September 12, 2018

On a Little-Noted Viral Phrase

Every year various organizations solicit opinions about the most over-used words of the year, publish the submissions and choose one as a winner. I’m sure you have your candidates. One of mine is “curated.” I never see or hear, however, any discussion of infestations of our speech by little words or phrases, apart from the nearly ubiquitous larding of teenagers’ speech by “like,” used as filler. Filler is a form of pseudo-fluency. If my talking pauses with dead air, my listeners may think I’m done and jump in while I’m still trying to finish my thought, so I maintain fluency by making meaningless sounds. Teenagers are preoccupied with establishing themselves socially, so are especially prone to the tendency. Actually, most of us find ourselves at one time or another holding the floor without having clearly formulated what we want to say or how to phrase it, so filler is a constant of human social interaction. (See, for example, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11426737.) Before “like” there were “um”, “uh”, “you know” (still in use) and other superfluous interjections.

The latest and most potent invasive species is the little three-word phrase “in terms of.” Not only has it cornered the part of the adult market not already captured by “like,” but it is beginning to supplant many prepositions and—worst of all—conjunctions. It has one productive use, namely as a mechanism to draw attention to any part of a sentence, and this use alone will probably ensure its increasingly prominent place in our discourse. I’ll give examples toward the end of this essay.

Because it sounds slightly businesslike or academic, “in terms of” doesn’t seem to draw any notice as filler, but once you begin to listen for it, you will hear it all the time. For example, here’s an excerpt of an interview with baseball commissioner Manfred (http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=142053):

One of the first things, we had a spate of Tommy Johns in the big leagues a couple years ago and we started a long-term project in terms of looking at the clubs and what they are doing with their players …

The test for filler is whether you can leave it out without changing the meaning in the slightest, and this certainly qualifies.

There is nothing egregious about Commissioner Manfred in this regard. People in business, sports, entertainment, and politics who are called on regularly to appear articulate are under special pressure to adopt expedients that make them sound more fluent. Here, for instance, is Mark Zuckerberg testifying in congress (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/?utm_term=.3a7c1841872b):

Today, as we sit here, 99 percent of the ISIS and Al Qaida content that we take down on Facebook, our A.I. systems flag before any human sees it. So that's a success in terms of rolling out A.I. tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community.

Same test: remove “in terms of” and the meaning remains unchanged.

Here’s a third example, from another congressional hearing (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CHRG-113shrg90863.pdf):

Now, Mr. Blanton was recommending, it sounded like, more resources put toward ending the backlog or just in terms of fixing some of these problems and holding up a nomination toward that end.

Same test.

If serving as filler were the only use of the phrase, it would scarcely be worth comment. Unfortunately it is also crowding out many prepositions—replacing one little word with three. Examples are legion. I’ll cite a few here (nearly all from congressional hearings—they are such easy targets!), together with my emendations:

[From https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56893/pdf/CHRG-111shrg56893.pdf]:

Senator, I share your frustration and Senator Coburn’s frustration in terms of how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems.

Senator, I share your frustration and Senator Coburn’s frustration with how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems.

[From the same Zuckerberg hearing as above]:

So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?

So would you work with us on what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?

[From a congressional oversight hearing on the worst places in government to work at, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4-16-15-The-Worst-Places-to-Work-in-the-Federal-Government.pdf]:

DHS had ranked 19 of 19 in terms of cabinet agencies on factors such as effective leadership, fairness, empowerment, and skills to match the mission.

DHS had ranked 19 of 19 among cabinet agencies on factors such as effective leadership, fairness, empowerment, and skills to match the mission.

[From https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg62947/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg62947.pdf]:

This will be another baseline for me in terms of just how bad things are in terms of morale.

This will be another baseline for me for just how bad things are with morale.

or even more succinct

This will be another baseline for me for just how bad morale is.

[I’m not sure what the speaker means by “baseline,” but that’s another matter.]

[Senator Rob Portman on Meet the Press, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-29-2018-n895591]:

[The Russians] haven't backed off in terms of supporting the murderous Assad regime.

[The Russians] haven't backed off from supporting the murderous Assad regime.

[From yet another congressional hearing, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56893/pdf/CHRG-111shrg56893.pdf]:

Senator, I share your frustration and Senator Coburn’s frustration in terms of how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems.

Senator, I share your frustration and Senator Coburn’s frustration about how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems.

Poor about! Although it’s a preposition that has served honorably in the language for a long time, it is for some reason nowadays nearly completely out of favor. But that’s a subject for another essay.

You may disagree with my choices of replacement preposition. Except for prepositions that locate something or somebody in place or time—“I saw your hat under the table,” or “They said to expect them after six”—most choices of preposition are pretty arbitrary. For example, there’s no particular reason we should say “I heard the song on the radio,” rather than “in the radio” or “through the radio” or “by the radio.” On the other hand, sometimes we have an array of choices with subtle differences in meaning:

• We walked along the path.
• We walked by the path.
• We walked beside the path.
• We walked on the path.

