Impact Effect
« previous post | next post »
I recently saw a list of revisions suggested by the editor of a scientific journal, which combined technical issues with a number of points of English usage, including these two:
Please try to avoid the word ‘impact,’ unless it is part of a proper name. It is now over-used (its ‘impact’ is diminished), and doesn’t communicate anything specific. If used as a verb, it is better to describe exactly what happens. As a noun, ‘effect’ (or similar) would suffice. For example, “The impact on quality of life…” could be rendered as “The reduction in quality of life…” […]
Be clear and direct; avoid the passive voice.
This is an interesting mixture of different types of usage peeving.
The "avoid passive" business is a old stylistic concern that we've often discussed, for example in "Passive aggression", 7/18/2006. Interestingly, those who are strongest in condemning the passive voice are often its most vigorous users. Thus Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage quotes Margaret Bryant, Current American Usage, 1962 (p. 720):
Bryant 1962 reports three statistical studies of passive versus active sentences in various periodicals; the highest incidence of passive constructions was 13 percent. Orwell runs to a little over 20 percent in "Politics and the English Language."
The incidence of passive versus active verbs in the editorial note under discussion is 50%. (See also "Those who take the adjectives from the table", 2/18/2004.)
But anti-passive campaigning doesn't seem be a response to changes in usage — if anything, the opposite is true, as suggested in "When men were men, and verbs were passive", 8/4/2006. And most people, including some of the anti-passive authorities, are not very clear about what passive voice actually is, as discussed in "The passive in English", 1/24/2011. So what is the psychodynamics of anti-passivity? Apparently it's just a vague sense that active is good and passive is bad — metaphorical generalization of an accident of historical word-sense development. (See "The direct and vigorous hyptic voice", 8/5/2006, for a sketch of alternative history.)
The objection to impact is different. People who object to the alleged over-use or wrong use of a particular word do really avoid such usage themselves, in general — though this particular editor slipped up, a bit later in the same message, by recommending that in the Discussion section, "The focus should be on the impact of the findings on the field". And most such word-oriented reactions reflect resistance to a historical usage shift on the scale of 50 years or so. Certainly this is the case for impact, as measured crudely by frequency in the Medline corpus of biomedical abstracts:
A table of the numbers behind those graphs is here.
And we can see something similar in Google Books (vertical black line at 1974 when Medline starts):
The table of numbers is here.
MWDEU says about impact:
This word comes in for adverse criticism both as a noun and as a verb in figurative use. The criticism is relatively recent, beginning evidently in the 1960s with Bernstein 1965, Fowler 1965, and Follett 1966. These three (and also Bremner 1980) are concerned with the noun; later writers take up the cudgels against the verb. The gist of most of the criticism is fairly well summed up in this portion of the discussion in Cook 1985:
impact A word fit to describe the crash of a wrecker's ball against its target, impact has become a substitute for bearing, influence, significance, and effect. It's so overworked in officalese and journalese that the more appropriate terms are falling into disuse. Both Follett and Bernstein have harsh words for this "faddish" abasement of the noun. How much more horrified they might have been had they lived to see the current vogue of the verb impact in the sense of "to have an impact" or "to have an impact on" (Loose usage adversely impacts the language).
The graphs above suggest that the mid-60s usage mavens were bidding the impact tide retreat when it was merely swirling around their ankles. The disapproving editor in 2017 is …
Well, a journal is free to insist on any arbitrary style guide. Every paragraph must have a prime number of commas? Sure, if you say so. But the instruction to "try to avoid the word 'impact'" would be more persuasive if the same editorial message did not contain, 347 words later, the recommendation that in the Discussion section, "The focus should be on the impact of the findings on the field".
Update — I'm also puzzled about the concessive clause "unless it [the word 'impact'] is part of a proper name", since I can't think of any relevant proper names containing "impact". A personal name? Unlikely. A place name? Probably not. A business name? The USPTO lists 4079 trademarks involving some form of the word "impact", but a quick scan doesn't turn up any that seem likely to be mentioned in a scientific article. What am I missing?
Update #2 — a quick scan of Medline results turns up things like the "Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale" and the "Center for High-Impact Philanthropy", for which relevant mentions would presumably get a proper-name (noun?) pass.
