Big Words

[Marduk]

So, for as long as I can remember, people have had issue with me using "big words". I generally get the impression that they think I'm trying to use big words to make myself sound smarter, or to be condescending, or whatever, but I'm not. I'm using them because when I do, it is the word that best fits into whatever given context. It is also that it is the first best word that comes to mind. One might say, "why not just use smaller words?" I very might well retort, "why not just use bigger words?"

I'm told to use smaller words instead of working to find big ones. For most people to use "big words" means they either look them up, or take a while to find them and decide to use them from their memory banks. Not so for me. For me to use "big words" is what comes easiest and most natural. To do otherwise is asking me to work harder.

Words I've gotten in trouble for using, over the past month or so (for a variety of reasons, either people thinking I'm being condescending, or silly, or thinking I'm a nerd, or for whatever reason finding my word selection unusual):

esemplastic
ubiquitous
zeitgeist
equivocate
ambivalent
reticent
recalcitrant
maudlin
modicum
impetus
fastidious
penurious
parsimonious
didactic
intransigent
caustic
vituperative

I'm sure there's a lot more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Certainly they will be forthcoming, presently.

[FauxRaiden]

So, for as long as I can remember, people have had issue with me using "big words". I generally get the impression that they think I'm trying to use big words to make myself sound smarter, or to be condescending, or whatever, but I'm not. I'm using them because when I do, it is the word that best fits into whatever given context. It is also that it is the first best word that comes to mind. One might say, "why not just use smaller words?" I very might well retort, "why not just use bigger words?"

I'm told to use smaller words instead of working to find big ones. For most people to use "big words" means they either look them up, or take a while to find them and decide to use them from their memory banks. Not so for me. For me to use "big words" is what comes easiest and most natural. To do otherwise is asking me to work harder.

Words I've gotten in trouble for using, over the past month or so (for a variety of reasons, either people thinking I'm being condescending, or silly, or thinking I'm a nerd, or for whatever reason finding my word selection unusual):

esemplastic
ubiquitous
zeitgeist
equivocate
ambivalent
reticent
recalcitrant
maudlin
modicum
impetus
fastidious
penurious
parsimonious
didactic
intransigent
caustic
vituperative

I'm sure there's a lot more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Certainly they will be forthcoming, presently.

Oh heavens the fail!

I get in trouble for sounding smart too. So I'm forced to dumb myself down to please the masses I guess. I generally don't even use words as 'big' as you do either.

I was a plumber and I pretty much had to dumb myself down to the level of southern redneck lest I be mocked for my use of large words like, redundant and inexplicable. Not even kidding.

[Unit of Energy]

I get odd looks sometimes when I use words like fickle and vex and discombobulate in everyday conversation.

[thebigcheese]

Personally, I think it's fun to use archaic words and sayings. But nothing like this...

I think this problem arises because genuinely people want to understand you, but they don't, so they need you to "dumb it down" for them. And that's never good for the self-esteem. For example, of the words on your list, I'm being generous when I say that I could maybe recite the definitions of four of them. And now I feel less smart than I did two minutes ago.

[FauxRaiden]

It's an interesting thing. For my work I have to write scripts to present training presentations and more often than not I use words that are not in common vocabulary, but perfectly describe the action or thing I want to describe. I end up being forced to change those words because nobody can understand them, at least not as well as I can. Then I stumble around trying to find a suitable alternative only to have the end result being a robotic mess that sounds reminiscent of "See Spot Run".

On a related note, I always think it's interesting that people view those that speak well as being extremely intelligent. I often feel I get more intelligence credit than I deserve simply because I have a large vocabulary.

[thebigcheese]

How do you get a large vocabulary anyway? Back when I was a kid, I used to have a large vocabulary (99th percentile!). But that's probably because my siblings were all significantly older, and they used big words around me. Or they would show me their homework. I knew the quadratic formula at the age of four!

[FauxRaiden]

I couldn't tell you with any surety but I'm pretty sure it was just from reading for me.

