My brother-in-law, a bright political science professor, admits that during a recent lecture, he was about to articulate a complex word, but at the last minute decided to use a simpler one. The word was dichotomy.

He wasn't sure all the students would understand it, and says that as the years progress, he's getting more conscious of his word choice.

It got me thinking about big words.

I recalled a morning a few months ago. I was brushing my teeth, listening to the morning news when I heard something that made me stop mid-brush. The story was about convicted B.C. killer Robert William Pickton.

The defence was trying to prove that his IQ was below average. But in a test, Pickton could define words like lugubrious, pilfering, wildebeest and dromedary. Huh? If a supposed simpleton knew words like that maybe I wasn't doing enough to incorporate complex words into my daily conversations.

The English language is growing, bursting with new creations and a steady parade of words from other languages. So why, as English approaches its millionth word, do I feel my own vocabulary isn't growing along with it?

After all, I love words. When I lived in Germany, I quickly boosted my German vocabulary using a very simple method: sticky notes. At the end of the day, I gathered up the new words I'd discovered and wrote them on one half of a yellow sticky note.

On the other half, I wrote simple definitions. I stuck it to my bathroom mirror, figuring I could learn them while I brushed my teeth (really, there’s not a whole lot else to do). One sticky note became two, then three and four until the whole side of the mirror was plastered with words.

My German roommate was thrilled because it boosted his English vocabulary. The system proved so successful, I made new vocabulary notes to bring with me on a bike tour. Whenever I got bored of cows and sunflowers, I learned a new word.

Back in Canada, I continued to feed my hunger for words. Whenever I came across a word I didn't know, I'd jot it down. Those I might actually use in daily conversation made the sticky note short list, words like: soporific, irascible, turpitude.

I stuck the list to my bathroom mirror and each time I reviewed it and recalled the definitions, I flashed myself a toothy grin (my teeth and vocabulary were mutually getting more brilliant). I puffed with pride when I casually dropped a nugget into conversation. That remark was so insensate, I'd say.

A love not shared

But it seems to me my love for big words isn't shared by the general populace.

Barry McLoughlin teaches people to simplify their message. He's been a media trainer for more than 20 years and he too notices big words are dropping off. There was a time when politicians routinely said things like "symmetrical confederation" (i.e. Canada).

However, says McLoughlin, media and advertisers are attuned to shorter attention spans so they're forcing increasingly simpler messages. In the past 40 years, an average TV sound bite has shrunk from 42 seconds to seven.

"Vocabulary isn't necessarily prized in today's society," says McLoughlin. "People are embarrassed to sound like a policy wonk or an egghead, so they use simpler words."

He says politicians can't afford not to simplify their message: if they don't, the media will.

But it's not only the media; technology is also encouraging us to fit fewer words onto smaller screens, write more e-mails faster. As we try to get the message out quickly, we generally choose words that are most familiar to us.

"I think it's a troubling sign in a way," says McLoughlin. "If you're shrinking your vocabulary, you're undermining the quality of dialogue you're having, and that harms the quality of relationships you have."

A strong vocabulary allows for nuance, extremely important in diplomacy and leadership positions, he says. Young people who are growing up without the ability to have a sophisticated vocabulary to calibrate what they want to say, undermine their ability to communicate.

A shift is on

John Serembus, a philosophy professor at Widener University, is noticing a shift. For years, he's taught in "sound bites" to deal with shorter attention spans.

He teaches for 10 minutes, stops for questions and a joke, teaches for 10 minutes — you get it. Lately, he's noticing that vocabulary is becoming an issue.

A student in his logic class didn't fare well on a test, admitting he didn't understand the material because he couldn't follow the "big words" used in the lecture. It turned out they were words like implication, hypothetical and consistency.

"Needless to say I was taken aback. But as I thought about it, I realized that he probably never encountered those words until now," says Serembus.

"As a result," he says, "I still use the words I want to use whether they are 'big' or not, but I do a lot of paraphrasing in simpler terms."

I know there are those who will say au contraire: our vocabulary ain't shrinking.

Language expert David Crystal says he hasn't noticed any particular change in word length over the past decade. Yes, sentences are shorter, he says, but that can create more reliance on the words selected, which can actually get longer.

Crystal says we tend to underestimate vocabulary sizes. Most people think the average size of a person's vocabulary is a few thousand words, whereas it is actually tens of thousand.

It's hard to know any of this for sure, though, because as Crystal says: "Vocabulary remains a hugely neglected topic of linguistic study … It's the scale of the exercise which is so off-putting."

In the meantime, I shall do my utmost to quaff from the fountain of English. I'm going back to my sticky note — toothbrushing method.

Words, like teeth, need to be kept in good working order to retain their bite.

Letters

I must resond to the post indicating that there is no factual decline of our language.

A few months ago, I had occasion to ride down six floors in an elevator with seven or eight new federal government officers. The department to which they belonged shall stay nameless. I would estimate their ages to have been between 22 and 24 years.

Bearing in mind that these individuals were required to have degrees in post secondary education, the conversations between them were absolutely incredible. I heard the word "like" at least 50 times. I don't believe I heard a single word beyond three syllables. It was as if I was listening to a group of 12-year-olds. It was truly mind-numbing.

After sharing their company for only six floors, my head was spinning. And by the way, I'm only 43 years old, and have a young attitude.

If I were to have the misfortune of being served by any of these individuals, I would leave the premises with sincere doubts that my issues had been properly addressed.

Futhermore, this was not a isolated incident, but merely an example of what I witness virtually every day.

– Deborah | Newfoundland

Your viewpoint represents a long-held belief that the CBC and it's audience are elitist snobs. It's a contentious argument that the english language is in a state of decline simply because there is anecdotal evidence to support it (i.e., simplified textbooks, tabloid prevalence, inane e-mail and chatroom banter).

