Bublitz 1
Benjamin Bublitz
Dr. Barton
English 431
06 May 2010
Acronyms as a Rhetorical Force
OMG RSVP ASAP FTW: A random string of letters, or something more? This jumble of
characters might be seen as a phrase composed of acronyms translating to, “Oh my gosh,
répondez s'il vous plaît as soon as possible for the win,” but this shorthand may contain more
meaning than just the full expansion of the individual initialisms. George Orwell's novel 1984
depicts a time when words are condensed beyond recognition. The rapid explosion of
abbreviations might make Orwell's fiction seem realistic, but were it true, what would it mean?
Acronyms are inherently symbolic, and studying their meanings within a rhetorical context
reveals that they have an effect on interpretation--some coercive, some helpful, and some
stylistic.
The exact definition of acronym is not universally agreed upon. As Hartley says, “The
terms abbreviation, initialism, and acronym have not been used consistently by scholars” (397).
Hartley is not alone is this conjecture. Baum states, “Whatever specific value the term acronym
may once have had is severely depreciated so long as blend words can be called acronyms...”
(“The Acronym” 49-50). Others have even suggested a hierarchy of acronym order. Webster's
New World College Dictionary defines an acronym as, “a word formed from the first (or first
few) letters in a series of words” (“Acronym”), but this definition excludes any sort of shortened
word which borrows a word's intermediate or terminal letters. Britton highlights the difficulty in
Bublitz 2
defining acronyms stating, “All that has been said here about diction naturally leads to the
fundamental problem of how far one should go in accepting new combinations and creations”
(343). For the purpose of this paper, acronyms will be defined in the broadest sense since the
exact method of formation is not relevant. Any single word or short phrase formed from parts of
one or several words, excluding traditional abbreviations, is an acronym or initialism within this
paper.
Rhetoric, too, takes on many definitions. While the purpose of this paper is not to define
rhetoric, the exact meaning used in herein should be clear. Brummett addresses three senses,
noting that they are not without overlap. One of these senses is a guide for practice. The second
sense is a theory of persuasion and influence, and the third a “critical method of analysis,” or a
way to systematically explain how rhetoric is working (116). This paper refers primarily to the
last two senses.
The origins of acronyms may suggest how they're interpreted. As far as word coinage
methods, the acronym is one of several well-established means (Britton 342-343). Cannon
indicates that acronyms first started to become commonplace in World War II (101). He states,
“As initialisms became fashionable in various contexts, items like US(A), USSR, and MIT
superseded the full forms” (103). Baum, however, marks World War I as the point at which
acronyms first came into common use. AWOL (absent without leave) and a number of military
organizations, such as ANZACS (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), became known by
acronyms almost exclusively. A large number of military terms beyond these two also originated
around the time of World War I (“From 'Awol'” 105). Eschholz and Rosa suggest the cause for
the enthusiasm over abbreviated word forms. “Brevity is the soul of slang; the short word is
Bublitz 3
easier to remember, is more forceful, and is more frequently used” (Eschholz and Rosa 86).
Regardless of when they first gained popularity, the era of acronyms seems to have sprung from
military and governmental associations, likely due to their emphasis on efficiency.
Acronyms have often taken the form of names of companies and other organizations.
Hartley reports, “In Cannon’s corpus, 92% of initialisms and 98% of acronyms have nominal
sources” (369). This trend is demonstrated by government and military organizations like those
mentioned above. Interestingly, some names were originally descriptive phrases rather than
proper nouns. One such example is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which is a
description that takes the form of a name (Hartley 370). Eschholz and Rosa mention that
acronyms are used for student social and political organizations, as well as class titles (86). A
large number of companies have been named using initialization schemes as well. Some
companies have chosen to use initialized names because of company mergers and diversification.
