit https://joinsubtext.com/grammar or text "hello" to (917) 540-0876.
Grammar Girl is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Thanks to marketing associate, Davina Tomlin; ad operations specialist, Morgan Christianson; audio engineer, Nathan Semes; digital operations specialist, Holly Hutchings; marketing assistant, Kamryn Lacey; and director of podcasts, Brannan Goetschius, who just started taking an improv class.
And I’m Mignon Fogarty, better known as Grammar Girl. Remember to look for "Grammar Girl Conversations." This Thursday, I have an interview with Eli Burnstein, about his "Dictionary of Fine Distinctions" that looks at words with close meanings, like what is the actual difference between a street, an avenue, and a drive?
That's all. Thanks for listening.
***
The following references for the pronoun segment were not included in the audio but are listed here for completeness:
Naim, I., Tanveer, M.I., Gildea, D., & Hoque, M. (2018). Automated Analysis and Prediction of Job Interview Performance. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 9, 191-204.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press/Bloomsbury Publishing.
Pennebaker, J. (2017). Mind mapping: Using everyday language to explore social & psychological processes. Procedia Computer Science, 118, 100-107.