My mom would read to me when I was a kid, ranging from "If you give a mouse a cookie..." to Goosebumps and I would always follow along over her shoulder as she read. The result of which gave me a strong basis for reading and I kept it up through my life. I think by 4th grade I was at a 9th grade level? In any case, I think that's all it is, reading.

[Laser Jock]

How do you get a large vocabulary anyway? Back when I was a kid, I used to have a large vocabulary (99th percentile!). But that's probably because my siblings were all significantly older, and they used big words around me. Or they would show me their homework. I knew the quadratic formula at the age of four!

I've noticed that the more someone reads, the better their vocabulary is likely to be.

[xkcd ***]

You can also make conscious efforts to learn and use new/big words.

This is a fun site: http://www.savethewords.org/

[Whistler]

Maybe part of being an intelligent conversant is knowing your audience and saying "spirit of the time" instead of "zeitgeist."

[ahem.]

I agree about reading to improve your vocabulary.

Also interesting note: My niece has very advanced reading skills for her age. My sister lets her pick whatever she wants to from the library, and she usually ends up with chapter books aimed for older children. My niece's teacher recommended my sister encourage her to add some simpler books to this mix. Which seemed counter-intuitive. But apparently simper books force the child to understand the meaning and function of each word, while the complex syntax of other books allows meaning to be gleaned in passing from context clues. So simple books = better comprehension skills. Weird.

[Katya]

Maybe part of being an intelligent conversant is knowing your audience and saying "spirit of the time" instead of "zeitgeist."

Right. If your active vocabulary exceeds the passive vocabulary of your audience, communication breaks down, at which point you have to ask yourself whether (or why) you value using "big words" more than being understood.

[Marduk]

Maybe part of being an intelligent conversant is knowing your audience and saying "spirit of the time" instead of "zeitgeist."

I'd like to make a few points on this. First, any time you exchange a word you lose meaning. It is a question of whether you have no meaning (because the word is not known) with the current word, and therefore it justifies "dumbing it down" in order to gain meaning, or whether the meaning cannot really be conveyed in such a manner.

Second, in the particular case of this usage, the target audience was on a diverse level. Rather than watering down the meaning to the lowest common denominator, I chose to keep the original meaning, even if it meant some would not understand.

Third, like I said, I certainly intend for my audience to understand me, but it is more difficult to search for an alternate way to say it then to say the word I originally chose. I feel like rather than recognizing that I chose the word I felt would best convey the meaning I desired, individuals sometimes feel that I intentionally "smarted it up" (is that the opposite of "dumbing down?") in order to try and make myself sound more intelligent.

I believe in trying to communicate in a way that a given audience can understand. But sometimes too much meaning is lost, and it is also more of a strain for me. That's all I'm saying.

[Katya]

Third, like I said, I certainly intend for my audience to understand me, but it is more difficult to search for an alternate way to say it then to say the word I originally chose. I feel like rather than recognizing that I chose the word I felt would best convey the meaning I desired, individuals sometimes feel that I intentionally "smarted it up" (is that the opposite of "dumbing down?") in order to try and make myself sound more intelligent.

Sure, and that's probably the result of a certain degree of insecurity on the part of your audience. (I.e., they can't imagine that someone would naturally speak that way or that someone would use those words without intending to show off.)

I believe in trying to communicate in a way that a given audience can understand. But sometimes too much meaning is lost, and it is also more of a strain for me.

Yep! It's ironic that it can be more work to talk to an audience with a limited vocabulary, because you have to fit what you're trying to say into their words and experience. (As a Primary teacher, I run into this a lot.)

[FauxRaiden]

Honestly I would prefer someone talking smart to me than having to dumb it down. That's kind of degrading.

Admittedly, I do the word a day thing to try and find big words to put into conversation at some point. My intent isn't to offend anyone or sound smarter than I am, I just like learning and having a large vocab.

[Katya]

Honestly I would prefer someone talking smart to me than having to dumb it down. That's kind of degrading.

Do you think those are the only options? That a speaker will overshoot the vocabulary level of their audience (and annoy people who are put off by big words) or that a speaker will overly "dumb down" the message (and annoy people like you)?