In such cases it enriches the language to have choices. Most of the time, however, there is no compelling reason other than custom to prefer one preposition over another, and speakers do not always agree which preposition is customary. There is never a good reason, in any case, to use “in terms of” in place of a simple preposition, whichever one you think is appropriate.

For people constantly in the public eye, such as radio and television personalities, there is an outsized demand for fluency that is hard for an ordinary person to meet. The temptation is strong to formulate chunks of utterances and string them together using “in terms of” as the glue. Here are a couple of examples from radio broadcasts:

[From a weather forecast] “[The chance of rain has] backed off a little in terms of what the models are showing.” The meteorologist responsible for this sentence could have kept nearly all his wording by saying instead, “The chance of rain has backed off a little in what the models are showing.” More concise would have been “The chance of rain has backed off in the models,” but the phrase “the models are showing” is a staple of meteorology-speak, so it came out as a whole. If the speaker had been willing to forego the active-sounding verb phrase “backed off,” he could have rendered the idea this way: “The models are now showing less chance of rain.”

[From a story on the Martha Steward brand] “[She] took her eye off the ball in terms of what was happening in the market.” An obvious improvement would be “She took her eye off what was happening in the market,” but the phrase “took her eye off the ball” is a cliché that will out.

The alternative—as with all the examples in this essay—is to slow down and rethink the sentence. Ironically, in view of our apparent need for fluency, a pause is often effective rhetorically, particularly if you have other means to hold the floor. If I were to give advice, I’d say the next time you feel the phrase “in terms of” beginning to emerge from your throat, squelch it, pause a moment, and continue without it. Chances are your listeners will be impressed with the increased gravity of your utterance.

So far, none of the examples I have cited does serious harm to the language as a means of transmitting meaning. But “in terms of” is such an aggressive invader that it has begun to displace conjunctions and connecting phrases that are vital to precision in communicating the speaker’s intent. Consider, for example, the following exchange between National Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep and Robert Ford, former U.S. Ambassador to Syria:

I think the ambassador was trying to say that a no-fly zone would do some of what an ISIS-free zone would do—namely prevent aerial bombardment—but not extend to the benefit of keeping out artillery and tanks. He could have made this much clearer by inserting a subordinate clause starting with in that, like this:

Well, the no-fly zone would work in some ways like a safe zone, but it might be actually a little less, in that it would stop enemy aircraft from bombing but not prevent hostile forces from, for example, bringing artillery or tanks and shooting into the no-fly zone.

Instead he let the lazy “in terms of” connect the clauses and left it up to the listener to sort out his meaning. This is the pernicious aspect of over-used verbiage: by replacing words and phrases that more precisely link the speaker’s clauses, it shifts the burden of making meaning from the speaker to the listener.

Here’s an example from Rachel Maddow, who is generally splendidly articulate, but does have a moderately severe case of “in terms of” disease. It’s part of an exchange between her and Michael Beschloss [http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-07-16]:

She might have said “in order to try to understand the magnitude” or “as a way of trying to understand the magnitude” or maybe something else I haven’t thought of. It’s not hugely important, but she has shifted to us the task of making her point precise.

I promised a discussion of the one productive use of “in terms of,” viz., singling out a clause for emphasis. In this role, the phrase simply replaces older formulations, such as “regarding,” or “when it comes to,” or “concerning.” Again, examples are legion, and they are easiest to find in political discourse. The phrase is often used for fronting, putting one aspect of the thought at the beginning of the sentence, because that automatically adds emphasis.

In terms of legislative fixes, most of what needs to be done really starts with agencies and agency leaderships creating that culture of engagement and then cascading that down and creating almost like micro-levels of engagement.

“He has the footballing ability to go very high,” says Huchet. “But in terms of his physical strength, if there was a big, imposing physical midfielder at Arsenal like Patrick Vieira he would very much struggle to get in the team ahead of them at the moment.”

But in terms of policy I think the administration is doing things that are appropriate and very tough.

I’m very much in the Mark Murray [camp] in terms of winning elections being what Democrats need to do.

I think it'll be interesting to see, in terms of reshaping the Court, Murkowski and Collins.

I would be derelict if I didn’t say that there have been for a long time two legitimate uses of the phrase:

“Solve for y in terms of x,” which probably induces dread in vast numbers of erstwhile students of high-school algebra,

and

“Speak to me in terms of endearment.”

I once mentioned the latter example to a literate friend, and it became instantly clear that she thought I meant “Speak to me about endearment,” rather than “Speak to me using words and phrases that are endearing.” That goes to show how deeply ingrained the modern usage is.

You can probably tell from this discussion that I am only reluctantly a descriptivist on the subject. Here, as a last word, is what the prescriptivist says [from the John A. Dutton e-Education Institute, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c3_p35.html]:

This phrase is virtually meaningless, but we often hear it on the news and in bloated speeches. “in terms of” is really just a wordy and sloppy transition—usually an unoriginal disguise for a simple preposition, such as “in,” or a more elegant phrasing, such as “in relation to.” “In terms of the cost, it is high,” is easily revised to “Its cost is high.” Do not use “in terms of,” or do so trembling.