Does speaking "proper English" really help you to get a good job?

[Bill McBlueState]

There's a common claim that if you can speak "proper English" you'll get a better job than if you speak any other dialect. But do businesspeople really speak "proper English"? Look at some of these words:

actionable
dialogue (as a verb!)
downsize
incentivize
proactive
synergy
utilize

Here's a big list I found

Perhaps "business English" can be just as confusing to the untrained ear as ebonics.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Utilize is perhaps the most irritating word in the English language...

for God's sake, the word is "use," not "utilize." Jesus.

At the same time, if I'm hiring for a position and someone comes in speaking very poorly, I'm less likely to hire them. Poor communication skills means they'll do a poor job, at least in my line of work.

[BlooInBloo]

5. What a bizarre statement. They aren't even synonymous.

"utilize" is FAR more specific than "use".

To avoid any misunderstanding of the above (yah, right) - there are all sorts of proper, non-slang uses of "use" that may NOT, preserving meaning of the sentence, have "utilize" subbed in. Hence they're not synonymous.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Use "utilize" in any sentence in which "use" cannot be substituted n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. Keep in mind, the challenge is *preserving meaning*....

"Billy didn't call Alice after she finally had sex with him. She didn't understand why, and felt so used."

Of course you can *grammatically* put "utilized" in, but that's just syntactic correctness, which is NOT what my claim was about.

My claim was about SYNONYMY, which is a SEMANTIC notion. And *semantically*, "utilized" may NOT be subbed into the above, and have the meaning remain the same.

And the use of "used" above is PERFECTLY proper, and not slang.

[SteppingRazor]

14. I didn't ask about subbing "utilize" for "use"...

I asked about subbing "use" for "utilize." "Utilize is an utterly superfluous word used only for its grandiosity. I have yet to find a single instance of its use in which the word "use" word not work equally well.

The word is nails on a chalkboard to me. It's almost as bad as "irregardless."

[BlooInBloo]

16. Synonymy goes BOTH ways...

If EITHER way fails, they aren't synonymous.

"Synonymy" means SAME meaning. "Same" means IDENTICAL. Identity is a symmetric relation - that is, it goes BOTH ways. To show that two words, phrase, sentences, whatever, are not synonymous, one only has to show a failure in *one* direction.


EDIT: Fixed most craptacular subject typo ever - lol

[SteppingRazor]

18. I never said they're synonymous...

I said "utilize" is superfluous.

[BlooInBloo]

21. You said "the word is 'use' "....

Which implies that they're synonymous.

You seem to be scared of "synonymous", seeing as how you moved from "the word is..." to "superfluous".

Fine. Let's use "superfluous".

Since "utilize" and "use" are NOT synonymous, in virtue of what is "utilize" superfluous? The word "use" does NOT semantically cover all the ground covered by (proper, non-slang) uses of "utilize". (Sigh, yes - it's easy to give examples if your imagination isn't up to the task.)

But even if it did, so what? All natural languages have LARGE AMOUNTS of semantic redundancy. (That's why, for example, crossword puzzles are even POSSIBLE.) Are you so philistine with langauge that you would eliminate all semantic redundancy?


EDIT: Stupid hangover... can't even get "they're" right - LOL

[SteppingRazor]

27. Actually, I'm a professional writer/editor....

Words are my life and my paycheck. Calling me a linguistic philistine borders on absurdity. But tell you what. You keep using utilize, and I'll keep saying the word is pretentious swill puked up by lazy writers who can't find any better way to transmit their pomposity. And I'll keep replacing it with "use" when said writers send me their crappy copy.

[BlooInBloo]

35. (shrug) That's nice. The fact remains that...

... removing the verb "to utilize" is NOT a conservative restriction of English.

If it's a long-dick contest tho, I'm confident in suggesting that anyone who's gone through a philosophy ph.d. program has written just about as much as just about anybody. And has read/edited just as much as well, in virtue of the never-ending barrage of crappy papers from illiterate college kids...

Don't get me wrong tho - I've never suggested that "utilize" isn't over... well, over-utilized (couldn't help myself :) ). But to say that it's overused is one thing - to say that all of the semantic work done by it can equally well be done with "use" is quite another - and just plain false.

[patcox2]

40. You hit upon the one distinction that Fowler notes

"utilize" tends to mean to put to good use, whereas "use" can mean to abuse.

