Meghan Daum had a column in the Tribune today about the "misuse" of "nonplussed," to mean "unfazed." She asked Mark Liberman about the more recent use of "nonplussed," being quite annoyed with it.

quote:

"Nonplussed" should not be used to describe people who are calm during earthquakes, speakers who remain poised when confronted with hecklers, or zoo animals that aren't aware that video footage showing them playing with dog toys is on CNN.com's most viewed list

Liberman posted about it twice on Language Log. The first entry explained the recent usage. He talks about the evolution of words in this post and specifically mentions how "silly" has changed:

quote:

Working forward from 1200 to 1600, a certain word went through something like the following sequence of meanings (as given in the OED): "Happy, blissful; fortunate, lucky, well-omened, auspicious"; "Spiritually blessed, enjoying the blessing of God"; "Pious, holy, good"; "Innocent, harmless"; "Deserving of pity or sympathy; pitiable, miserable, ‘poor’; helpless, defenceless"; "Insignificant, trifling; mean, poor; feeble"; "Frail, worn-out, crazy"; "Foolish, simple, silly".

The word? Silly.

Liberman does, however, say this in the comments:

quote:

In the particular case of "nonplussed", I can take it or leave it, with a slight preference for leaving it. I certainly wouldn't use the new sense myself, and I'd recommend others not to use it. On the other hand, I'm sensible enough (I hope) not to allow myself to become William Grant White.

Interestingly, he reevaluated this response here, and says that "nonplussed" doesn't seem to have evolved in any of the standard categories of semantic change (Leonard Bloomfield's 1933 Taxonomy); those include narrowing, widening, metonymy, synecdoche, hypobole, litotes, degeneration, and elevation.

So here is my linguistic question. Liberman indicates that other words that have evolved, such as "peruse," "moot," "fulsome," and "nice" have fallen nicely into these categories. Those words have all evolved to opposite meanings, as has "nonplussed." So why are the categories of semantic change the same for those words and not for "nonplussed?"

I'm nonplussed that no one has responded.

I bet you don't know what I mean. I could mean "confused" or "unfazed." That's the problem, I think, with these meanings that change, especially those like "moot" or "peruse" that become almost the opposite. (I am not even sure of the history of "fulsome" because I rarely use that word.) "Begs the question" is another. If you know the language and use the word correctly, those who are less in the know think you are ignorant...when in fact it is they who are. Is the answer to not use those words or phrases? I am not sure.

I'm nonplussed that no one has responded.

I'm surprised you didn't post this in the linguistics ghetto down south. Probably the best way to get an answer to your question is to ask Professor Liberman himself. He's a friendly chap, and I'm sure he'll respond to you. (I do have one of Grant's books. He was a Victorian grammudgeon.)

I took a quick peek at Bloomfield's categories, and here are some of his examples: (1) narrowing, Old English (OE) mete 'food' > Modern English (PDE) meat 'edible flesh'; (2) widening, OE bridde 'young birdling' > PDE bird; (3) metaphor, Primitive Germanic bitraz 'biting' > PDE bitter 'harsh of taste'; (4) metanymy, OE cēace > PDE check and Old French joue 'check' > PDE jaw; (5) synecdoche, pre-English *stobo (cf. German Stube 'parlor') > PDE stove; (6) hyperbole, pre-French (perhaps Vulgar Latin) *extonāre 'to strike with thunder' > French étonner 'to astonish' (whence also PDE astound, astonish; (7) litotes, P Gmc *kwalljan 'to torment' > PDE kill; (8) degeneration, OE cnafa 'boy, servant' > PDE knave; and (9) OE cniht 'boy, servant' > PDE knight.

[Corrected an error of omission.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

I always thought that if Captain Kirk fired at his target and missed, the alien was unfazed.

Perhaps the reason "nonplussed" doesn't fit is that they need to create a new category.

I wasn't aware that the word had evolved as stated but, then again, I would rarely if ever use it. Although I am nonplussed that the meaning is changing, using either definition.

quote:

Perhaps the reason "nonplussed" doesn't fit is that they need to create a new category.

Well, Proofreader, that was my question really. Liberman thinks they might need to. To me it seemed like all those words evolved in a similar way, from one meaning to a near opposite meaning.

However, I suspect he is going into it with far more depth than I, and that's why, zmj, I didn't ask him. I thought about it, but in reality I am a little awed by him.

quote:

I'm surprised you did post this in the linguistics ghetto down south.

I suspect, z, you meant "didn't"? If so, recall I can't start threads there.

quote:

Perhaps the reason "nonplussed" doesn't fit is that they need to create a new category.

Well, call me a fuddy-duddy, but there's an existing category that fits well: error.

Well, call me a fuddy-duddy, but there's an existing category that fits well: error.

OK, sure. You're a fuddy-duudy. The interesting question is when do "errors" cease being errors and become new meanings? The concept of semantic change as error is new, probably only since the 18th century or so.

In this case, I hope this error never ceases being an error. There is no reason why people should use it incorrectly, and doing so only makes their writing or speech less understandable.

Dictionaries that repeat, without notation, such errors only exacerbate this unnecessary confusion.

I think I've just graduated to curmudgeon.

Dictionaries that repeat, without notation, such errors only exacerbate this unnecessary confusion.

Do you have a reference to a dictionary that lists the newer meaning without caution? Dictionaries don't define words or allow people to use them in "erroneous" ways. Dictionaries merely provide a description of how people use words. Most dictionaries also annotate such definitions with an indication of the register of the word's use.

I think I've just graduated to curmudgeon.

Welcome, Valentine. "One of us! Gooble gobble, gooble gobble! One of us! One of us!"

I suppose your "without caution" protects these dictionaries, but here they are:

Ask Oxford, Wiktionary, AllWords, and here is what Word Detective has to say. It doesn't appear in World Wide Words, nor is the "new" definition in the online OED. I looked at about 17 online dictionaries, and the online Encarta that I linked to only had the "confused" definition. That's interesting because Liberman says the new meaning has made it into the online dictionary Encarta, listing the meaning as "cool, collectd; calm and unperturbed" with the second meaning being "confused." Are there other Encartas besides the one in Onelook? That's the one I linked to.

I'd say we're safe, for the time being, with the use of "nonplussed." Yet I suspect it will evolve to a wider meaning in the future.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Yesterday, at the DNC, a local talk show host described Michelle Obama's brother as unfazed by all of the hoopla and attention. He used the word nonplussed, however.

He's a smart guy, though not particularly well educated.

I fired off an email to him.

If a very frequent use of the word "nonplussed" is for a description of one who is so shellshocked or dumbfounded that any more shocks will not faze him ("no more", essentially the guy is now unflappable), then the movement of the definition to being synonymous with "unflappable" without any consideration of why/how the so-described person attained that state does not seem like such a big or unexplained jump to me even if the word becomes its own antonym.