@John Very interesting point! The Nerds have done a show in which they talked about some clichés in the media but you emphasize the transmission aspect of it. There’s this notion that we notice patterns in word use based on some cognitive dimensions (basically, words become more obvious when we pay attention to them, for instance when we just start understanding them). But there’s also a “memetic” aspect in that some words quickly become commonplace in some contexts. Mainstream media is a ready-made context as media outlets constantly borrow from one another and the model is still one of broadcasting. Outside of mainstream media, the way some words gain currency is more “organic” in that they will become accepted and reused, through time, based on how appropriate they seem in the context. Typically, something like a virus would get several different names and people would understand that we talk about the same thing, based on context. There’s usually some confusion, but people are quite good at clearing it, all the time. Mainstream media works with words the way committees do design. They make conscious decisions as a group and impose them on the world.

What’s in a name, you ask? How about the livelihood of an industry?

Gotta be careful about how we speak, label.

Have you thought of taking on an intern? Someone who’ll work for free and take care of lots of little details. You get the work done, and they get experience and a great recommendation! It can work, especially in this tenuous economy!

My 2¢,
Alan

It should have been, of course “Words and Phrases That Tick Us Off.” There are many words and phrases that ticked us off, which was evident if you heard the podcast.

Ah, multitasking! (Which I’m doing even in the moment I’m typing this comment. I’m editing edition #117, on writing.) Too much going on at once. That’s what you get when you’re a one-man production staff.

One phrase I was sick of hearing in the past months was “team of rivals.” It seems to be another phrase like “prefect storm” that became popular after a book of the same title came out.

But remember, that was the favorite term used by
Tigger from Winnie the Pooh.

(BTW, Im told that TTFN is sooooo Gay, LOL)

And one phrase that ticks me off is “grammar nazi.” Especially when it’s directed at ME. Hrmph. I prefer the term, “word activist” (less genocidal; equally badass).

About “thinking outside the box” and “pushing the envelope”: At least the latter is derived from an engineering term, where “envelope” means some kind of limit or boundary. It’s very common to talk about power envelopes, which means the maximum amount of power that can be provided (perhaps under different operating conditions, so the envelope is a complex shape, not just a single number). So when you’re pushing the envelope, you’re extending what is possible. Not sure about the box, but that may also have some kind of basis in engineering or design (think 60’s .

About words that are redundant and drive me nuts: all-new. All-new episodes! The all-new Acura such-and-such. What redundant nonsense!

But the one that takes the cake is FREE GIFT! It’s printed on every single piece of junk mail I get, and it bugs to no end. It’s a gift! AND it’s FREE! Wow, how unexpected!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_in_cheek

1. I met them at a conference in Zurich.
2. Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Boy manages to screw it up.
3. Shirley is meeting with the whole engineering team this afternoon to clarify the specs.

I’m sure there are a million others

I just wanted to clarify that a German “Töpfer” may well have been a pot maker in the olden days, but nowadays simply describes a person using clay to manufacture ceramic goods in general, much like the English “potter”.

Realtor (not relator)
Jewelry (not jewlery)

and, of course

Nuclear (not newcular).

I even know some realtors who call themselves relators. WTF?

Also … concerning “affect” and “effect”, I have a little trick. Most of the time, “affect” is a verb and “effect” is a noun. So, since a verb is for an action (starting with “a”) it’s usually correct to use “affect” when one thing is having an effect (sorry) on another thing.

I won’t post the details here, but Merriam-Webster online did have a noun definition for “affect” and a verb definition for “effect” but those seemed not to be the most common usage.

“Never explain, never complain.” –Henry Ford
“Never apologize for your art.” –Magnet on my (artist) wife’s office

Ditto on “exetera” and “literally”! Argghh! Makes my skin crawl up a chalkboard (to mix metaphors).

No personal problems distinguishing effect/affect or complement/compliment or lay/lie or infer/imply.

My own stumbling block: figuring out if a word ends with -ent or -ant. (Sends me scurrying to the dictionary all the time!)

The reason I said this is just idiotic: At the time “A Perfect Storm” came out, I think Barbara was reading “The Shipping News” by Proulx. For some bizarre reason I conflated the two in my mind ten years ago.

