Complexities of Word Usage

By Doug Buehl,
Madison East High School teacher
Member, Wisconsin State Reading Association

December 2004

The dust has settled (and the fumes are hopefully dissipating!) from the recent highly charged and frequently vitriolic presidential election. As observers reflect on the campaigns, a number of fascinating contrasts emerge. The Republicans characterized President Bush as an “idealistic” leader, a person with strong and certain convictions who knew what we should do. The Democrats attempted to portray the president as “dogmatic,” a stubborn and inflexible individual who holds narrow and fixed positions and who ignores evidence that deviates from his vision of how things are. Interestingly, both parties seemed to concur that the president has strong beliefs and the will to act on them – the Republicans emphasized these traits as assets, while the Democrats described them as extremist.

Likewise, much of the representation of Senator John Kerry showed agreement on his core qualities. Democrats extolled the senator’s “pragmatism,” his inclination for careful consideration of information before making decisions, his thoughtfulness and comprehensive command of all sides of an issue. However, Republicans railed against these very same traits, arguing that Kerry was “wishy-washy” – a flip-flopper unable to settle on a coherent plan of attack, and a man perhaps too willing to compromise when strong resolve is needed.

While the above analysis is obviously too simplistic to account for all the variables of the election, these distinctions do help us understand how language influences perception. Both parties labeled their opponents as occupying an unacceptable extreme along the continuum of political conviction.

Consider some of the key vocabulary that could be used to depict positions along this continuum: “dogmatic, pragmatic, apathetic, idealistic, compromising, doctrinaire,” and so forth. Studying this group of words as an “extended family” that ranges from one extreme to another is a strategy that helps students construct deeper and more sophisticated understandings of these concepts.

The strategy
Students tend to approach vocabulary learning as the mere mastery of definitions as they attempt to engineer a quick match between a synonym and the target word. As a result, they may attain only fleeting insight into a word and its potential use in a variety of contexts. In addition, students may not be sensitive to the connotations of a word – nuances of meaning, especially the emotional subtleties of a word – that govern where and when it is most appropriately used.

Step 1: Begin by asking students to decide upon “working definitions” of key target words. Working definitions are intended to be personalized understandings of words, which means they extend beyond the abbreviated dictionary entries students typically ascribe to a word’s meaning.

For example, a dictionary definition of one of our target words – “dogmatic” – will offer phrases like “asserting opinions in an arrogant manner” and “opinionated.” Most students will scratch down “arrogant” or “opinionated” as their definition for “dogmatic.”

Yet opinionated and arrogant, while attributes of “dogmatic,” are hardly synonymous and do not constitute an adequate definition. So students must regard these dictionary definitions as only the starting points for a working definition, which will evolve as more characteristics of this term are discovered and integrated into an understanding of this concept.

Step 2: Model for students examples and scenarios of the target words at work. Vignettes that exemplify a word are an excellent way to help students discern critical nuances of a word’s meaning. Analysis of the following vignette broadens student understanding of “dogmatic”:

“Organic foods are the only viable choice for a healthy diet! I will never consume any food that has not been grown and prepared according to stringent organic principles. If I can’t obtain strong evidence that the item is 100% organic, out it goes! When I shop for vegetables, for example, I demand documentation from the grocer that guarantees that the products labeled “organic” meet these specifications.”

As students discuss qualities of this vignette that constitute “dogmatism,” they add more descriptors to their working definition of this term, such as “strongly held beliefs,” “inflexible,” “unwillingness to compromise,” and “certainty that one is correct.”

Step 3: Students are now ready to explore an extended vocabulary family. For example, “pragmatic” is perhaps best understood when contrasted with “dogmatic.” Students often settle on “practical” as their dictionary definition, but the following vignette illustrates a more comprehensive understanding:

“Eating healthy should be our priority, and we must do our best to select foods that are grown and prepared with a minimal of dangerous additives. Family budgets do need to factor in the higher costs of organic produce as well as the uncertain availability of many items. We also need to recognize that there is a range in what constitutes ‘organic;’ any product that is produced in a more organic manner is going to be better for us.”

“Dogmatic” becomes a clearer concept when linked with related terms like “pragmatic.” Mix in additional words like “idealistic” or “apathetic,” and assign teams of students to write their own vignettes that illustrate a term.

Step 3: Once students have developed working definitions of an extended vocabulary family, model arraying these words along a continuum from one extreme to another. “Dogmatic” and “pragmatic” fit along a continuum from high beliefs to low beliefs. Other target words are also added to the continuum, as students wrangle with how extreme a word is, and whether it is more or less extreme than another in the extended family. Introduce new terms to the extended family (when students ask whether there is a word that means “holding no beliefs” place “nihilistic” onto the continuum). As part of this dynamic, encourage students to recommend their own contributions.

Posted November 19, 2004