on big words

I really struggled to start this because I couldn't land on a conclusion about the topic, even though the whole premise of this was that writing helps me clarify my thoughts. but I knew I wanted to write about my thoughts on big words: I came out of fall semester quite anti-Big Word, but spent all of spring semester undulating between loving and hating them. actually, "undulating" is a Brand Spanking New GRE word! in that vein, I present to you a few New Words from the past 10 months and different thoughts about the topic du jour.

1. UNDULATE 

(a smooth, wave-like rising and falling)

I initially thought it was a synonym for oscillation, but the visual guide–a photo of ripples–made me pause. since then, I have come to understand that where “undulation” is more wave-like, an “oscillation” is more like a pendulum moving back and forth. I don't think that “oscillation” necessarily implies stagnation, but I do think “undulation” implies forward movement.

thinking back, my anti-Big Word-ness came from being overwhelmed with a general unfamiliarity, not just of the words but also the structure of Academic Scholarship on a rhetorical, practical, logical, and structural level. and so describing my waffling as I came across the many experiences as an “undulation” not only feels more accurate, the word choice helps to remind me that at the very least, I’m moving through different opinions. lesson #1, synonyms are just similar and words have power.

this video essay about the rise of anti-intellectualism in relation to Cunk on Earth (if you have not, please watch!) combined with this Tweet in February really prompted me to think about exactly what I had an issue with. 

the Tweet in particular really made me pause because I had frequently used the phrasing of an “allergy” about particular words, topics, and scholars/theorists I felt were given too much attention that it warranted. but I've come to realize that I had let my frustration develop into a knee-jerk monolith of a reaction. ironic, because I insist on distinguishing between food reactions and food allergies to justify why I will always eat ajapsandali at Georgian restaurants despite how itchy my mouth gets from the eggplant (please try it, it’s like ratatouille’s fun aunt). 

2. POLYSEMY 

(having multiple variations of meanings that co-exist) 

I’ve been triaging GRE words into different levels of familiarity, which has forced me to reassess what it means for me to “know a word”: apparently, just because I don’t pause when I come across it doesn’t mean that I can eliminate or select words from a list with confidence. shoutout to test anxiety for pushing me to learn words more explicitly. and since then, I’ve come to really enjoy it, and it makes me feel giddy to see new words in the wild. (or maybe the frequency with which I notice my new words just speaks to how basic they are….) 

I mentioned this to my dad yesterday, who responded with 1)  “you’re sick” (the general sentiment we BOTH share about how much I’m enjoying school) and then 2) surprise given how much I supposedly enjoy reading. but what I learned from conversations with professors were words like “polysemy,” which is apparently not something you need to learn for the GRE. go figure. but spelling out an unfamiliar word, looking it up later, acknowledging how useful it is, and using it really cemented it In my brain. a few weeks later, I came across a very dense chapter that I may have put away if not for the excitement of recognizing “polysemy”–and it ended up being incredibly useful.

but even if words in academic contexts don't translate to the GRE, it seems to go in the other direction and I was really excited to see it in another academic article. (again, all of this may just speak to how bad I am at memorizing vocab words and the whole issue of not thinking in words, per blog post #1). no lesson here, just vague excitement and reflection. in fact, this process of learning words has helped me learn so much about memorizing and studying for tests, two things that I have truly never been good at. 

3. INSIDIOUS 

(something that doesn’t seem to be, but gradually reveals itself to be harmful/evil)

another tweet:

more specifically, it made me think about the fact that I very rarely have an issue with complex words used in literature because they usually add value. so then, my issue is with poor application of words, not the usage itself? thinking back to how I used the thesaurus in undergrad to just sound less repetitive, I was effectively learning the words as multiple variations of the same thing instead of understanding the nuances of each and being able to put them to appropriate use. 

for example, a recent GRE word was “insidious” (something that doesn’t initially seem to it but gradually becomes harmful). I quickly went to my paper draft (yes, I am technically still working on my thesis….) because it was a much more accurate word to use in the introduction where I had written about the “potentially sinister implications” of something (“the egalitarian undertones of creativity” if you were curious). as I debated which was more useful, I realized I hadn’t built up my argument clearly enough until that point to decide whether it was potentially sinister or just carried the facade of innocence that “insidious” would imply. 

I did look up synonyms of “sinister” to find that  “insidious” was, in fact, NOT one of them. so perhaps I was misguided to group them together, but it was nonetheless exciting for a single new word to push me to rethink my argument. and in undergrad, I was at best in the phase of trying to figure out what I wanted to say, much less think about how I was building up my argument. so lesson #2, for (Big) words to offer functional value, you need to know what you want to say first.

