Actually, the use of 'basically' clearly drives us nuts
11:55 PM 7/27/03
Fred McKissack Wisconsin State Journal

For some, it's the verbal equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.

More than a few speech and English teachers want to knuckle-rap students for using the word. Ann Landers once wrote that people who employ it are lazy. Monty Python found use of the word silly enough to poke fun of those who use it.

In a nutshell, "basically" has gone from a useful adverb alerting the listener that what was said is the basic element or the essence of an idea, to a giant weed cluttering up perfectly good sentences.

One National Public Radio listener was so offended by the overuse of "basically" by the network's on-air talent she was moved to fire off a missive.

"Once the word comes out of the mouth, the credibility of the reporter and the seriousness of the subject are lost," Donna Hopkins wrote to NPR's ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, in a letter published on the network's site, www.npr.org. "Also, with every utterance it is less and less of a motivation to donate to NPR. Sad. Very sad."

So what's behind the habitual use of the word "basically"?

Well, basically (c'mon, you saw it coming), it's verbal clutter that has lost its literal meaning.

"You hear this more in verbal discourse than written," explained Stephen J. Lucas, a professor of communication arts at UW. "I don't know why it's so popular. It might be that people are emulating TV."

Lucas' comments were echoed by Fern L. Johnson, professor of English at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

"Basically, this an example of repetitive vernacular that works its way into mainstream language - even the written form of standard U.S. English," she wrote in an e-mail. "There's nothing lazy about this. Its current usage seems to have the implication of content stripped of all unnecessary elements."

Johnson wrote that "basically" isn't a filler word - such as the dreaded "you know" and "like" - which are used to move the flow of speech.

The New York Times' resident lexicographer, William Safire, lumps the words "basically," "clearly," and "actually" together as having "been reduced to throat-clearing, attention-demanding words." In a word, he referred to them as harrumphisms.

"The new meaning of both is 'I'm here. Shut up and listen,' " he wrote in a 1997 column.

Fundamentally, "basically" has lost its original purpose and entered the nether world of flawed usage. So just what are we doing when we blurt the word out in speech?

Essentially, Lucas quickly deconstructed the word into four possible connotations for its use from the point-of-view of the speaker:

(a) you, the listener, don't really want a two-hour analysis;

(b) I, the speaker, don't think you're not going to understand this complex subject, but I'll try to make it simple;

(c) I, the speaker, don't want to talk to you about it; and

(d) basically, I don't understand it myself, but by saying "basically," I somehow intimate that I do.

Actually, the overuse of "basically" is not as recent a phenomenon as one might believe. In the early 1970s, the famed comedy troupe Monty Python produced a sketch that featured the president of the British Well Basically Club who began explanations with, "Well, basically, . . ."

This overuse is possibly understandable for the everyday speaker, but what about the professional broadcaster who should know better?

"I think there is a tendency for some broadcasters in live question-and-answer sessions to rely on familiar speech patterns," said NPR's Dvorkin. "The problem for us at NPR is that we're so highly produced that some (reporters and announcers) have lost the art of doing live radio."