As companies expand to new industries, their original names become too narrow to accurately
describe their business (Feldman 72). Whatever the organization, and whatever the reason, the
result is a large number of entities described by a sequence of letters. Because the majority of
organizations through history are registered corporations, powerful or large groups, or
governmental bodies, having an acronym name might project a degree of officialism,
trustworthiness, largeness, or even control.
Though the naming of associations and organizations is one way which acronyms have
come to exist, it is certainly not the only way. Examples like AWOL and TBA (to be announced)
demonstrate that other phrases have also been truncated to acronyms. Some acronyms, like
RSVP, are so ingrained into our vocabulary that they cease to be recognized as anything but
Bublitz 4
ordinary words. When an acronym becomes an ordinary word, it can lose its all-capital scheme,
further disguising it (Britton 343). Cannon, too, mentions that many acronyms within the United
States have become common nouns and have made their way into everyday English (118).
Cannon further explains that the variety of types of acronyms, as well as methods of usage,
comes from the dependency on orthography for acronym creation (119).
The number of acronyms is exploding. This is true because the new acronyms are
continually created (Larkey et al. 205). The term acronym itself was coined in 1943 and has
become more important than expected (Baum, “The Acronym” 48). Since then, acronyms have
evolved into, as Sharp describes, a “...convenience run wild” (1728). Baum comments that
Americans have a “...habit of reducing complex concepts to the starkest abbreviations...” (“From
'Awol'” 104). Cannon agrees, reporting that the already large number of acronyms is increasing
at rising rates and that those acronyms are moving into general English more easily than ever
(119). In technological fields, the importance of the acronym is on the rise (Baum “Feminine
Characteristics of the Acronym” 224). In cardiology, for example, the increase of acronyms is
almost exponential (Cheng 683). Undoubtedly, acronyms are numerous.
The institution of acronyms has implications on comprehension. Those who instigate the
use of acronyms often cite the need to avoid long phrases which are difficult to pronounce
(Cannon 103-104). Feldman lists the desire to avoid pronouncing long, awkward corporate
names as a motive for companies who choose to identify themselves with acronyms (73). Bain
offers some explanation for this compulsion. He states, “On the principle of attaining ends at the
smallest cost, it is a virtue of language being brief” (27). This suggests that condensing a long
concept into a string of letters conveys the same meaning in a more succinct manner.
Bublitz 5
However, this brevity comes at a cost of simplicity (Bain 250). Bain explains, “Terms are
simple when they relate to things that, in their own nature, are palpable or easily conceived”
(249). Acronyms sacrifice the ability to readily understand meaning for the ability to address the
subject in a concise manner. For example, FBI is much shorter than Federal Bureau of
Investigation, but the letters FBI are not easily understood without knowing the FBI's nature or
function, or at least its its expanded form. Bain states that terms, to be simple, “...may be the
names of common and familiar objects, instead of such as are rare and remote” (248). The
acronym FBI may be common, but more obscure acronyms run the risk of being unfamiliar and
therefore difficult to conceptualize.
Acronyms are laden with symbolic meaning. This comes from several sources. In a
sense all language is symbolic. Burke explains, “Language develops by metaphorical extension,
in borrowing words from the realm of the corporeal, visible, tangible and applying them by
analogy to the realm of the incorporeal, invisible, intangible; then in the course of time, the
original corporeal reference is forgotten, and only the incorporeal, metaphorical extension
survives...” (425). While this may initially seem like a strong suggestion, it is based in a strong
argument: A word itself is merely a jumble of letters or muttering. Speakers of a particular
language, however, might associate those letters or utterances with a particular meaning.
Postman explains, “Unlike words and sentences, the photograph does not present to us an idea or
concept about the world, except as we use language itself to convert the image to idea” (72). The
difference between pictures and words is that words are exclusively symbolic where pictures
show an object exactly. The separation between word and meaning is much like the separation
between any other symbol and its meaning. As Burke states, “...these bodily equivalents are but
Bublitz 6
part of the idiom of expression involved in the act. They are 'figures.' They are hardly other than
'symbolizations'” (425-426).