However, he ends saying that "utilize" is an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word.

[BlooInBloo]

42. Who's Fowler? LOL

[patcox2]

44. "Fowler's English Usage."

A great old classic stylebook, pompous and opinionated, but also common-sense and practical, prefers elegant simplicity always.

[BlooInBloo]

48. Ah. Thanks! I assume there's about a jillion such usage books out there?

And that by suitably rummaging through selected ones, one could find support for just about any position one desired?

I have no knowledge of such books - just askin...

[readmoreoften]

50. It's fairly common knowledge in good writing.

Utilize is only a pretentious latinate form of the word use.

I'm a college English teacher and this is what we tell our students.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Again, that's just false.... focussing on the "only" part....

... and ignoring your ignoring of the distinction between use and mention...

It just seems odd that so many avowed language-experts maintain:

(a) that the verb "to use" can cover all of the semantic ground covered by "to utilize", without loss,

and THEREFORE

(b) "utilize" should be exised from our personal lexicons.


The premise is simply false, and inference is fallacious.


Hopefully English teachers understand the distinction between the concepts *false premise* and *fallacious inference*.

[frustrated_lefty]

67. Eh

I think you mean "excised."

I'm no language expert. Most of what I learned about writing came from my grandpappy, who thunked me on the head for using "utilize" in an essay. He said it's a big word people use to sound smart, but it doesn't convey an iota of information that isn't conveyed by the word "use." His question to me was, "are you writing to stroke your ego, or are you writing to be understood?"

The premise, in this instance, is that language is a tool designed to convey information. The inference is that the strength of the pen lies not within the size of the words it can make, but within the skill with which it is used. Oops, sorry, guess I should have said "utilized."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. Not really.

While I'm sure there *are* a great many such books out there, "Fowler's English Usage" (IIRC) is more or less universally recognised as the definitive one.

[patcox2]

37. Hear hear, bravo.

I am a fan of Fowlers, myself. I have a 1965 edition.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Any synonym or pseudosynonym is superfluous

Otherwise, you wouldn't even have a word like superfluous, as it could be consumed by the usage of gratuitous. And we'd all have very limited vocaularies. :shrug:

[Bill McBlueState]

19. ah, irregardless

I was wanting to put that in my list, but it escaped me at the time.

[BlooInBloo]

30. I'm with ya on that non-word! lol

[lastliberalintexas]

33. Well, since it isn't even a word

it shouldn't have been included, so you did the correct thing. :)

For the record, an English word can't have ir- at the beginning and -less at the end, as they do the same thing to the meaning of the word they modify. They'd sort of cancel one another out, almost like a double negative.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Searching for a counter-example.....

I'll get back to ya!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. Easy-peasy.

"Utilize is perhaps the most irritating word in the English language; for God's sake, the word is "use," not "utilize."

[Orsino]

87. LOL! Here's another:

"Going forward, we will utilize synergies to enhance our core competencies."

"Use" just wouldn't ring true.

[Boomer]

60. It's a "loosing" battle

"Utilize" drives me insane, and whenever I'm asked to review project proposals I can't resist crossing it out and putting in "use" instead. Everyone just looks at me rather blankly, but accepts it as one of my little idiosyncransies.

I also scream at the TV when narrators use "fewer" instead of "less" or vice versa.

I've given up the "loose" and "lose" confusion that runs rampant through the internet. Not sure why people find that distinction so difficult to understand, but apparently it's a toughie for the vast majority. HOW DIFFICULT CAN IT BE??? Sorry, slight relapse there....

[maddiejoan]

2. * didn't need it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Yup, unfortunately.

So does having a white sounding name.

[butterfly77]

4. no!

Its not what you know but who you know.

[Ron Green]

6. Yeah, but it's not just about the buzzwords.

The ability to express yourself clearly and persuasively, without lots of "um" and "like" and "ya know" interjections, when meeting the people who are doing the hiring, will indeed raise your chances, I think.

[Gildor Inglorion]

7. I think it probably does

Can you imagine giving a good job (especially one involving person-to-person skills) to someone sounding like Edith Bunker, no matter how well-qualified she might be otherwise?

[SmokingJacket]

8. Business English is about trying to sound smarter than you are. nt

[MercutioATC]

10. Ummm..."dialogue" can legitimately be used as a verb...

...and how are the rest of the words in your list not "proper English"???

