On "Aggressiveness"

Our recent post comparing news articles from Jan Moller and Clancy Dubos has spawned a tangential language dispute in the comments section. It takes place in separate threads so I'll condense them to reproduce the context for you here before I settle this.

Daisy writes:

Also, "aggressiveness" is not a word and does not need to be created. There is already a noun, "aggression," that would've suited beautifully. I hate professional writers.

I later named this the "Quote of the Day" But then BSJD chipped in a response:

"killing hundreds of earmarks added by legislators for projects in their districts and signaling a new aggressiveness in dealing with the state budget."

I don't think "aggression" would convey the same meaning to most modern readers. Since "aggressiveness" already has widespread usage, it seems a little unfair to charge DuBos with creating a new word. I assume from Daisy's comment that "aggressiveness" was considered nonstandard or colloquial at some point, but I have trouble believing that it still is.

It was actually Moller who introduced the offending word but that's beside the point. Daisy, the prescriptive linguist, believes that there is something nefarious at work:

If "aggression" doesn't convey the same meaning, it's because people have been swindled by the use of "aggressiveness."

And then in the later thread, Leigh piles on:

"Aggression" is indeed a word that needs to be used more often. I think "aggressive" is used so often, and "ness" is quite overused as a suffix - only logical in a twisted way for these folks to try to put the two together.

Perhaps more professional writer-type people need refresher courses on vocabulary and grammar as a part of their jobs...

But David isn't giving up. He reiterates:

I just gave a lengthier comment on "aggressiveness" in the original post. I believe the word is totally acceptable, and I don't see why anybody would object to it. I agree with "purists" that object to colloquialisms that are nonsensical (irregardless) or that make communication less exact. In this case, the tendency to give distinct meanings to "aggressiveness" and "aggression" can help avoid confusion. I can't imagine many sentences where the context wouldn't make the meaning of "aggression" clear, but it helps with titles of books and articles.

I think he's on to something but I'm going to have to side a bit more with Daisy here. Even if most "modern readers" apprehend the meaning of "aggressiveness" the irregular word, at the very least, creates a certain amount of dissonance.

However the intended meaning of "aggressiveness" is a shade or two off from what would be conveyed by "aggression" in its place. I think if a writer uses "aggressiveness" he or she means to describe a personal attribute while "aggression" usually modifies an action. Not always but usually.

Still there are ways of doing this without resorting to a non-standard word. If one is tempted to write, "The Packers' defense displayed uncommon aggressiveness in attacking Drew Brees and disrupting the Saints' woefully inept passing game all afternoon" one could easily rewrite it as, "The Packers' defense was uncommonly aggressive in attacking Drew Brees and disrupting the Saints' woefully inept passing game all afternoon." One could even write, "The Packers defense committed many uncommon acts of aggression upon Drew Brees and the Saints' woefully inept passing game yesterday afternoon."

One thing the writer would generally avoid would be sentences that describe the Saints' defense by use of the words "aggression" "aggressive" or even "aggressiveness" unless the intent is to convey the lack of these qualities.