Last month, I had a little moan on Twitter about Robert Peston, specifically this, about his use of "so-called" to describe the logarithmic scale:
Why did @Peston just say "so-called logarithmic scale" on the news? So called implies it's somehow dubious...but it's not. It's a logarithmic scale, nothing "so-called" about it. Just #maths.
— Martin P (@MartinWrites) April 4, 2020
No-one else was too bothered, as you can see. No replies, no retweets, just a couple of likes. I wrote it off as Peston being a bit crap, and me being a bit picky.
But then last night, at around 1am, the anchor on BBC News described the COVID-19 rate of infection as "the so-called R number"! What's so-called about it? It is the R number, plain and simple.
Now I know language changes, so I started to wonder whether the common usage of "so-called" had changed, and no-one had told me. But look, it hasn't... Collins dictionary defines it as an adjective meaning "designated or styled by the name or word mentioned, esp (in the speaker's opinion) incorrectly..." But that's just the British English definition. The same dictionary goes on to define the term's meaning in American English as "popularly known or called by this term". So, as English absorbs more Americanisms, is so-called becoming one of those words that is its own antonym? Both incorrectly called, and correctly called? Like cleave meaning both cut apart and stick together? A contronym, for the other word nerds out there.
Anyway, what's my point? Well, I just wish British journalists would stick to using "so-called" in the conventional British Engligh manner. Logarithmic scales, R numbers... these are not debatable or dubious concepts. They are established factual concepts of science and maths. Sloppy wordplay does them no favours in our age of misinformation and unclear messages.
Better find an appropriate song, I guess.
Interesting. It strikes me as being all part of dumbing down - as if those using 'so-called' in the examples you give are saying, "Obviously you won't understand or know the word/expression that I'm going to use, so I'll preface it for you"
ReplyDeleteEven if I hadn't, I don't need journalists to tell me with a patronising 'so-called' that something actually has a specific word/term allocated to it! Erm, I get that bit. Sigh....
I think you're right, C.
DeleteIt's literally another "literally".
ReplyDeleteThey're both unique problems... :)
DeleteJournalistic phrasing I think, as C says, possibly to signpost something that they know and think you don't. Partly as Rol suggests, its just linguistic style, chucking it in because its become a habit. Like literally. Like, literally.
ReplyDeleteAll true. I've been trying to conclude why it irks me so much, and I think it's because it seems to be trying to plant a subconscious seed of doubt, when none is warranted. A logarithmic scale is just a logarithmic scale, it's not a conspiracy. Yet "so-called" makes it sound dodgy, as if the users of the logarithmic scale are trying to hoodwink us somehow, with their "so-called" scale. Gah! Maybe I'm just getting old and inflexible, intolerant...
DeleteYep, the seed of doubt thing is dangerous especially when so much disinformation and outright untruths are shared so freely and easily online.
DeleteGod yes It's funny how it completely changes the context when you hear it in that doubtful way, isn't it? As in "my so-called friend" when you mean someone who clearly did something a true friend wouldn't do. Really sneery!
ReplyDeleteAll very true,from what I've seen(admittedly little) Peston's so called questions(justified use maybe?) to Boris and co have been rambling nonsense. Mind you he's not unique in that..bring on intolerance.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely justified in that case.
DeleteBring it on? Like we haven't been The Intolerance Twins for nearly 40 years... :)
I am constantly amazed by what comes from the mouths of obviously well-educated journalists when it comes to numbers and anything maths related. A lot of the statistics being banded about at the moment are highly dubious and misleading.
ReplyDeleteMy main bugbear however is the term "average" - When discussing the "average salary" (which is a far figure than I've ever earned) reporters always add that this means half of us earn less than this. No, I shout at them, it doesn't - It probably means that at least three quarters of us earn less than this because of those ridiculously high earners at the top. No-one ever quotes the median which would be correct - Poor old median.
Totally with you on this!
Delete