Communication still has to choose between cliches and jargon

Jargon and cliche are apt antonyms, for one is usually mystifying to the uninitiated and the other is so universally known and applied that it is reviled as too commonplace. Curiously, there is no opprobrium attached to predilections for jargon despite its unerring ability to confound even as it sounds profound, and yet cliches are reviled by all wordsmiths though its usage would guarantee instant comprehension by a myriad of people.

Jargon dominates the world of business and management, and also of fine arts, with nary a protest against its exclusivist tenor. Cliches imbue the user and the listener with a feeling of commonality but are most often sadly dismissed as banalities because of their very simplicity.

Jargon also fosters camaraderie but of a different kind, for it demands an insider knowledge of particular worlds in order to be utilised to pad a presentation with grandiloquent verbiage or as shorthand or code. In that context, words and phrases like ‘scalability’, ‘nosebleed’, ‘best practice’ and ‘take offline’ become cliches for the business world but jargon for the rest.

If the intention, however, is to communicate rather than obfuscate, cliches by their very preponderence should be the primary choice for most people, especially in a country like India where knowledge of English is uneven, though aspiration for fluency is rising.

Of course, the best practice would be to express oneself using original prose in simple English, shorn of both cliches and jargon. However, since drinking the kool-aid is the norm rather than thinking out of the box, there is little reason to believe that English speakers anywhere will to take it to the next level; they would rather put hard stop on it, citing more pressing concerns. There are no buy-ins for clear, unambiguous English any more.