Jack Cundy said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:30 am
Impact adhesive? Not a proper name per se, but it is a thing, and that thing might be referenced in certain scientific studies I suppose.
Also, 'impact event'.
paul farrington-douglas said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:36 am
I'd guess the writer might have intended something like 'term of art' rather than 'proper noun' – probably trying to make allowance for things like Journal Impact Factor. (Yes, I get that proper noun is clearly the wrong term there; but this is someone who uses the passive 3 times in one short paragraph immediately before commanding their readers to abjure it, so….)
Mark Meckes said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:41 am
Out of curiosity, do you have any idea how the incidence of passive versus active verbs in the paper under review compares either to other papers published in the same journal, or technical writing more generally?
[(myl) The "avoid impact" instruction seems to have been specifically relevant to the submitted paper, whereas the "avoid passive" instruction was part of a list of general stylistic recommendations.]
As for "impact" as part of a proper name, the first thing that occurred to me was Impact Factor, but I imagine something like you mention in Update #2 is more likely what the editor had in mind.
KeithB said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:51 am
To add to what Mark said, Impact Factor has become almost a term of art in papers and that might explain its rise.
BZ said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:57 am
Since you don't mention what the journal is, it's hard to say what's relevant, but "Deep Impact" (the spacecraft, but possibly even the movie) could be mentioned if it has anything to do space or physics or whatever.
Guy said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:59 am
Is it really necessary to specify that proper names are okay? Are there people dumb enough to change a name because of advice to "try to avoid" something? If so, why aren't there other exceptions for expressions like "impacted molar", or for concrete physical uses, for that matter, which the note is presumably not meant to cover
Jerry Friedman said,
February 23, 2017 @ 11:25 am
Cook 1985: 'How much more horrified they might have been had they lived to see the current vogue of the verb impact in the sense of "to have an impact" or "to have an impact on" (Loose usage adversely impacts the language).'
With what further horror might they have witnessed impactful.
Charles said,
February 23, 2017 @ 11:27 am
I do like the admonition, "Be clear and direct." Perhaps by adding, "only," after direct the writer might have clarified it. Another admonition, "Try [to be clear and direct] until you have succeeded; then submit your paper," might have been helpful, too.
For greater impact on authors, remove all other guidance from the referenced list.
Charles said,
February 23, 2017 @ 11:30 am
Oops. The second occurrence of "direct" should've been in quotes ("'direct'").
Lai Ka Yau said,
February 23, 2017 @ 12:06 pm
To me (and possibly others of my generation), Impact as a proper noun is the font used in Internet memes and image macros!
DWalker07 said,
February 23, 2017 @ 12:37 pm
Many scientific journals have been given an "impact factor" which is supposed to measure their importance, or something.
See https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/14/impact-factor-science-journals/ which argues that the Impact Factor is overused and inaccurate.
Levantine said,
February 23, 2017 @ 2:34 pm
If "impact" is to be avoided because it "doesn't communicate anything specific", how is "effect" any better? And though it is true that "The reduction in quality of life" is less open-ended than "The impact on quality of life", the two are hardly synonymous, and the latter's multivalence may well be a point in its favour.
Rubrick said,
February 23, 2017 @ 3:38 pm
…the instruction to "try to avoid the word 'impact'" would be more persuasive if the same editorial message did not contain, 347 words later, the recommendation that in the Discussion section, "The focus should be on the impact of the findings on the field".
Such a beautiful own goal. I hope someone has pointed this example out to the authors directly. No doubt their response would be "oops", followed by an attempt to replace their use of "impact", which is not so easy. Substituting "effect" definitely alters the meaning.
Thomas Rees said,
February 23, 2017 @ 3:57 pm
Bad link for “The direct and vigorous hyptic voice”. Should end in “.html” not “.ht”.
Mick O said,
February 23, 2017 @ 4:15 pm
Re: Lai Ka Yau
Excellent point. The original brochure for the Impact typeface has a wonderful graphic hyping "THE IMPACT OF IMPACT" as seen here in a brief history of "that one font."