[Critters2]

23. In which paradigm? n/t

[onenote]

12. depends on the job: English professor:? yes. Mime? No.

[patricia92243]

13. My dental hygenist used the word "ain't," - yuk - IMHO. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Actually, that isn't always true

I was criticized for two things when I first started work: Talking with a Northern accent and using "fancy" words. I keep up my Northern accent and am not afraid of using multiple-syllable words.

[Critters2]

24. Northern accent?

Didn't they mean no accent?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

63. Oh no

they hated the way I said my vowels. I was raised in central Illinois, the place where they used to send broadcasters to learn the "American accent" to be used on the air. I was shocked to find a prejudice against it further south.

[Critters2]

81. Where were you raised in Illinois?

My father's family has been in Champaign Co. for 6 generations. I lived there for 4 years.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

83. Champaign County

Lived there a little over 20 years-30 odd years ago.

[Igel]

71. Nobody has no accent.

They merely have an accent that others judge to be standard, and therefore unobjectionable.

"No accent" isn't a linguistic possibility here; it's a social judgment involving class, ethnicity, or geography.

[Critters2]

82. Sorry

I knew that. Being a little facetious or smart-assy or something.

[Conker]

88. I also heard that from somewhere.

Supposely, every state has it's own accent, too.

[Bucky]

29. Is "ayeshahaqqiqa" a multiple syllable word...?

Or did the current administration just cause you to bang your head on the keyboard while you were registering at DU?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. it's multisyllable

and unique as a username, where there is an Ayesha registered here, I believe.

[catmandu57]

17. Being blessed with good looks

and being height weight proportionate as well as speaking proper english will go much further in finding good employment, than just speaking well.

[longship]

20. Biz-speak

Yuck!

I cannot stand it when business people "verb" (i.e., use nouns as verbs).

Ooops, I just verbed....

Omygosh. I verbed again!!

Arrrrrrgh!!! I verbed yet again!!!!

Arrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:nuke: :nuke:

[annabanana]

74. hahahahahaha. . . You nailed it.

This is possibly one the most annoying verbal ticks there is. Anyone who does this is branded, branded as a brainless business school automaton.

[Critters2]

22. "Dialogue" as a verb drives me completely nuts!!

And church big wigs use it all the time! AAARRRGGGHHH!

The other one that's like nails on a chalkboard to me is using the noun "media" with verbs conjugated as if it were a singular noun..."The media is..." I just want to scream!!

:banghead:

[Nye Bevan]

25. And *never* use the word "method"

when you can *utilize* the word METHODOLOGY instead.

[notadmblnd]

32. I hate the word Methodology

it's so much easier to writh the word system

[Marr]

26. I'd say those are examples of jargon.

A person can speak perfectly proper English and incorporate jargon. I'd definitely say that speaking well is a big help in landing a job.

[notadmblnd]

28. I don't know. you would think it would but

there are so many people.. professional people, the most recent being a cop.. who I've spoken to that speak like they have a mouth full of rocks. I've actually told them a to call me back when they've spit them out.

[rman]

31. ok well maybe being president is not a good job

[Bucky]

34. Exactly! "confusing to the untrained ear". Prepared workers are trained.

To answer your question, yes, speaking "proper English" not linly helps you get a job, it helps you perform your job better by allowing you to interact with customers in a professional and accessible manner. It's a legitimate hiring criterion. Using professional, standard English is a critical skill for anyone who wants to work in a professional environment. Often a familiarity with biz-jargon like actionable, dialogue (as a verb!), downsize, incentivize, proactive, synergy, utilize is as important to job performance as, say, understanding the laws of physics is to working at NASA, or being culturally literate about modern pop music is to working at MTV.

[annabanana]

75. That way you can obfuscate with the best of them!. . . . . .n/t

[BiggJawn]

38. No.

I do voice acting on occassion, and my diction has never been a factor in my job searches. May have even worked against me, if the interviewer is a good ol boy and thinks I sound like one-a them damn sissies on that BBC...

[StellaBlue]

41. NO!

I have a masters in English and was one of the few people at my last company who could compose a plain old letter correctly.

I am currently unemployed. My last job was as a bank teller. I have been looking for a job (in research, writing, editing, communications, even admin) for TEN MONTHS.