4. EPISTEMOLOGY 

(this one is… less vocab word, more entire subfield of philosophy, also topic in social science, and probably many other things. but basically, it’s about the nature of knowledge, what constitutes knowledge, etc.)

when I wrote a short paper a few months ago, I realized that I was claiming to make an argument about “epistemology”–or at least I was trying to. but as I struggled to revise the sentences, I remembered a conversation I had with a professor about ChatGPT as the “average of everything” and decided to ask it to do a line-by-line interpretation of a paragraph… only to discover that I was in fact not saying what I wanted to. 

I think I had used this particularly Big Word in hopes that I was explaining my argument, using it as a buffer or black box of sorts in lieu of articulating it. forcing myself to drop the word that felt correct and pushing myself to use it more selectively or think about what other ways I could articulate its original intention pushed me to refine the argument even more. in other words, the desire to actually communicate an opinion that I wanted to communicate–becuase I did want to say something!–pushed me to engage with the word beyond just understanding it. (and also to embrace ChatGPT a bit more… more on that another time.) so lesson #3: you need to want to communicate your argument well. 

but on the flip side, while I want to give myself grace because I was in the process of learning it, I’ve also gone from an allergy to a fear of using big words wrong. maybe it’s merely about the humility to keep yourself accountable and not assume you ever understand it? I don't know.

---

I struggled to connect these "dictionary entries" very meaningfully because I have no conclusion to end on. instead, I offer you this article about the role of vocabularies in social sciences: “Method, Social Science, and Social Hope” (1981) by philosopher Richard Rorty.

it's an intervention for a central methodological debate between positivists looking to find “objective” truth, pursuing rigor, replicability, representativeness, etc. and those who seek to interpret the world, constantly creating new words to accommodate more nuance and subtlety. or as Rorty says, a “quarrel” between those who seek to “explain” (positivists) and those who think that reality should be “described” (constructivists, I think).

he’s sympathetic to the resistance of those who want social science to follow in the steps of those seeking “objective” truth in the natural sciences, but makes an important point about the (non-)value of taking sides: “the movement is a useful protest against the fetishism of old-fashioned 'behavorist' social scientists who worry about whether they are being 'scientific.’ But this protest goes too far when it waxes philosophical and begins to draw a principled distinction between man and nature” (577).

he then explains How Useless this debate is, effectively making him the new spokesperson of Woke Twitter’s misplaced “anti-intellectualism” that I most definitely subscribed to. but Rorty actually offers a more productive, theoretically-grounded conclusion that “Both sides make the same mistake in thinking that there is some intrinsic connection between the two requirements” (576). In fact:

“Human beings are no more 'really' described in [any set of vocabulary]. Objects are not 'more objectively' described in any vocabulary than in any other. Vocabularies are useful or useless, good or bad, helpful or misleading, sensitive or coarse, and so on; but they are not 'more objective' or less objective' nor more or less 'scientific.. if we get rid of traditional notions of 'objectivity' and 'scientific method' we shall be able to see the social sciences as continuous with literature - as interpreting other people to us, and thus enlarging and deepening our sense of community.” (581)

his focus is vocabulary in social sciences so it’s not directly relevant here, but I think there’s much to be said about the role that words have and their capacity to help you engage more with the world: “narratives as well as laws, redescriptions as well as predictions, serve a useful purpose in helping us deal with the problems of society”. it brings me back to lesson #1, about the power words have to shape your understanding of something and how you make sense of the world. and in the context of social science, we have to think about the impact it has on our work instead of getting lost in the sauce of having a point for the sake of it.

(if the article itself is of interest, I think section 3 (pages 577-581) is relatively simply written. the first section references too many philosophers and theorists and the last section digs deep into two philosophers to demonstrate that the two scholars who seemingly disagree are actually pointing to the same concerns, just with different solutions. I love that he’s resolving debates, but cannot speak to its relevance in your life.)

so I'm going to be okay with not pretending to have a conclusion when I don't. what I have here is a set of loose thoughts, random tweets, and a random paper I was recommended weeks ago (1 PDF out of the to-read pile, 10 more added). but the bandaid of this post is finally ripped off! in retrospect, one post a month should have been my post-grad goal. so I stand before you to hereby renew my vow and commitment to the monthly goal.

hopefully, ttyl!