Symbolism within acronyms goes beyond their inclusion within language. A primary
concern is whether an acronym carries a meaning beyond its expansion. Cannon alludes to this
possibility. “A second aspect of viability concerns whether an initialism may replace its source”
(119). An example of this phenomenon is radar, which is shorthand for radio detection and
ranging. Cannon suggests that some may not even know that radar has an expanded form even
though the definition is common knowledge (119). Another example is presented by Hartley:
scuba (Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus). The source of this acronym may be a
mystery to many who use it, or more likely, they don't realize it is an acronym at all (370-371).
A slightly different example is that of GOP. GOP refers to the Republican Party, and can be
more easily identified as an acronym due to its capitalization scheme (Liu, Lussier, and Friedman
397), but, Hartley states, “most of my undergraduate students at the University of Arizona...are
surprised to learn its source phrase, Grand Old Party” (371). In the case of radar, scuba, and
GOP, association between the word's meaning and the acronym itself is stronger than the
association between the acronym and its corresponding expansion.
This separation has potential for a profound rhetorical impact. Orlowski and Christensen,
speaking of medical studies, warn, “...care must be taken that the acronyms do not take on a life
of their own, enticing researchers and subjects and appearing to promise more than they can
deliver” (2027). This suggests that an acronym can be influential due to their symbolic nature.
Baron reports that, “...both lol and heehee (or haha) are commonly used as phatic fillers for the
equivalent of OK, cool, or yeah. Thus, we find a contrast between 'literal' [computer-mediated
Bublitz 7
communication] meaning...and phatic meaning...” (411-412). The observation here is that lol
(laugh out loud) is sometimes completely detached from its expansion, giving it a new meaning.
Brummett proposes that, “A sumptuary law dictates a close link between sign and reality...” (9).
If acronyms can become separated from their expansions, the concepts they symbolize might
take a unique shape, giving acronyms the capacity to carry connotative meaning beyond or even
in opposition to their true meaning.
The sheer number of acronyms naturally adheres itself to an amount of ambiguity.
Ambiguity comes from several mechanisms. One of these is confusion among acronyms of the
exact same letters, or duplicate acronyms with different expansions. As Cheng states, acronyms
can carry different meanings to different people (Cheng “Acronymophilia” 684). Pakhomov,
Pedersen, and Chute report on this type of ambiguity. “...33% of acronyms listed in the UMLS
[Unified Medical Language System] in 2001 are ambiguous” (Pakhomov, Pedersen, and Chute).
Liu, Lussier, and Friedman find also that, “...the UMLS abbreviations were highly ambiguous,
particularly those with fewer characters” (397). Cheng lists CHS as an acronym shared by six
clinical trials (“Acronymophilia” 684). Other acronyms have even more possible expansions.
Of course, the medical industry is only one example of a place where a single acronym can have
multiple meanings. In fact acronyms have ambiguity across multiple fields. Cannon writes,
“While the majority of the written initialisms may be restricted to the subject fields in which they
are mainly used, this still leaves evidently large numbers in general use” (122). As more
acronyms are created, or even as existing acronyms gain consistent use, duplicates are probable
and ambiguity almost certain.
Another type of ambiguity is created by undefined acronyms. Sharp argues that duplicate
Bublitz 8
acronyms should be avoided, but every acronym, even if well-known, should be given in its full
form whenever it is first mentioned (1728). Sharp's recommendation alludes to the need to
define acronyms in order to alleviate ambiguity; however, not everyone follows Sharp's advice.
This leaves a large number of acronyms equivocal. Feldman relates an early attitude toward
acronyms. He states that some felt that initializations made organizations indistinguishable from
one another, not to mention that the acronym gave no hint toward a company's function (72).
