The Tyranny of “Around”: How Fuzzy Language Erodes Clarity

One of the reasons I enjoy the BBC’s venerable morning radio news programme, Today, is its tradition of having guest editors from all walks of life – personalities like Prince Harry, Angelina Jolie, and historian Stephen Hawking – take the helm over the Christmas holidays.

Last Monday, presenter Amol Rajan started touting this year’s lineup, which included Olympic cyclist Laura Kenny and former chancellor Sajid Javid.

I could barely concentrate on the rest of the names because I was busy fuming over a single word Rajan used to introduce them.

“Every year,” he said, “the Today programm invites a series of guest editors to make an episode of Today with us around things that they are most interested in.”

There it was. "Around." A word that has somehow come to be used in a way that turns a crisp, forthright phrase into something evasive and slippery.

If he had said Kenny was going to make an episode “about” or “on” the impact elite sport has on women’s bodies, I would know precisely what she was planning. But the news that she was going to do something “around” that topic made me wonder if she might drift off into non-elite sport, or men’s bodies, or countless other things.

It’s no accident that some of the biggest perpetrators of the misuse of “around” are those specialists in ambiguous non-statements: politicians.

Two days later, Today aired an interview with former Conservative party leader Iain Duncan Smith about the need for new rules to manage disruptive pupils.

“The range of change has to be pretty profound now – clear rules around what cannot happen,” he said.

The Price of Fuzziness

Now, I realize there are more important things to worry about, and I don’t mean to sound like a pedantic prig. But the meaning of words matters, especially in a polarized world swamped with misinformation. Any language that obscures truth instead of revealing it is deeply dubious.

This is why I also object to the way the word “piece” has wormed its way into places it has no business being.

Anyone who says they are working on the “defense piece” or the “climate piece” is telling you almost nothing. If they said they had just joined a counterterrorism think tank or a carbon-trading firm, you would actually know where you stood. Likewise, there’s no excuse for using a woolly word such as “space,” as in “the defense space,” when perfectly good words such as “industry” or “sector” can do the job.

If you are under 40, reading this and thinking, “What’s this sad old loser babbling on about?” it’s worth knowing how intensely these kinds of linguistic quirks can irk people who may soon be deciding whether to promote or hire you.

In the spirit of public service, then, I urge you to think twice before talking (or writing) “around the work piece” in any job space.

Another pet peeve: "reaching out." What are you actually doing? Contacting someone? Just say it.

“Reaching out” is lazy and time-wasting. It’s far better to spend an extra ten seconds explaining that you want to follow up on something, or arrange a meeting, or whatever it is you are actually doing.

The same goes for “sharing” information that you are just “passing on.” Just say you’re passing something on!

And then there’s “curate,”

According to Dr. Jones, how can listeners and readers become more aware of fuzzy language ⁣and avoid being misled?

##⁤ Fuzzy Language: A Conversation with Dr. Emily Jones

**Host:** We’re here today to talk about a fascinating phenomenon in language⁢ – ‌the overuse of vague terms like “around”. To ‍understand‌ this better, we’ve invited Dr. Emily Jones, a‌ linguist ⁣specializing in the evolution of⁤ language and‌ its impact on communication.

Dr. Jones, thank ⁣you for ⁢joining us.

**Dr. Jones:** It’s ⁣a pleasure ⁣to be here.

**Host:** Recently, there was a discussion sparked by BBC’s *Today* program about the overuse of “around” and how⁢ it leads to less clear communication. What are your thoughts on this trend?

**Dr. Jones:** It’s ⁢certainly a trend I’ve ⁢noticed as well. Words ⁢like “around”, ‍”kind of”, and “sort of” are ⁤called “hedges“⁤ in linguistics. They allow speakers to ​soften their ⁤statements, avoid directness, or create a sense ‌of ambiguity. While ‍hedging‍ has its place, ⁤overuse can indeed lead to confusion.

**Host:** The article points out that politicians are often guilty of ‌using these ⁣hedges excessively.

**Dr. Jones:** Absolutely. Politicians ⁣often use hedges to avoid making concrete commitments or taking a definitive stance. It allows them ​to maintain a certain level of plausible deniability. This can be problematic because it undermines transparency and accountability.

**Host:** So, how can we, as listeners and readers, be more aware of this type of fuzzy​ language and avoid being misled?

**Dr. Jones:** Being conscious of these linguistic cues is the first‌ step.

If someone says they’re going to ⁢talk “around” a topic, ask for clarification. Push them to be more specific.

Remember, clear and precise language is essential for effective communication and understanding. Don’t be ⁤afraid ⁣to ⁢ask for what you ⁣need.

**Host:** Dr. Jones, this has ‍been an enlightening conversation. Thank you for sharing ⁣your expertise with us.

**Dr. Jones:** My pleasure!