Concept of ‘rehabilitating’ a road is correct

But in most cases, the shorter ‘rebuild’ serves equally well

How important is it to use officially sanctioned language? In a recent column I quoted a Watchwords reader who wrote in to complain about what she saw as the Quebec concept of “rehabilitating” a road. “A road is renewed, repaired, repaved or rebuilt,” she wrote. “It is never ‘rehabilitated,’ which is what happens to people who have been ill, or in an accident caused by a road that hasn’t been repaired.” This struck me as a shrewd and accurate complaint. But a message from another reader has given me second thoughts.

Libby Cohen is a professional translator who works for an engineering firm, and, she says, “I feel I am well positioned to instruct your irritated reader on the use of ‘rehabilitation’ in construction parlance. ‘Rehabilitation’ is the translation of the French ‘réfection’ in connection with pavements, roads, highways, bridges, and other infrastructure projects. ‘Rehabilitation’ is not a Québecism; its usage is widespread throughout the North American engineering and construction industries.” She states that the word is deployed not just by authorities in Quebec but also by the government of Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation. “While one can use more generic terms, such as refurbishment or reconstruction, these terms in no way replace or diminish the official term — rehabilitation.”

I’m all in favour of precision in language, especially in the public realm. A world of fake news, unprovable claims, lying tweets

It’s a matter of choice, of style, and often of clarity.

and “alternative facts” is not a world I want to inhabit. Yet language grows and flourishes outside the constraints of any government. Do we have to swallow gobbets of official vocabulary in place of common words with the same meaning?

I decided to consult the vast Oxford English Dictionary, which shows not just the current senses of a word but also the development of meanings over time. It taught me that “rehabilitate” comes from a Latin term for “re-establish;” it was first used in Scotland to indicate the restoring of privileges or status to a person. It grew to mean the revival of a former condition or reputation. The usage that most of us would now consider natural — the therapy or treatment of a prisoner, an ex-soldier, or anyone suffering from an injury or addiction — appeared only in the late 19th century. It emerged at the same time as the meaning Libby Cohen so eloquently defended: “To repair, renovate, or refurbish (a vehicle, building, etc.); to refit.” A book about treaties and tariffs, published in 1878, contained the phrase “if it be desired to rehabilitate the ship for sea.”

In short, I stand corrected. And I appreciate Cohen’s final sentence: “Thanks for setting the record straight, given that we find ourselves in a city and province in perpetual rehabilitation of our roads, highways, and bridges, among other infrastructure!”

But that’s not quite the end of the story. Even if we can legitimately use “rehabilitation” the way our Department of Transport does, this doesn’t mean we always should. To me “rehabilitation” is one of those beefy Latinate words that tend to give off an odour of bureaucracy. Just because in Canada we speak of “municipalities,” there’s nothing wrong with preferring “cities” much of the time. The existence of the term “malignancy” doesn’t mean we should avoid saying “cancer.” It’s a matter of choice, of style, and often of clarity. As a general rule, I’m not sure what’s to be gained by using a word of five or six syllables when a two-syllable word like “rebuild” would serve equally well. From time to time, admittedly, the exact and proper word is the longer one — for example, you couldn’t say “a city and province in perpetual rebuild of our roads.” But those occasions, I believe, are rare.