Many acronyms do not have enough contextual evidence to be sure of the meaning. Larkey et al.
were working toward a goal of building lists of acronym and abbreviation databases
automatically, but the largest hurdle was attempting to ensure the quality of the results (205).
While acronyms may be more convenient than lengthy phrases, they run the risk of being,
“meaningless, often ambiguous, sometimes unpronounceable, and ugly instead of euphonic”
(Cannon 103-104).
Ambiguity within language results in a dependence on context and previous experience
for meaning extrapolation. Postman states, “Language makes sense only when it is presented as
a sequence of propositions. Meaning is distorted when a word or sentence is, as we say, taken
out of context; when a reader or listener is deprived of what was said before, and after” (73).
Using context is considering the type of discourse in order to discover the meaning of an
acronym (Pakhomov, Pedersen, and Chute). Summers and Kaminski say that if authors use too
many acronyms or fail to define acronyms, editors or readers are left to interpret the initialsims
on their own (109). Pakhomov, Pedersen, and Chute, in their attempt to automatically catalog
acronyms, found they needed to take context into account when determining expansions.
Clearly, any word can carry different meanings in different contexts, and for no type of word is
Bublitz 9
this more true than acronyms. The result of this ambiguity is interpretation which can vary from
person to person.
A number of medical studies and trials have had acronym names which draw on the
meaning of other words. Cheng explains that acronyms have become popular titles for clinical
investigations (285). Sharp states, “It is as if trial organisers think of a snappy title first and then
decide what it stands for, which dictates the drugs to use and where to test them...” (1728). Trial
organizers may not be thinking of names first and trials second, but a long list of acronyms with
either negative or positive connotations is steadily growing. Cheng mentions the I-PRESERVE
trial as one positive-sounding trial which actually had a negative outcome. The drug was
supposed to “...improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure...” but the result showed it did
not (285). The obvious irony is that preserve is indicative of a health benefit, but I-PRESERVE
is not. Fallofield and Jenkens report that a UK (United Kingdom) trial termed NATO (Nolvadex
Adjuvant Trial Organisation) gained an audience from US (United States) clinicians due to the
famous North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also termed NATO (1622). Cheng states that many
clinical trials have had positive-sounding and potentially coercive names composed of acronyms.
These names likely had the intent of persuading participants (285). Fallofield and Jenkens
express that “...trial acronyms must not be off-putting, and more attention should be paid to the
messages that might be inadvertently conveyed through word association” (1622), suggesting
that those naming trials are well aware of any subliminal messages they might foster. Burke
explains that words carry more meaning than simply their definitions. He states, “[The poet]
knows that 'shame,' for instance, is not merely a 'state,' but a movement of the eye, a color of the
cheek, a certain quality of voice and set of the muscles...” (425). These clinical trails are perfect
Bublitz 10
examples of acronyms which key in on connotations of existing words.
Other instances of acronyms which have a likeness to existing words are not difficult to
find. Baum notes that acronyms in American language within technical and institutional senses
are, “...often devised to yield an acronym which coincides with an apposite word already in the
language” (“The Acronym” 50). Feldman, concerned with the names of corporations and
businesses, reported that easily pronounceable words were most easily recognized (74),
suggesting that an acronym need not even be a known word to be influential. Orlowski and
Christensen explain that when acronyms trigger emotions or memories, those same acronyms
cease to be simple names and begin to exert some sort of persuasion. Advertisers know this and
will willingly use acronyms to better compel customers to purchase their products or services
(2023).
The nature of acronyms also has influential properties. Bain mentions that long words
have a “...certain emphasis and dignity...” (27). Most acronyms are anything but long, yet they
represent a much longer full form. This apparent paradox can go in two directions. The first is
that acronyms degrade respectability. Feldman expresses his belief that initialized corporate
names impair distinctiveness and memorability because they are not redundant, pronounceable,
or inherently meaningful (73). On the other hand, acronyms' full forms are typically lengthy.