If the people hiring you are idiots, it doesn't help if you know how to write and/or speak properly.

/rant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Speaking "Asskissian" lands the good jobs.

[baldguy]

45. For some jobs, apparently not.

[Hekate]

46. "Impacted" has always set my teeth on edge, esp the wisdom teeth you know

I think I first heard it out of John Dean's mouth during the Watergate hearings.

It was irritating then and irritating now, but nothing to compare with the War on Terror, which always makes me growl "terror-ISM, you illiterate jerk."

Hekate

[slackmaster]

47. In the banking world the word I hate most is "basis"

As in "On a daily basis" when "daily" would serve as well.

Other than that, I use whatever words I choose on a whenever I choose to basis.

[SoCalDem]

49. Word-counters are everywhere

My sons used to get mad at me when they had a report to do for school. I would red-pencil all the superfluous words and hone it down . They would be hollering "Mom it has to be 500 words"..:)

I would tell them to look up some more "stuff" and add content to the report instead of just adding words:)

[Sgent]

51. Basis

is used frequently in the banking world -- as basis points.

[slackmaster]

55. That's a proper use, and it doesn't bother me

It's the superfluous use of "daily basis", "weekly basis", etc. that makes me gag.

[tilsammans]

52. In addition to jargon, what I find grating is . . .

. . . excessive ValleyGirlSpeak -- from both genders. :puke:

Like you know, he like called me, and I’m like, “I’m busy, “ and he’s like, . . .

It's like totally cacophonous. And all too common these days.

[Phx_Dem]

54. Yes..

Not only does it help to get a good job, it helps with obtaining any job.

[savemefromdumbya]

56. Perhaps English should have a name change = American

do you speak American? American English is different than the Queen's (LOL!) English

[Nikia]

57. Probably

Proper English, their version of English, or somewhere in between. People will be more accepting of their slang and grammar mistakes more than slang or grammar mistakes that sound different to them.
I think, though, that proper English helps one sound more educated and more mature if you are under 30. Even if the job doesn't require much interaction with the public, sounding more educated and mature will help you get a job, especially a professional job.

[ecstatic]

58. The truth about "proper English" in this country

For most Americans, speaking "Proper English" = *Sounding* as close to a priviledged White American as possible. It doesn't matter if you use White slang or words that don't exist--just as long as you have the dialect down.

Hardly anyone in this country speaks proper English. My guess would be PhD holders in the social sciences are the most likely group to use "proper English" on a consistent basis (and of course DUers--not me though).

[WestSeattle2]

59. Don't know about getting you a good job...

but poor English and grammar will almost always relegate you to lower paying jobs. Call it what you will, racism, class-ism, hell even pessimism, but it is what it is!

Unless you own the company, are in the entertainment field, or born with a silver spoon up your butt, you are much better off financially and professionally, using proper English in the workplace.

[supernova]

61. If you want a middle class or professional job, yes

If you don't speak the language of government and media at least during business hours, then you won't be invited to join the club. What you sound like in the off-hours is your business.

[treestar]

64. It could help but I would agree there are many jobs where it

is not such a big deal. And that a lot of people write very poorly in language, including many people who are supposedly educated. Then of course, there is the Mangler-in-chief. He landed a pretty good job.

[soothsayer]

65. add 'signage' instead of just blasting saying 'sign'

[Ravy]

66. In my profession, mastery of TLA is required (Three Letter Acronyms)

For bonus points, we use ETLAs sometimes as well. (Extended Three Letter Acronyms)

[frustrated_lefty]

68. Speaking knowledgably using the dialect of your trade

can help you land a job. The thing is, there are two essential components: knowledge and the ability to communicate. If you lack the essential knowledge, it really doesn't matter how well you express yourself. But, you can have the intellect of Einstein and it wouldn't matter worth a damn if you couldn't express yourself clearly. Does that ability to communicate require the use of "proper English?" Depends upon the field, I guess. I can say this with certainty. I have never encountered a single situation in which the use of "proper English" has hurt one's chances of getting a job.

[seabeyond]

69. yes it does help you get a job. having a choice of

a person that sounds illiterate and a person that sounds educated, i will hire the latter

[npincus]

70. Yes.

[Igel]

72. Yes, speaking proper English helps.

But since there's nobody that can define "proper English" for Americans (or for the British any more, for that matter), the definer is the one doing the hiring. Fortunately the idiot grammarians from the 17th and 18th centuries are dead and almost completely ignored. They still have some adherents, alas.

