Skip to main content

The (de)evolution of words

I was thinking the other day that one of the most significant changes that is occurring in the world today which has gone pretty much unnoticed is the evolution (or some might say de-evolution) of the human vocabulary and a shift in meaning associated with various words in our lexicon. 

One of the things that makes communicating possible is a common understanding of what a word means. When I say giraffe the same image pops in to our minds and a common understanding is established. String hundreds or thousands of words together and ideally enough 'common understanding' is shared that we establish what might be best described as a 'shared reality' - a degree of understanding of another's views where we feel there are very few unknowns. Failure to achieve this shared reality results in miscommunication.



To no surprise, effective communication has always been difficult because of the clarification process usually required - so when you say 'unlimited' do you mean unlimited during the evening or unlimited at any time? When you say 'any key' do you mean any key or the 'any' key?

This is one of the major differences between marketing and public relations.

Marketing will often take advantage of the emotive connection consumers have to certain words to draw them in. As consumers when we see the word 'unlimited' for instance, we instantly pay attention (because after all, unlimited usually means a good deal to be had). 

PR on the other hand focuses on not manipulating words, but rather using words that establish a trust and shared reality with key publics and stakeholders.

So with that in mind, the thought that crossed my mind is how the world is getting easier for marketing people and harder for PR people as a result of a (de)evolution in words. I say this because what a word means is becoming less clear.  This allows marketing folks to use all kinds of verbiage and simply focus on creating messages that evoke an emotional or initial response from their audience. However, PR folks have to find ways of using words that hold the greatest shared understanding among their publics and find ways to succinctly define what they mean when they use certain words that might have multiple interpretations among their publics. (It's not hard to see why PR and marketing can bang heads at times within this context).

The thing that made me realize how we are witnessing the (de)evolution of words is how some very simple and basic words are no longer as clear cut as they use to be.

Change: It use to mean something completely different from what came before. Obama's use of the word change has redefined what change means. When someone says 'We're going to change things up', I have to admit, I no longer really know what that means. I know what it should mean, but that often no longer reflects what happens in reality.   

Free: It use to mean no cost. Now free is often a way of saying 'hidden costs'. Get this free phone when you subscribe to a three-year contract. Who today doesn't become ultra-guarded the moment someone throws the word free at them?

Capitalism: It use to mean unfettered free markets. Now when someone says capitalism what type of capitalism are they referring to? With different models of government subsidies, regulations, bail-outs, etc. - what the word capitalism means today is open to interpretation. I think most people would acknowledge capitalism as it was once thought no longer really exists, but no one wants to say that out loud (because we still like to cheer on the notion of capitalism, which we equate with freedom), so we continue to use a word that doesn't really accurately describe the market place any longer. 

Temporary: It use to mean a very short period of time. But today, it often merely means that one's intent is not permanent. Or in some cases it basically means one moment short of permanent. "Our presence in Afghanistan is temporary." Well, 10 years and counting isn't temporary.

I could go on and on about words that use to have very clear meanings, which today, when people hear them, they aren't sure exactly what is being expressed.

The result is a heck of a lot of confusion - confusion which PR people have to concern themselves with when messaging to the public. Be very careful to think about whether the words you are using, which may have a clear meaning to you, are understood in the same manner by your publics.

It's unfortunate but I think we are almost approaching the need for the creation of new words. Or at least clarification on previous words. For instance, perhaps we need a variant on free...freet (the t standing for 'truly free' - no hidden costs, no free for a limited time only, etc.)

I know, a bit silly to ponder. Actually it's almost absurd in some regards as we all know what free is suppose to mean. But on the other hand, in 15 years from now will we still know what free was suppose to mean? How many other words will slowly de-evolve until they no longer resemble what their original definition was? We are already at the point that when someone says something is 'free' our natural reaction is to ask the question 'What do you mean by free?'

It's also worth asking what damage is done to corporate brands when they misappropriate the use of various words. I'd suggest that a lot of frustration and anger that publics have towards various brands today results in good part as a result of the misuse of various words.

Anyway, just an interesting thought for PR folks to think about as they wrestle with the never-ending task of attempting to communicate with their publics. 

We live in a world where a lot of people essentially misrepresent themselves by attempting to coop various words for their own alterior motives (and it's working, because it's getting more and more confusing as to what people mean when they say something).

Having said all that, I have to wrap this blog up now and get to the store as I just received a flying saying 'Store Wide Sale'. Oh wait, I just got out my magnifying glass to read the fine print. Yep, apparently the store wide sale is only on selected items, I guess I've got to change my definition of what store-wide means.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...