Mick O said,
February 23, 2017 @ 4:16 pm
Just terrible, on my part. The link is here:
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/26/9036993/meme-font-impact
Stephen Hart said,
February 23, 2017 @ 4:27 pm
Suggestions like "be clear and direct; avoid the passive voice" and "avoid any form of the verb to be" start showing up at least as early as 6th and 7th grade writing guides (in my experience as a parent), and never seem to grow more nuanced. Then they get embedded in house style guides, which is probably what we're seeing here.
Not a naive speaker said,
February 23, 2017 @ 4:51 pm
My first association reading Impact Effect was Impact Crater. The substitution with effect gives Effect Crater. The prescription doesn't work.
Charles Antaki said,
February 23, 2017 @ 5:02 pm
University management is doing its part to encourage peeving. The appraisal interviews at my university (as I suppose in all other UK universities) require personnel to describe, in verifiable detail, what "impact" they have had in the last year. ("None" is an acceptable answer only if you have substantial entries under that still more valued commodity, "enterprise".)
Chester Draws said,
February 23, 2017 @ 5:51 pm
For example, “The impact on quality of life…” could be rendered as “The reduction in quality of life…” […]
Seems reasonable, except that in most circumstances such replacements are not possible.
If you are going to study the impact of something, it's a bit prejudicial to describe the effect as "reduction" before you start looking. As Levantine said, "impact" would be used in these situations precisely because it is non-deterministic about direction.
And having completed your study on the impact of immigration, say, you have a massive set of effects that are far too complicated to be covered by precise words.
We have vague words in our language for a reason. We need them.
Finally, if I read the statistics right at the top, "effect" still massively outweighs "impact" in terms of usage. Based on that, shouldn't we be saying that "effect" is the one that is overused?
Gwen Katz said,
February 23, 2017 @ 7:53 pm
Is "impacted" still allowed vis-a-vis wisdom teeth?
Ray said,
February 23, 2017 @ 8:00 pm
@Lai Ka Yau
haha yes, and it's not just that the font is "impact," but it also has to be all caps, white, and with a border (black, 2 or maybe 4 px)
Viseguy said,
February 23, 2017 @ 8:45 pm
Surely not even an impact peever would object to "impact crater"!
@Gwen Katz: Both of my bottom wisdom teeth were horizontally impacted, as a result of which I lost a full week of college on two separate occasions after the dentist took a wrecker's ball to them. I've used "impacted" to tell the tale in the nigh-50 years since. So, IMHO, yes. :)
Joseph C. Fineman said,
February 23, 2017 @ 9:48 pm
This peevish copyeditor is inclined to attribute the popularity of "impact" to two causes: (1) it sounds violent; (2) it saves one the trouble of distinguishing "affect" (v) from "effect" (n), and of distinguishing both of them from "influence" (a more subtle matter). Both these motives, IMO, deserve to be eschewed as vulgar.
"Impact" also has been found useful by the merely mealymouthed. I have actually heard "That will negatively impact your chances" in conversation. There, "affect" or "influence" would be just as silly; the plain English is "hurt your chances".
However, there are plenty of contexts where the violence of the metaphor behind "impact" is justified: where the cause is sudden and the effect drawn out. It has long been possible to say "Reading that book had (or, better, "made") a profound impact on me"; it's even in the OED. But the metaphor is trampled on by people who write "gradual impact" or who use "impact" for "effect" in the statistical sense. I still license my peevery in such cases. A computer app that would yell "bang!" when people wrote such stuff would provide valuable guidance.
Levantine said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:54 pm
Joseph C. Fineman, I hope your comment isn't indicative of how much copyeditors can (mis)read into word choice. I do not use "impact" to imply violence; I do not infer violence when others use it, except when such an interpretation is called for. The idea that people prefer "impact" over "effect" because they're unsure how to spell the latter is, frankly, absurd. As for "influence", its meanings overlap with, but are not the same as, those of "impact".
Since you're so concerned with what you see as the word's original meaning, it may interest you to know that the violent sense is pretty recent: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=impact. Look up "slowly impacted" in Google Books and you'll find such nineteenth-century examples as "enormous fields of snow which are slowly impacted into glaciers" and "the bowels are allowed to become slowly impacted with faeces". Can "gradual impact" now be allowed to pass muster?