Furthermore, many official organizations, like the FBI, and successful companies, like IBM
(International Business Machines), have had acronyms titles. These qualities may suggest that
acronyms grant increased dignity. The exact effect of acronyms is not universal.
Daelli, Rijsbergen, and Treves performed a study in which perception of ambiguous
images was monitored. They note, “...adaptation to an ambiguous image lying between the
Bublitz 11
target and one end-point of the morphing continuum induces a priming effect, enhancing the
probability of recognizing the target image as end-point closest to the preceding adapter” (Daelli,
Rijsbergen, and Treves 87). The study showed the ability to manipulate reactions to ambiguous
objects was greater than for unambiguous objects. Daelli, Rijsbergen, and Treves even found
evidence that a complete reversal of initial reaction could be attained (87). This study suggests
that coupling pleasing images with an ambiguous symbol such as an acronym could influence an
observer to have a positive reaction to that acronym. Alternatively, grouping unpleasant images
with an acronym could result in a negative reaction to that acronym.
Stalder found another power within acronyms: memory retention. This type of acronym
comes from mnemonic devices. Stalder states that acronyms help students recall material on
tests by providing an association between something easy to remember and the material itself
(223). Stalder even found that student motivation for studying was increased when acronyms
were introduced as a tool (225). Stalder's summary reports that, “...placing acronyms and other
mnemonics on review sheets might do more than provide study aids. Based on some of these
anecdotes, it might make learning more fun...and thus more likely for some students” (226). By
providing a simple, tangible method of study, Stalder's acronyms influenced comprehension and
even student behavior.
One environment in which acronyms flourish is digital communication. The explosion of
phrase-capturing, convention-defying acronyms from text and instant messaging can't be
ignored. Baron points out that a large phenomenon of new computer-driven communication is
rising, including instant messaging (398). Postman states, “...a major new medium changes the
structure of discourse; it does so by encouraging certain uses of the intellect, by favoring certain
Bublitz 12
definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding certain kind of content--in a phrase,
by creating new forms of truth-telling” (27). While Postman was speaking of television, his
statement certainly holds true for text messaging. Take, for example, lol. Baron reports that this
acronym was the most frequent found, but it, as mentioned earlier, does not always take on its
expanded meaning. Lol has even made its way into spoken conversation (411-412). Among
those who use electronic, text-based communication, a remarkable number of acronyms, many
which are short-hand versions of common phrases, lol being an example, have become
widespread.
This type of acronym use may be indicative of rhetorical style. In his book A Rhetoric of
Style, Brummett discusses how the manner in which a person dresses, acts, and speaks is a part
of a larger style. He states, “...style is composed of signs that retain some meaning from original
referents but are no longer closely connected to them” (8). Acronyms, as demonstrated above,
are intensely symbolic and therefore have the power to influence style. Communication through
digital text often depicts a style heavy with exclusive acronyms. Likewise, within just about any
scientific community a certain amount of jargon exists. As time passes, more and more acronym
jargon is introduced and adopted within that community. Crystal notes finding extraordinary
amounts of slang used almost exclusively in specific research labs (70). Many acronyms are part
of that slang, and perhaps those acronyms help to shape an identity for that community.
Acronyms can carry authority. They can imply positivity or negativity. They can leave
message receivers to draw conclusions based on previous experience, and they can even conjure
up images of a preteen with a keyboard. For good or for bad, the trend of initializims is
widespread and often imperceptive. Perhaps George Orwell's concept of Newspeak was onto
Bublitz 13
something. Foley and Ayer explain that Newspeak was an attempt to control the thoughts of
citizens (15). Keils suggests that a special dialect used by real-life military personnel termed
“Pentagon English” is much like Newspeak (386). While the government may not exactly be
attempting to control the minds of individuals, the power to do so through acronyms is a
proposition which might warrant more credence than when 1984 was published.