I'll also note that people here also frequently forget that usage defines words, and that frequently words that are apparently synonymous just aren't interchangeable. It's most obvious in idioms ("My pet marmoset just kicked the pail"?), but since there's good evidence we don't always speak in words, but in phrases and constructions, the point holds for more than just idioms.

Some of the verbiage is because business folk like actions, not activities, or want words with accusative objects and not clumsy constructions. "To reduce the size of" a genitive object, versus "to downsize" an accusative object; to "incentive" an accusative versus to "provide or give and incentive to" a dative object. In this, there's not 'core semantics' at play, but social uses of language, and how the words are perceived. Anybody who thinks that the only reason we speak is to communicate lexical meaning hasn't much of a clue.

(However, my sociolinguistics prof related a tale taught to him by *his* prof: There are only two true synonyms in English. They're found in N. England, the words from what was originally two villages for a certain kind of wort that grew in the area. The villages merged, the inhabitants intermarried, and the two words were kept without any connotations: use of a word didn't depend on, and said nothing about, the background of the speaker, his class, ethnicity, family, or the village his ancestors were from. Of course, my professor continued, both words have since been replaced by the word that was used in London.)

There are some tendencies: those people that occupy some status we want to achieve or that we admire tend to be our role models for language, as well; on the other hand, we also use language to express solidarity, frequently intentionally violating the usual linguistic norms to show this. (In fact, this has been cited when considering evidence for AAEV's increasing distance from 'standard English', which is usually taken as Midlands English minus one or two distinctive traits.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. While your style of speech alone will not help you get a job,

you need to be able to speak like the majority of the other people who already hold that kind of job.

Every job category has its jargon and its favored style of speech. I'm especially conscious of this as a translator. Business people have an especially irritating variety of speech, but it's predictable, and I find it easy to translate Japanese business jargon into American business jargon. I don't do medical translation, because I don't know how to write like a medical researcher.

If you are writing for publication, you need to follow the rules of standard English. For example, it you're writing a travel article for a newspaper, you can't write it in the form, "New York was, like, omigod, so awesome, I just, like coudn't believe it. They have these, you know, like, theaters, that you can like, go to, and see, you know, musicals and stuff. I was like, "Dude, I don't know, like, which one to go to." And my friend goes, like, "Just flip a coin."

By not knowing standard English, you pigeonhole yourself. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but it IS that way.

[longship]

76. More annoying bizspeak

How about this one:

signage -- What's with putting the useless suffix to a word to turn a noun into (ohmygosh)... another noun. Is there something wrong with the word, signs?

If you are into bizspeak suffixes, how about this one. I *never* use the word, signage. I prefer the much better word, signagement.

[Thirtieschild]

77. Organizationalization is the most outrageous word I've encountered.

I once had a job turning social workerese into readable English. Why did they take a perfectly good word - limit - and turn it into limitate. Don't mean to insult social workers - these were the one who drafted plans, not the ones who worked with people. And most of them were fresh from graduate school, where organizationalization and limitate were likely smiled upon. (My daughter has an M.S.W. and I couldn't believe some of the language she had to read.)

And let's not forget "grow the economy". Where did that one come from?

[BlooInBloo]

85. Maybe it's wrong of me, but place a fair amount of stock in....

... average GRE scores across fields.

Disagree with that methodology (!) as much as you want, but such an approach DOES have the virtue of explaining your illiterate social worker phenomenon...

:rofl: "limitate" :rofl:

[cigsandcoffee]

78. Without question, yes.

Unless you've got some special skill like rapping, playing guitar, hitting home runs, running touchdowns, or the like, then your command of English vocabulary and grammar will have a direct impact on the levels you can achieve in the business world.

[AngryAmish]

84. I hate business english

Like academic english it attempts to jarganize straightforward concepts to make the speaker look smarter. (And look at the trainwreck that is that last entance)

I hear plenty of lawspeak also but there is sometimes (but not even close to mostly) a reason for the exactitude of lawspeak -- certain concepts have concrete definitions that are important legally.

[dipsydoodle]

86. Me too

and I am English.:) I recall "functionality" creeping into the language late eighties and thinking "what are you on "?