OK, at Jacqui’s suggestion, and also because I can’t resist any longer, I am going to invite readers to rant. Ranting can be good, right? Ranting can be refreshing. And, hopefully, ranting will lead to reform.
My invitation: Which words you dislike the most in legal scholarship? For example (these are just examples, mind you, I’m not necessarily condemning their usage): opine, proceed, moreover (alright, moreover isn’t a random example; I really loathe it), furthermore.
Normative.
Substantive.
I don't mind these words when they serve a purpose. I hate them when they don't. Over 70% of the time (my random estimate), they add nothing to a sentence.
Posted by: Gml | November 03, 2011 at 03:20 PM
Incentivize.
(Encourage is much better. And, for me, incent is also fine. But incentivize is gross.)
Posted by: Joe Miller | November 03, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Utilize.
Posted by: anon | November 03, 2011 at 03:35 PM
pedagogical and eleemosynary - please use only for fun
Posted by: Ron Clark | November 03, 2011 at 04:46 PM
Never utilize Utilize when you could use Use, unless you're playing Scrabble.
But there's nothing wrong with fancy schmancy words like Moreover and Furthermore, if used appropriately. When there is a transition between two related thoughts, a word like that can be indispensable.
I also like the term "fancy schmancy."
Posted by: Jim Gibson | November 03, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Problematic.
Posted by: twitter.com/jimmilles | November 03, 2011 at 10:40 PM
"Rules and standards," in pretty much all iterations. (Channeling my inner Schlag here.)
"Instant" as a substitute for "present" or "this."
"Reasonable" when it means "whatever I feel like, regardless of how unreasonable that is."
And perhaps my (anti-)favorite: "We will consider all applicants" when it means "If you weren't rich enough to attend in the Ivy League, we MIGHT hire you as a janitor."
Posted by: Unworthy Conversant | November 04, 2011 at 12:44 AM
Seminal. It causes me to giggle every time.
Posted by: Bridget Crawford | November 04, 2011 at 07:51 AM
"Seminal. It causes me to giggle every time."
Fabulous.
Posted by: John Kang | November 04, 2011 at 08:21 AM
"In the event that ..."
How about a simple "if"?
Posted by: Tim Zinnecker | November 04, 2011 at 09:07 AM
This isn't law specific, but for some reason I really hate it when people refer to a situation as a potential "teaching moment".
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | November 04, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Oh, and in the hiring context, I really hate the term 'aspirational school' eg "We have become an aspirational school for [Candidate X]." (Presumably because X didn't end up getting an offer from [higher ranked school].)
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | November 04, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Actually, I meant "teachable moment" rather than "teaching moment". I hate the term so much I can't even write it down correctly.
And also in the hiring context it really annoys me when people refer to candidates as "stellar candidates" or "rising stars". What are we, a basketball team? I'll accept sports/athletic stars and even Hollywood stars, but law professors? Really??
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | November 04, 2011 at 07:38 PM
"Teachable moment." You know, I have to agree with Jacqui. The phrase presents itself as a gesture of optimism; this isn't a crisis, it's a "teachable moment"!
I'm all in favor, of course, that a crisis can be an opportunity for pedagogy and enlightenment; I'm a teacher, after all. And yet--and yet--I find myself, without quite being able to rationalize why, being utterly annoyed by the term, "teachable moment."
There's something vaguely condescending and idiotically pious about it, as though every crisis, every mistake, and every tragedy, could, in theory, be mined (I want to say "twisted") for some nauseous, ameliorative lesson.
Posted by: John Kang | November 04, 2011 at 11:05 PM
John - I think you've hit the nail on the head there. You have beautifully explained what it is about 'teachable moment' that bugs me so much. It does seem to trivialize some truly awful things. There must be some way of saying we could teach/learn lessons from bad situations without having to use a trite phrase like 'teachable moment'. The first time I heard it was when a colleague used it in reference to 9/11 the day after the Twin Towers were hit (I had just moved to the U.S. a few months prior and I've only ever heard the phrase used in the U.S.). It was probably a knee-jerk coping mechanism by my colleague, but it seemed jarring to me.
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | November 05, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Simple. Clear. Short. Direct. I hate these words when utilized to describe writing as it should be.
And they are utilized rather than used, since there is something offensively utilitarian about the verbal ideology being promoted -- something suggesting that good writing should be evaluated in utils of 'value added.'
Posted by: Marc DeGirolami | November 05, 2011 at 12:48 PM
Jacqui, telling example regarding 9/11; and Marc, I like your comment. Regarding the latter, I wonder if we've been conditioned as students in our legal writing classes to assume that "good writing" means the same thing as "good memo writing." That equation would tend to explain the sort of prose one often finds in law review articles: bloodless and humorless, unwitty and uninteresting, moderate and trite, even as that prose bears all of the emblems of good memo writing, even as that prose, in other words, is simple, clear, short, and direct.
I'm not against those traits--simple, clear and so on. I just wish that legal writing can aspire to be more than that. There are scholars like Stanley Fish and Bill Miller who have shown that it can, and rightfully, should.
Posted by: John Kang | November 05, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Nicely done, Marc!
Posted by: Jacqueline Lipton | November 05, 2011 at 05:12 PM
Progeny. Especially common in constitutional law for some reason
Posted by: Steve Griffin | November 06, 2011 at 08:25 PM
"A number of" when it could just be "several."
Posted by: Roger | November 07, 2011 at 02:35 AM