Lately I’ve been focusing my posts for this technical writing blog on precision in language. That’s because precision in language attends more effective technical writing.
Two weeks ago I explored the parallel structure employed by either/or and neither/nor constructions. Last week I discussed the use of respective and respectively, including how effective writing often avoids these two words. This week I’ll examine the use of two related but different words: activate and actuate.
Both activate and actuate mean to make active or cause to operate. But each word has a different secondary meaning. Activate also means to convert into a reactive form. Actuate also means to motivate to act in a particular way.
Some technical writing gurus believe that writers should use actuate only with mechanical processes. If that is the convention of your audience, then follow the convention. Where no convention exists, however, I believe a more effective approach entails examining the context of the intended message in light of the secondary meanings of activate and actuate.
For instance, consider the example sentences in the cropped graphic above. The first describes a mechanical process. Clearly the gears cause the drop mechanism to operate. But rewriting the sentence with the secondary meanings of activate and actuate reveals why actuate is the more effective word.
Two weeks ago I explored the parallel structure employed by either/or and neither/nor constructions. Last week I discussed the use of respective and respectively, including how effective writing often avoids these two words. This week I’ll examine the use of two related but different words: activate and actuate.
Both activate and actuate mean to make active or cause to operate. But each word has a different secondary meaning. Activate also means to convert into a reactive form. Actuate also means to motivate to act in a particular way.
Some technical writing gurus believe that writers should use actuate only with mechanical processes. If that is the convention of your audience, then follow the convention. Where no convention exists, however, I believe a more effective approach entails examining the context of the intended message in light of the secondary meanings of activate and actuate.
For instance, consider the example sentences in the cropped graphic above. The first describes a mechanical process. Clearly the gears cause the drop mechanism to operate. But rewriting the sentence with the secondary meanings of activate and actuate reveals why actuate is the more effective word.
The gears convert the drop mechanism into a reactive form. [activate]
The gears motivate the drop mechanism to act in a particular way. [actuate]
The gears motivate the drop mechanism to act in a particular way. [actuate]
Clearly the action of the gears enables the drop mechanism to become a reaction to whatever caused the gears to move. But the original sentence also implies that the drop mechanism behaves as it does because of the action of the gears. Neither one of these secondary meanings applies more perfectly than the other, so the writer could use either word.
Now let’s consider the second example sentence. This sentence does not describe a mechanical process and so according to some technical writing gurus should use activate and not actuate.
Now let’s consider the second example sentence. This sentence does not describe a mechanical process and so according to some technical writing gurus should use activate and not actuate.
The acid solution converts the circuit into a reactive form. [activate]
The acid solution motivates the circuit to act in a particular way. [actuate]
The acid solution motivates the circuit to act in a particular way. [actuate]
Without question activate is appropriate. But actuate is just as appropriate in this case of a chemical process as it was in the previous sentence describing a mechanical process. The acid solution with its electrolytes motivates the circuit to act in a particular way, which is to conduct electricity.
We could apply the same test to the legal process entailed in the third example sentence.
We could apply the same test to the legal process entailed in the third example sentence.
The client converts the contract provision into a reactive form. [activate]
The client motivates the contract provision to act in a particular way. [actuate]
The client motivates the contract provision to act in a particular way. [actuate]
In this instance, activate is more effective than actuate. The contract is what it is, so it will act only according to the way it was written. That means that nothing the client can do, short of writing a new contract or amending the contract with a revising statement, will produce any change in the contract. But by triggering the provision, the client brings that provision into action, making it a reactive form. Activate is the word of choice in this instance.
When choosing between words with very similar but slightly different meanings, I find it helpful to rewrite the sentence using the differing secondary meanings of each word. This exercise usually reveals the truth: Either one word will seem more appropriate than the other, or each word will seem just as appropriate.
So activate and actuate with secondary meanings. More precision in language leads to more effective technical writing, and that leads to a more effective presentation not only of your message but also of you and your brands to your audience.
When choosing between words with very similar but slightly different meanings, I find it helpful to rewrite the sentence using the differing secondary meanings of each word. This exercise usually reveals the truth: Either one word will seem more appropriate than the other, or each word will seem just as appropriate.
So activate and actuate with secondary meanings. More precision in language leads to more effective technical writing, and that leads to a more effective presentation not only of your message but also of you and your brands to your audience.
RSS Feed
