Using "utilize" instead of "use"?

Question

My friend has been raising a ruckus about the abuse of the word "utilize" in place of the word "use." He complains that it just makes your sentences sound pretentious.

u·ti·lize [yoot-l-ahyz]

• verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to put to use; turn to profitable account: to utilize a stream to power a mill.

_{utilize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 06, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilize}

Today we saw this post which uses "utilize":

each app vendor may utilize unique policies for app pricing."

He claims that this isn't a very good sentence to use "utilize" in. I don't disagree but what determines whether or not you should use "utilize" in place of "use?"

Answer 1

This goes way back. From the Online Ety. Dict.:

1807, from Fr. utiliser, from It. utilizzare, from utile "usable," from L. utilis "usable," from uti (see use (v.)).

It's used in the sense of "to make profitable use of," as opposed to the bare "use," which just means "to employ." There's a nuance there that speakers have found useful. The only error is the use of "utilize" when "use" alone would suffice.

Answer 2

I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with utilize (utilise in UK, so forgive me if I revert to type).

But it is a little pompous (only a very little, honest). The main reason I personally wouldn't 100% endorse its use here is that utilise is (in principle, at least) a somewhat more precise word than use. It often implies a degree of creativity in making something be capable of being used in a way not originally intended, rather than simply using something designed for the purpose of being thus used.

The vendors’ unique policies are obviously designed for the very use to which they will be put, so I think utilise is a bit overdone - slightly tautological, actually.

Answer 3

Well, I would turn it round: when there's a nice, short, plain, easily understood word that expresses what you want to say, I would suggest there's no need to use a long, psuedotechnical one instead just for the sake of it.

If you really feel that "utilise" conveys some extra/special meaning in the context in which you're using it, then fair enough. For example, in some contexts (but I think not this one), saying "utilise" rather than "use" may get across the notion of "making special use of something where it wouldn't usually be put to practical use". But if you're just trying to use a long word for the sake of it, then I would suggest that using clear, easy to understand language may be a more effective communication strategy.

The sentence you quote seems to be a classic case of somebody with poor writing skills attempting to sound impressive but in so doing they fail to see the wood for the trees in terms of getting their message across. They really could have just said "Each seller can define how they want to price their apps" and the message would have been to the point and easy to understand.

Answer 4

It is advantageous to utilize those linguistic constructs which most emphatically dialog the paradigm conceptualized by the origination entity-person.

Or you could just say what you mean.

I used to work for a company where any reports we wrote for delivery to a customer had to be edited by the company's "deliverable department". They routinely changed every place where I wrote "use" to "utilize" and replaced other short words with longer words. This was done so mechanically that I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the search-and-replace function in Word. I can't imagine any purpose for it other than to sound more pretentious. (I'm not saying there is never a legitimate reason to use the word "utilize", just that a wholesale replacement of "use" with "utilize" is silly.)

(They also once changed a statement about the steps you had to take to "effect a change" to saying you had to do this to "affect a change". Umm, no. The procedure didn't alter the change, it caused it. I guess someone read in a book that lots of people use "effect" as a verb when they mean "affect", and so they blindly changed it without reading or understanding the sentence.)

I've often said that when people set out to write, they tend to have one of two motives. (a) To inform or educate the reader. In this case, they tend to use simple words, clear examples, etc. (b) To impress the reader with how smart the author must be to understand this complicated subject. In this case, they use big words, convoluted examples, etc. People who are really good at (a) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I don't know why people say differential calculus [or whatever] is so hard. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me." People who are really good at (b) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I never realized how complicated arithmetic really is. I thought I understood it until I read this book. That author must be a genius to understand this stuff; I couldn't make sense of a word of it."

Answer 5

Why would someone want to use a longer and uglier word when there's a better alternative? Utilize sounds like a middle manager in an insurance company sending out a memo to the lower echelons while trying to sound important. Utilize is pretentious and it gets dodgy when you try to add prefixes and suffixes: Underutilized versus underused? Abutilized versus abused? Underutilization versus underuse? No contest.

Answer 6

The only necessary use I can think of is in 'utilization' which has a specific meaning different from 'usage'

Answer 7

I tend to think of utilize in cases that seem "passive" - where there is no "user". So for example, we could say: a resource "has been fully utilized." This sidesteps the question of "by whom?" which is not relevant to the discussion.

It also leans toward the meaning of utility rather than the verb sense of consuming. The resource in question was "advantageously spent" rather than "put in to action". It seems very passive to me. The emphasis is on how much has been used rather than how it was used.

Answer 8

I remember researching the difference between "utilize" and "use" several years ago and finding a sensible and useful answer. I've applied that answer ever since but, for whatever reason, can't find it online anymore. It could be that it's wrong, but I doubt it.

---

use

the act or practice of employing something

~ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use

examples (mine):

• "The stadium is used for sporting events."

• "The car was used to take them to the airport."

• "I'm using the hammer to nail down the roof tiles."

utilize

to use something for a purpose other than its intended purpose

~ me (based on previous research)

examples:

• "The stadium is being utilized as a shelter for hurricane victims."

• "The car was utilized to stabilize the tree."

• "I'm utilizing the hammer as a paper weight."

In short, I believe that "utilize" is a sub-category of "use". It has a narrower definition.