Retire “Impactful”
Choose Precision over Redundancy
The fabric of the English language is rich and dynamic, continuously being shaped by words carrying deep historical, cultural, and etymological significance. In this linguistic landscape, “impactful” recently emerged as a modern addition, yet its adoption into everyday language is controversial. Rooted in the Latin “impactus,” signifying a forceful collision or strike, the word “impact” is universally understood by Anglophones as denoting a physical or metaphorical influence. However, its derivative, “impactful,” which aims to express a state of being filled with impact, appears linguistically strained and conceptually incoherent.
The suffix “ful” adds a dimension of abundance or completeness to nouns, as seen in words like “hopeful” and “cupful.” Yet, the idea of being “full of impact” contradicts the very essence of impact itself. Traditionally, impact represents a point of collision or a moment of influence, not a condition of fullness or abundance. Consequently, “impactful” seems to distort the original meaning of impact, attempting to quantify or intensify it in a way that feels both linguistically awkward and semantically excessive.
In its metaphorical application, “impact” successfully conveys a sense of influence or significance without implying an element of fullness. Its power lies in its straightforwardness and precision. “Impactful,” in contrast, overextends the metaphor, diminishing the word’s intensity and clarity. It represents an overzealous linguistic attempt, a word that aims to heighten the notion of impact but ends up convoluting its meaning and potency.
Despite its linguistic inadequacies, “impactful” has been widely adopted, especially in marketing circles, for its concise and forceful impression. It acts as a compressed expression for denoting significant influence or effect. This convenient allure shouldn’t justify its use, especially when it compromises linguistic lucidity.
Words such as “profound,” “transformative,” “resonant,” and “compelling” are better alternatives that express the intended essence of “impactful.” These choices not only avoid the clunkiness as of a contrived adjective but also elevate our language, allowing for more depth, nuance, and precision.
While “impact” holds its ground for clarity and relevance, “impactful” deserves exclusion from our vernacular. Its presence detracts from the “fullness” and exactitude of English. Opting for precise, evocative terminology upholds the integrity and beauty of our language and better enables its potential to evolve in a way that enriches communication and intellectual expression. Phasing out “impactful” is a small step to a future where our words continue to resonate with clarity, depth, and eloquence.
Jason’s Paul Guzman is a partner at the branding, design and web agency Trasaterra in New York City. Trasaterra’s creative philosophy and methodology is rooted in audience attraction through brand authenticity.
Join Trasaterra’s email list for the latest
