14 April 2010
I’ve always liked Slate magazine’s The Good Word column. It appears infrequently, but when it does it features insightful commentary on language by a number of linguists, lexicographers, and other experts on language.
But today it features a column objecting to use of the word kabuki in political circles to mean something done for show with no real substance. The writer, Jon Lackman, objects to it because this meaning is not at all what real Kabuki theater in Japan is. And Lackman, who is a Ph.D. candidate in art criticism ought to know.
Unfortunately, Lackman doesn’t know about language and has fallen for the etymological fallacy. The meanings of words are not determined by their origin, but rather by how they are used. If enough English-speakers use the word kabuki to mean an empty display, then that is what it means, regardless of the word’s meaning in Japanese or the traditions of Japanese theater. Likewise, decimate does not mean to kill one out of every ten, garcon means waiter not boy, men can become hysterical, and anyone, not just popes, can pontificate. The etymological fallacy is one of the most basic errors a person writing about language usage can make, and no publication should tolerate this in a column on language.
Lackman does have a valid point that the word’s usage in English has little to do with real Kabuki theater, and the usage probably does give a false impression to westerners about what the actual art form is all about. But he’s not going to change the usage. I probably wouldn’t have objected to the column if it had been labeled as a theater or arts column, but Slate labeled it as a language column, and the editors really need to set a higher standard for who they let write their language column.
