one-dimensional

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "one-dimensional" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used to describe something that lacks depth or complexity, often in a figurative sense, such as a character in a story or a concept in a discussion. Example: "The protagonist in the novel felt one-dimensional, lacking the depth and development that would make her relatable to readers."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

53 human-written examples

A. One-dimensional.

The New York Times - Magazine

He's one-dimensional.

The New Yorker

They're not one-dimensional, either.

The New York Times

It's a one-dimensional view.

The New York Times

That's a one-dimensional attitude.

The New York Times

He's not one-dimensional".

The New York Times - Sports

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

7 human-written examples

One dimensional, Asimov said.

The New York Times - Food

One Dimensional.

Micro and Nano Systems Letters

It feels curated and one dimensional.

TechCrunch

Maybe simplistic, one dimensional but SO true.

Huffington Post

I'm not a one dimensional person.

Forbes

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "one-dimensional" to provide precise and concise critiques about a subject's simplicity and lack of depth.

Common error

While "one-dimensional" is useful, avoid overusing it when describing characters. Instead, provide specific examples of how the character lacks depth to make your critique more compelling and insightful.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "one-dimensional" primarily functions as an adjective, modifying nouns to indicate a lack of depth, complexity, or nuance. Ludwig's examples show it being used to describe characters, views, and even business models, suggesting its versatility in critique.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

88%

Science

7%

Formal & Business

3%

Less common in

Academia

1%

Wiki

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "one-dimensional" is a versatile adjective used to describe something lacking depth or complexity. As highlighted by Ludwig, it is grammatically correct and frequently employed in various contexts, especially in news and media. While straightforward, it's crucial to use it precisely, providing specific examples to support the critique. Alternatives like "simplistic" or "superficial" can offer nuance, but "one-dimensional" provides a direct assessment of a subject's lack of depth. According to Ludwig AI, its most frequent use is in news and media, and its primary function is to negatively evaluate something.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

lacking depth

Focuses specifically on the absence of depth, a key aspect of being "one-dimensional".

superficial

Emphasizes a lack of thoroughness or meaningful content.

simplistic

Highlights the oversimplified nature of something, similar to lacking dimensions.

shallow

Implies a lack of intellectual or emotional depth.

flat

Directly conveys a lack of variation or interest.

unidimensional

A more technical synonym, directly relating to having only one dimension.

lacking complexity

Explicitly states the absence of intricate details or layers.

overly simple

Highlights the excess of simplicity, implying a negative connotation.

without nuance

Emphasizes the absence of subtle distinctions or variations.

narrow-minded

Describes a limited perspective or way of thinking.

FAQs

How can I use "one-dimensional" in a sentence?

You can use "one-dimensional" to describe something lacking depth or complexity, such as "The character was "one-dimensional" and uninteresting".

What does it mean when someone is described as "one-dimensional"?

Describing someone as "one-dimensional" means they lack depth or complexity in their personality or behavior, appearing simple or predictable.

Are there alternatives to saying something is "one-dimensional"?

Yes, you can use alternatives such as "simplistic", "superficial", or "lacking depth" to convey a similar meaning.

In what contexts is it appropriate to use the term "one-dimensional"?

It's appropriate to use "one-dimensional" in contexts where you want to critique a lack of depth, such as in character analysis, product reviews, or discussions about complex issues.