Big words don’t always equal big ego
During an anti-intellectual era, scorning vocabularies will only set us back further.
By AUBRIE COLE
Think of the most pretentious person you know. Do you have someone in mind? Chances are, one of their most dislikable traits is their “artificially inflated” vocabulary. Perhaps they seem to employ lengthy words to make themselves appear more clever, but in the process, they slightly misuse them or force them into sentences in which they clearly do not belong.
We all know this person, or more likely, many people like this — and yes, they might be quite insufferable at times. And yet, I am here to defend them.
For the sake of reciprocal understanding, let’s examine the “dictionary warrior” from their perspective. How is one expected to integrate a new word into their quotidian lexicon, if not through intentional, conscious practice? So, the individual makes regular attempts to include recherché words in day-to-day conversation — just to be met with a sardonic scoff, a skeptical raise of the brow from their peers. Thus is the plight of a well-spoken person in 2025.
I’m not oblivious to how I may come off throughout this article. There is a warranted social precedent of irritation toward those who militantly promote habits and behaviors historically associated with academics, executives and writers — some of the most stereotypically egotistical among us, a consequence of the elitism of academic and corporate spaces.
Ultimately, the goal is not to shame those with modest vocabularies; one can still demonstrate an impressive, eloquent command of language without incorporating overly obscure terms. Instead, I aim to discourage the existing negative attitude toward those who consistently elevate their verbal and written voices through vocabulary expansion and emphasize the importance of learning to read, write and speak using distinct, specific language.
This is not the first Daily Trojan article to point out the stark rise of American anti-intellectualism within the past few years. From the government’s direct attacks on higher education and the arts to a newfound generational apathy toward classic literature, we live in a time of almost incomprehensible disdain for academia and intellectualism.
Most directly reflected through book bans and ever-declining literacy rates in children, the chance to develop a vivid vocabulary in the first place has become increasingly stunted.
Whether stemming from politics — shown through the Trump administration’s continuous efforts to disparage academics and universities — or social contempt for those who come off as pretentious, the war on intellectualism is, for the time being, here to stay.
But why does it matter how one speaks? So what if someone simply doesn’t possess the same bank of words as an academic or intellectual, assuming they both natively speak the same language anyway?
The most obvious counterpoint here: those with larger vocabularies command language with far more precision and specificity, which is a clear advantage academically, professionally and socially. The far more sinister issue, however, reflects our government’s zealous efforts to keep the populace dumb and unaware.
“Doublespeak,” a term popularized by William Lutz, an American linguist, has been and still is a tangible threat to our country’s thorough understanding of our leaders’ intentions. Essentially, those who employ doublespeak intentionally use obscure and euphemistic language to confuse or deceive their audience. This often involves drawing upon abstruse vocabulary to mislead the listener, who may not have as extensive knowledge of lesser-known words.
This weaponization of language is a sharp departure from the way academics make use of specific vocabulary. While politicians use their words to conceal and obfuscate, intellectuals exhaust their lexicon in the name of clarity and refinement. This is a primary reason why academics and educational institutions are some of the first to be discredited and attacked in times of tyranny.
Now, developing an encyclopedic lexicon isn’t the only way to defend against doublespeak or any other unscrupulous political strategy, but it’s certainly a sufficient starting point.
Additionally, in a time when it’s becoming increasingly essential to be able to defend one’s views with precision and rigor, an expanded vocabulary is just another tool you should have at your disposal.
Fundamentally, by buying into the preconceived notions and stereotypes that those who regularly utilize rarer words are inherently pompous, pretentious and proud, you only serve as a pawn to further the agenda of the administrations, politicians and leaders striving to foster an uneducated and inarticulate population. Outright dismissal of the dictionary warrior says more about the skeptic than the warrior themself.
So, cut the guy in your GE-B discussion section who uses words like “vicissitude” and “draconian” some slack, and maybe even take a leaf out of his book — he’s trying to set himself up for success in an anti-intellectual world determined to keep him, and you, ignorant.