Bublitz 14
Works Cited
“Acronym.” Webster's New World College Dictionary. 3rd ed. 1997.
Bain, Alexander. English Composition and Rhetoric. New York: D. Appleton and Company,
1890.
Baron, Naomi S. “See You Online: Gender Issues in College Student Use of Instant Messaging.”
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23 (2004): 397.
Baum, S. V. “The Acronym, Pure and Impure.” American Speech, 37:1 (1962): 48-50.
Baum, S. V. “Feminine Characteristics of the Acronym.” American Speech, 31:3 (1956): 224225.
Baum, S. V. “From 'Awol' to 'Veep': The Growth and Specialization of the Acronym.” American
Speech, 30:2 (1955): 103-110.
Britton, W. Earl. “Some Effects of Science and Technology upon Our Language.” College
Composition and Communication, 21:5 (1970): 342-346.
Brummett, Barry. A Rhetoric of Style. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.
Burke, Kenneth. “Four Master Tropes.” The Kenyon Review, 3:4 (1941): 421-438.
Cannon, Garland. “Abbreviations and Acronyms in English Word-Formation.” American
Speech 64.2 (1989): 99-127.
Cheng, Tsung O. “Acronymophilia: The Exponential Growth of the Use of Acronyms Should Be
Resisted.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309:6956 (1994): 683-684.
Cheng, Tsung O. “Negative Trials with Positive-sounding Acronyms.” International Journal of
Cardiology, 133 (2009): 285.
Crystal, David. Language and the Internet. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Daelli, Valentina, Nicola J. van Rijsbergen, and Alessandro Treves. “How Recent Experience
Affects the Perception of Ambiguous Objects.” Brain Research, 1322 (2010): 81-91.
Eschholz, Paul A., and Alfred F. Rosa. “Course Names: Another Aspect of College Slang.”
American Speech, 45:1 (1970): 85-90.
Fallowfield, Lesley, and Valerie Jenkins. “Acronymic Trials: The Good, the Bad, and the
Coercive.” Lancet, 360.9346 (2002): 1622.
Feldman, Laurence P. “Of Alphabets, Acronyms and Corporate Identity.” The Journal of
Marketing, 33:4 (1969): 72-75.
Foley, Joseph, and James Ayer. “Orwell in English and Newspeak: A Computer Translation.”
College Composition and Communication, 17:1 (1966): 15-18.
Hartley, Heidi. “Why Is It the CIA but Not *the NASA? Acronyms, Initialisms, and Definite
Descriptions.” American Speech, 79:4 (2004): 368-399.
Bublitz 15
Keils, R. M. “Pentagon English Is a Sort of Newspeak.” College Composition and
Communication, 24:5 (1973): 386-391.
Larkey, Leah, Paul Ogilvie, M. Andrew Price, and Brenden Tamilio. “Acrophile: An Automated
Acronym Extractor and Server.” DL '00 Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on
Digital libraries (2000): 205-214.
Liu, Hongfang, Yves A. Lussier, and Carol Friedman. “A Study of Abbreviations in the
UMLS.” Proceedings AMIA Annual Symposium AMIA Symposium, (2001): 393-397.
Orlowski, James P., and James A. Christensen. “The Potentially Coercive Nature of Some
Clinical Research Trial Acronyms.” Chest, 121 (2002): 2023-2028.
Pakhomov, Serguei, Ted Pedersen, and Christopher Chute. “Abbreviation and Acronym
Disambiguation in Clinical Discourse.” AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. Web. 19
Apr 2010.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1985.
Summers, James Bradley, and Joseph Kaminski. “Acronym Addiction.” Texas Heart Institute
Journal 31.1 (2004): 108-109.
Sharp, David. “Acronymania.” Lancet, 353.9166 (1999): 1728.
Stalder, Daniel R. “Learning and Motivational Benefits of Acronym Use in Introductory
Psychology.” Teaching of Psychology, 32.4 (2005): 222-228.