Closer to the truth is that there has never been as many forums for the masses to express their own opinions to a broad audience. Newspapers, and television 50 years ago appealed to a sophisticated audience; those who were educated enough to read and those that could afford a TV set. These people doubtfully represented society as a whole.

Basically, if what we think we are witnessing now is true (the dumbing down of the english language), it's because it was bound to happen. The masses now have a soapbox to speak from.

– Andrea Chekmar | Vancouver

Interesting article, but I couldn't help but think that, since it is a CBC Viewpoint article, you're preaching to the converted.

As snobbish as it sounds, I doubt that CBC readers (and watchers and listeners) represent the "Canadian" demographic.

One should also never lose sight of the fact that there are many facets of society and the ability to switch on or off, down or up, depending on your audience is important. To assume that everyone in our multiculturally, economically, and socially diverse society should speak the same "language" is highly presumptuous and fallacious. (sorry, I couldn't help throwing those last two in there)

– Greg Allen | Vancouver

I've been accused of being a language snob all my life, cringing when "hopefully" is uttered (used improperly 9999 out of 10000 times) by someone who supposedly attended university. I realized ground was being lost when I first heard it being used by a CBC announcer, and have accepted that the battle is lost now that every second day I hear it being used incorrectly on the CBC.

But I digress (consult your OED)...the first thought I had upon finishing this column was a news article out of New Zealand about 6 months ago. High school students will be allowed to use "txt spk" (text speak, abbreviations used on cell phones or chat programs) when writing exams. "itz gng 2 cum to Cnda n e tym now im sher"

– Paul Klimstra

Thank you. What a wonderful column to encounter after a day of doing technical support. I have inadvertently insulted people while doing my job through the simple act of using a word with which they had no familiarity.

I'm not talking about jargon words like kernel or Sudo or even Pixel but words I thought everyone would keep tucked away; but no, not at all. I am apparently a priggish snob for flaunting such arcane utterances as "hemisphere" (used while trying to refer to the piece of hardware that looked like half a ball), "oval" (used when trying to get the customer to click the button that was not a circle but rather more egg-shaped) and my all time favourite "neighborhood" which term the customer insisted I was making up for the egregious transgression of accusing him of living in "The 'Hood" an actual term that he knew existed.

In each instance I thought the customer was attempting levity or merely playing the fool to lighten an otherwise stressful situation. Sadly, I could not have been more wrong.

Even when I provided a short etymology of the term; Old English 'nigh' (neah) or near and gebur freeholder … same root as the Dutch 'Boer' or farmer and 'hood' or state, like 'adulthood' but there was just no going back. Apparently anyone could simply tell I was just making it all up to cover my insult and the only term the customer knew, and therefore the only term that mattered was "hood" as in where "gangstas" dwell and by use of such a despicable term I had overtly accused him of being a sociopathic, substance-addicted adept of petty larceny and debauchery, or "crack-head" as he put it.

All of these people had English, or some crippled redheaded stepson version of the language as their mother tongue, were "professionals" by occupation and were wealthy enough to afford a relatively expensive computer and the paid technical support that brought us together.

So, thank you for your article and kudos to you and everyone else who takes up your concern for keeping the language alive and well and keeping us away from a double-plus bad ahead time.

– Paul Cleveland | Peterborough, Ont

I have to agree with your article, but with one point in particular.

I've always loved words and I use them. Unfortunately, I seem to use them too much sometimes. I remember being 13 years old and being great friends with my 15-year-old cousin. Our friendship cooled irreversably one day when she told me that I was acting like a "big shot". I was confused and asked what she was talking about, and was told that I used too many big words. Evidently, I was making her feel stupid. I had no idea. I had unintentionally hurt her, and consequently became hurt myself.

My first husband accused me of the same thing. It turns out that he was extremely insecure to begin with, but nonetheless, 18 years of being told that I was flaunting my vocabulary at every opportunity, left it's mark on me.

Then my son, who incidentally is in Grade 7, but whose vocabularly tests put him at Grade 9 or better, informs me that sometimes he feels inferior because of the words that I use. So guess what? I'm now very careful about what words I use and with whom I use them. The problem is that I don't realize they're difficult words until I get a quizzical look from the person I'm speaking with.

It seems that my only outlet sometimes is to write. Like now. And when I send letters to the editor, or political commentary. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent.

– Deborah | NL

I mentally stumbled over your use of "insensate" to apply to a remark (as opposed to the person who made it). This led to a trip to the dictionary where closely grouped we find the related words insensate, insensible, insensitive and insentient.

Insensitive, in the sense of thoughtless or callous, is the one most commonly applied to people who make unfortunate remarks. Insensate usually means without feeling in the neurological sense, though some dictionaries also allow it in the emotional sense. In any case, I would not apply it to an inanimate oject such as a remark.

– David Lay | Kingston, Ont.

I order books for a senior high school, and am increasingly buying books that are big on pictures, and low on vocabulary. Densely packed, long winded books cannot compete with the internet and are not read any more by students, many of whom cannot keep a thought together past about 15 words per sentence.

If you've ever listened to basketball "star" in an interview, or witnessed the mind numbing conventions of language on teenage "hotmail" you would fear for the language of Shakespeare and Churchill.

The whole population is dumbing down, not because people are ny stupider than they've ever been, but because they are seldom exposed to intelligent, well articulated, beautiful language, spoken by attractive people with something interesting to say. Instead, they are glued to a "plethora" of entertaining devices that prevent thinking, and promote minimal language skills.

– Mary-Ellen Lang | Campbell River, B.C.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]