Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Stupid Neologism of the Day

Peo­ple often use the verb “to impact” instead of “to affect” or the noun “impact” instead of “effect” because they can’t be both­ered to remem­ber the dif­fer­ence between affect and effect.

One self-styled writer tweets, “Yep, now those words [affect, effect] are being replaced in the lex­i­con with things that aren’t con­fus­ing (re: impact). Lan­guage evo­lu­tion wins!”

Nope. There are few con­texts in which “affect” and “effect”, used prop­erly, might be con­fus­ing to the reader. If a writer can’t use “affect” and “effect” prop­erly with­out unin­ten­tion­ally con­fus­ing read­ers, she shouldn’t be in the writ­ing business.

There are occa­sions on which “impact” might be a bet­ter word choice than the noun “effect.” An impact is a strike or blow; while an effect might be grad­ual, an impact is sud­den. While an effect might be sub­tle, an impact is bla­tant. If one thing has a sud­den and notice­able effect on another, it has (or, prefer­ably, makes) an impact.

By the same token, some­times “to impact” might con­ceiv­ably be a bet­ter word choice than the verb “to affect.” I’m a big fan of press­ing words into unusual metaphor­i­cal duty. “To impact” (itself a neol­o­gism) also sug­gests vio­lent con­tact (smack!), and might serve in place of “to affect” when one thing smacks metaphor­i­cally into another.

The Law of Req­ui­site Vari­ety dic­tates that a writer will write bet­ter if she knows more nuan­tially dif­fer­ent ways to say “effect.”

All of this is by way of intro­duc­tion to the stu­pid neol­o­gism of the day: impact­ful. As in, “Impact­ful Open­ing State­ments” (link is to PDF of 2009 TCDLA Rusty Dun­can Advanced Crim­i­nal Law Course agenda).

Why not “Effec­tive Open­ing State­ments”? (I favor “Affec­tive Open­ing State­ments.”) You might want your open­ing state­ment to make an impact on the jury — to strike them, to make an impres­sion on them — rather than have an effect on them. Fair enough, I’ll grudg­ingly spot you the first two syl­la­bles. But if you’ve got to cre­ate a syn­onym for “effec­tive”, why “impactful”?

Your open­ing state­ment isn’t really full of impact; you hope for it to make (or have) an impact on the jury. There are more and nearer ana­logues for impactive (active, effec­tive, dis­cur­sive) than impact­ful (harm­ful and dread­ful come to mind). Impactive is a much less ugly word, avoid­ing the gear-grinding –ctf– sound of impactful.

Finally, impactive has lin­guis­tic legs. If you use impactive you’re fol­low­ing in the pen­strokes of F. Scott Fitzger­ald (in 1934) and William Faulkner (in 1942); if you use impact­ful you sound like one of the yahoos in marketing.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

5 Responses to “Stupid Neologism of the Day”

  1. Tarian says:

    This post is cause for Eng­lish majors every­where to rejoice. Thank you, Mark, for strik­ing a blow in the cause of good lin­guis­tics! I wish it might be more…impactful.

    I have found that the best way to effect a change in mind­set in my juries dur­ing open­ing state­ments is to affect an Eng­lish accent. Then they think I’m from a for­eign coun­try and, like, smarter or some­thing. Oh, and remem­ber the old motto: If you can’t impact the facts, impact the wit­ness. If you can’t impact the wit­ness, impact the table. Strange…I had never known that impact was also a British mon­e­tary unit!

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Tar­ian,

      So many words. So con­fus­ing. I was think­ing this morn­ing, when it impacted me: your com­ment will be a really big impact. Thank you for impact­ing a blow for lit­er­ary uncon­fus­ing­ness. We all learn from the school of hard impacts, but when oppor­tu­nity impacts, we must impact when the iron is hot, or our read­ers will go on impact.

  2. michael says:

    Those lin­guis­tic legs are more accu­rately mea­sured by how pedes­tri­ans are using the words than by the books the words show up in. Right now… yeah, impact­ful sounds like mar­ket­ing jargon.

    But i think you’re being neglect­ful of the arbi­trari­ness of lan­guage. Being respect­ful of beau­ti­ful tact­ful and grace­ful mean­ings sur­viv­ing intact, regard­less of pho­net­ics, can lead us to accept many of the con­so­nant clus­ters and suf­fixes that we might have oth­er­wise dis­counted for no good reason.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Neglect­ful = show­ing (or hav­ing, as an intrin­sic qual­ity) neglect.
      Respect­ful = show­ing (or hav­ing, as an intrin­sic qual­ity) respect.
      Beau­ti­ful = hav­ing, as an intrin­sic qual­ity, beauty.
      Tact­ful = show­ing (or hav­ing, as an intrin­sic qual­ity) tact.
      Grace­ful = show­ing (or hav­ing, as an intrin­sic qual­ity) grace.

      Unlike grace, tact, beauty, respect, or neglect, impact is not an intrin­sic qual­ity. It’s not some­thing that an open­ing state­ment shows but rather some­thing that an open­ing state­ment makes on some­thing else.

  3. AHCL says:

    I dozed off in the mid­dle of this post. I guess it didn’t impact me too much.
    How did it end?

Leave a non-anonymous Reply