To echo what Charles Draws said above, we wouldn't have all these words, or the various senses they have generated, if we didn't need them.
Levantine said,
February 23, 2017 @ 10:59 pm
("Pretty recent" with reference to the verb; I concede that the noun has always implied force.)
mg said,
February 24, 2017 @ 1:11 am
I recently had a paper rewritten by a copy editor who clearly had learned that it's imperative to avoid the passive voice but had no idea what that means. Perfectly good phrases like "There was no evidence…" were changed to "We found no evidence…" In a couple of cases, sentences were rewritten to say the opposite of what they had meant. It was a bad enough experience that I plan to avoid submitting any more papers to that journal.
[(myl) Of course you might also have run into a journal whose house style forbids the use of first-person pronouns…]
Jerry Friedman said,
February 24, 2017 @ 11:33 am
Levantine: The idea that people prefer "impact" over "effect" because they're unsure how to spell the latter is, frankly, absurd.
"I was in the section of my presentation where I beg people to lay off the leverage, put the brakes on drive, and use the verb affect instead of impact when one participant—thank you, Chelsea in Boston—said she resorts to impact because she’s not sure whether to use affect or effect in its stead."
From the blog Weltcheck Writes.
To extend another thing Joseph C. Fineman said, I dislike the casual use of "impact" (noun or verb) because the reference to collisions, when no comparison to collisions is warranted, sounds to me like an attempt to give one's writing spurious vigor, tart it up, aggrandize one's subject and quite possibly oneself. It's like "only $14.99!"—and what could be more dishonest than advertising? The worst part is that such style is contagious.
Okay, I'm back to normal now, but "impact" does have those unpleasant connotations for me. It doesn't for you, but I hope you'll accept that it does for some people, maybe mostly older than you. (I'm in my fifties, and I've seen Joe Fineman say elsewhere that he's older than that.) That's my answer to your earlier question of how "effect" is better than "impact".
Your examples of "slowly impacted" show other senses of the verb "impact": "compress" (we might say "compact") and "obstruct". In my opinion, those would be additional reasons to avoid "impact" for "effect" if they were used in non-technical modern speech, but I don't think they are.
Bloix said,
February 24, 2017 @ 12:02 pm
The widely-held peeve is the use of impact as a verb. I don't think many people believe that the noun should be restricted to lunar landings. So this is a hyper-peeve.
Michael Watts said,
February 24, 2017 @ 12:37 pm
This peevish copyeditor is inclined to attribute the popularity of "impact" to two causes: (1) it sounds violent; (2) it saves one the trouble of distinguishing "affect" (v) from "effect" (n)
If you're going to peevishly copyedit people, I'd hope you can do better at distinguishing "affect" from "effect" than by saying that one is a verb and the other is a noun. Each of them is both a noun and a verb: "affect" is a noun meaning roughly "manner", and "effect" is a verb meaning "bring about".
If instead you meant that it's important to be able to distinguish whether a particular word in a fixed sentence is a noun or a verb, the spelling won't do much good there. That kind of ambiguity is quite rare (although I do love the standard example "we saw her duck"). It's rare enough that we can zero-derive verbs from nouns because the location of the word in the sentence is enough to compel interpretation as a verb.
Levantine said,
February 24, 2017 @ 2:24 pm
So we have Chelsea in Boston as our anecdotal evidence. But the fact that "effect" and "affect" remain far commoner than "impact" perhaps indicates that people generally know what word they wish to use and make their choice accordingly.
paul farrington-douglas said,
February 24, 2017 @ 5:42 pm
"I was in the section of my presentation where I beg people to lay off the leverage, put the brakes on drive, and use the verb affect instead of impact"
Nowt wrong with any of those, actually. To leverage has a meaning that is clear within the marketing industry even if it annoys the Eng Lit BA, and to boot it's a meaning not readily replaced with another verb. Ditto drive. Impact clearly has a different feel from affect – and even if it didn't, so what? You might as well argue that 'presentation' should be proscribed; after all, what's wrong with 'speech'? Copy editors should be focusing on making sure the language targets the audience, not on making it fit some personal peevometrics.
(Peevometrics… Feeling quite chuffed with that one!)