So now I'm going to write about it. And I may just use sesquipedalian verbiage to spurn any familiar detractors.
To start, Ayn Rand wrote "words are a lens to focus one's mind." If that is true, then the larger the lens the greater the focus. Which really stands to reason since the proper use of a bigger word is not an easily accomplishable feat for the neophytic philologist. Can I say that my use of larger words has always been clear, and well executed? Heavens no! I amassed an admirable storehouse of "big" words at a very young age simply by listening to the adults around me. I didn't really know how to use those words properly, however, until I was more mature.
That's when I entered highschool. In highschool, I was practically battered with small-worded accusations by friends and classmates alike for using words outside of their ken. The same unthinking trend followed me through college and seminary, too. It was really quite demoralizing.
Now, I could go ahead and estimate the kind of distorted psychology that prompts such ill-reasoned attempts at censoring another's self-expression, but that would be too much of a meandering speculation for me to feel comfortable with. Instead, what I've boiled things down to, in my own mind, is a more generous perspective.
I think it's simply a matter of "jargon." That is, people have environmentally prescribed jargon-sets that help them navigate their way through assumed common experiences. And depending on the variety and intensity of those experiences, the amount and use of jargon changes. But when faced with someone who can work with jargon across varied and diverse fields, communication can become a little intimidating.
So, what about jargon?
Well, everybody speaks it. Some more than others. It's especially rampant amongst chattering intellectuals, the back offices of medical centres, and the austere corridors of academia. But it happens on the street, too, where the “huddled masses” spin their cant in an ever-evolving dance of gritty descriptions and colourful metaphors.
Who hasn't had the common experience of meeting-up with a co-worker at the coffee maker and spending the next several minutes listening intently to a subject that seems distant, foreign, even arcane? Who hasn't had the experience of being that person at the coffee maker percolating stories in strange terms while your co-worker squints on, earnestly attempting to relate to what you're saying?
It's something that the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein described very well when he wrote, “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922). The words people use give an indication of the personal world of their experiences. A person used to living in the harsh backwoods of the Yukon wilderness may very well seem like a different creature to the savvy urbanite used to a steady diet of posh trends, and fashionable mannerisms. The point remains though: however they choose to talk about their experiences, they bring their worlds to each other by the very words they use.
So to argue by accusation that another uses too many "big" words can (as it did in my case) have the effect not only of diminishing one's own world by sneering at expansion, but demeaning another's world by snidely implying it is 'wrong' or 'difficult' because it is too big. Having given some thought to this subject, it seems obvious to me that the best course of action when dealing with someone who has a demonstrably wide grasp of the English language (or any language, for that matter), would be to ask for definitions and explanations when fronted with a word one doesn't know. The residuals may just be that your own world is given greater scope and colour, and that the other's world is appreciated and made more enjoyable.
Not a bad trade-off, really. Wouldn't you agree?
Not a bad trade-off, really. Wouldn't you agree?