Sorry!

My family knows better than to attempt using “irregardless” or the common mispronunciation “nucular” in my presence, lest they be smacked in the arm. Both are so offensive to me that they elicit a physical reaction; I actually squirm.

This is not to say that I’m a complete grammar nazi, or that I never misuse any words myself. I’m just as fallible as anyone else, and love to play with words. I just wanted you folks to know that you’re not alone in those particular idiosyncrasies.

Thinking outside the box has definite boundaries in certain areas. I work in Computers as a Systems Engineer. In terms of software design, the provided software “toolbox” is the original developers limited viewpoint of the possibilities of their tool.

Thinking inside the box never stretches that imagination or encourages improvement. Thinking outside the box shows innovation and positive growth. By doing this, you are able to create “the impossible” out of normal, everyday items.

@Alexandre: I appreciate your very thoughtful analysis of our expression of self-consciousness at the end of this show. You have correctly identified my own point of view, in that I don’t really ever want to say something is “wrong” just because it’s “wrong.” I started to sub-title this edition “Pet Peeves II,” because really, the examples we gave here are simply things that get under own own skins. They’re not wrong, per se, just annoying to us.

It’s funny how, when you come to a language from “outside” of it, it’s often easier to see distinctions that are so difficult for native speakers (such as “effect” vs. “affect”). I often am amused how well I am able to explain certain similar distinctions in German to native German speakers, things that had never occurred to them about their own language!

As you surely know, it’s quite easy for a non-native speaker of any language to feel self-conscious about some “common mistakes” in that language. Since your discussion of “hence,” I’ve avoided using the term (even though the usage in a dictionary definition mentioned on this episode seems to imply that my own usage wasn’t so improper).
A very valuable feature of your show is that you don’t usually go the prescriptive route. You occasionally go the curmudgeon route, as in this episode, but it’s still obvious that you think about language in a broader, more descriptive frame.
Some of the expressions, idioms, phrases, and words you described as “overused” are probably part of my own active vocabulary, in English. And hearing about those, I tend to feel very self-conscious. To the extent that I’d want to stop speaking or writing in English, at least for a little while. Not what you wanted to do, I’m sure, but it’s a risk taken with “language do’s and don’ts.”
This isn’t specific to English, of course. I still feel, however, that this kind of discussion is more common among English-speakers than among speakers of other languages. In French, we more commonly talk about grammatical mistakes or misspelling than about clichés, overused phrases, or improper terminology. Not that we’re more accepting of those, we just tend to discuss them a bit less, I think. Redundancy is an exception as «pléonasme» (”pleonasm”) is more common than «oxymore» (”oxymoron”) in French as a way to designate a mistake (as well as a trope). Though the word seems to exist in English, English-speakers have told me that it was unnecessary as it’s “just redundancy.”
The point is, we have different perspectives on different languages. And these make up the conceptual field of “language ideology” (something about which we, linguistic anthropologists, tend to care a lot). Language ideology doesn’t tend to cross language boundaries, so much.

When you mentioned that this discussion made you self-conscious, I felt relieved. Acknowledged, even. Instead of worrying about my own use of “thinking outside the box” (rather infrequent but I do think about the original version, with the nine dots and three lines), I was thinking about “language as performance” (another thing about which we care, in linguistic anthropology). These “mistakes” aren’t so important in normal conversation. But verbal performance is evaluated by audiences and is the domain of self-correction (and hypercorrection). Correctness is strictly assessed. Copyeditors are asked for help. Stylebooks are consulted. The communicative effect is measured.

As for the items which allegedly cause some self-conscious moderation in your own writing (or formal speaking) sessions, most of these are actually quite easy for a non-native speaker to unpack. For instance, “complement” vs. “compliment” has been a pet peeve of mine because they’re so clearly different in my mind. Yet, a senior colleague tried to convince me that they had become homonyms (which puzzled me greatly). “Ensure and insure” are also quite clear because they translate in different ways, in French (for instance, intransitive vs. transitive). «Effectuer» and «affecter» are also so different (connections are so tenuous) that it surprises me that “effect” and “affect” could be confused by native speakers.

Which all reassures me. Comforts me. Makes me much less self-conscious.
But am I self-unconscious?