Admittedly, I do the word a day thing to try and find big words to put into conversation at some point. My intent isn't to offend anyone or sound smarter than I am, I just like learning and having a large vocab.

And you don't care if the person you're speaking to doesn't understand the word?

[FauxRaiden]

Honestly I would prefer someone talking smart to me than having to dumb it down. That's kind of degrading.

Do you think those are the only options? That a speaker will overshoot the vocabulary level of their audience (and annoy people who are put off by big words) or that a speaker will overly "dumb down" the message (and annoy people like you)?

It would seem that those are the only options. It's not easy to come up with a word like juxtapose without having some overly long explanation. To someone like me, juxtapose is simple but I understand people out there don't have the same vocabulary. I can't think of any other three syllable or less word that would do juxtapose justice. I could describe it in detail, but that takes longer and makes me sound like I'm stumbling around with my words.

Admittedly, I do the word a day thing to try and find big words to put into conversation at some point. My intent isn't to offend anyone or sound smarter than I am, I just like learning and having a large vocab.

And you don't care if the person you're speaking to doesn't understand the word?

As I mentioned earlier, I do dumb myself down quite a bit when I need to. If I think the person doesn't understand what I mean to say, I'll usually repeat myself if I get caught up in large words. For instance, I would say something like, "That phrase is redundant. That is to say it's unnecessarily repeated." or something like that. It's kinda hard to think of a situation on the fly. I hope I don't sound like some sort elitist.

[Katya]

Honestly I would prefer someone talking smart to me than having to dumb it down. That's kind of degrading.

Do you think those are the only options? That a speaker will overshoot the vocabulary level of their audience (and annoy people who are put off by big words) or that a speaker will overly "dumb down" the message (and annoy people like you)?

It would seem that those are the only options. It's not easy to come up with a word like juxtapose without having some overly long explanation. To someone like me, juxtapose is simple but I understand people out there don't have the same vocabulary. I can't think of any other three syllable or less word that would do juxtapose justice. I could describe it in detail, but that takes longer and makes me sound like I'm stumbling around with my words.

I can think of other options. For one thing, you're assuming no feedback loop. If I start talking to you and you throw out a word like "juxtapose," I'm going to adjust my conversation accordingly. (Or I'm going to avoid adjusting my conversation in the first place.) Second, I disagree that you can only explain complicated ideas with complicated words—I wouldn't call using simple language to explain a complicated idea the same thing as dumbing something down.

Admittedly, I do the word a day thing to try and find big words to put into conversation at some point. My intent isn't to offend anyone or sound smarter than I am, I just like learning and having a large vocab.

And you don't care if the person you're speaking to doesn't understand the word?

As I mentioned earlier, I do dumb myself down quite a bit when I need to. If I think the person doesn't understand what I mean to say, I'll usually repeat myself if I get caught up in large words. For instance, I would say something like, "That phrase is redundant. That is to say it's unnecessarily repeated." or something like that. It's kinda hard to think of a situation on the fly. I hope I don't sound like some sort elitist.

No, that's a good explanation.

[Katya]

First, any time you exchange a word you lose meaning.

I disagree with this. You may change connotation or social register or range of meaning, but in terms of strict denotation, there's almost always more than one way to say something, unless the word is extremely common, in which case you probably don't have to worry about your audience not knowing it. Plus, you're assuming that the exchange has to be one for one, where a phrase can very often substitute for a word.

[Laser Jock]

First, any time you exchange a word you lose meaning.

I disagree with this. You may change connotation or social register or range of meaning, but in terms of strict denotation, there's almost always more than one way to say something ....

I consider connotation and so on to be part of the meaning of a word. Wouldn't you? A lot more goes into verbal communication than just the denotation.

I agree with what I think was Marduk's point: with only rare exceptions, you can't substitute one word/phrase for another without changing the meaning. Synonyms that are exact matches for each other are extremely rare, if they exist. (It's sort of like trying to translate from one language to another: you can get the basic idea across, but some of the nuances will almost invariably be lost.)