I agree with almost every word he said, except that I disagree with almost all of his suggestions to improve the situation. I think that his analysis is incomplete and that it drives him to improper (and unworkable) remedies.

First a note about his student who got 800 on the verbal portion of the SAT. There are three levels (at least) of vocabulary. I don't know what the technical name for these are, so I'll just invent some and explain. Each person has SOME of their vocabulary from each category.

1. Enumerated vocabulary. This is the vocabulary of the person who knows just lists of words, but may not know the definitions of them. An example would include many people who are very good at scrabble (or it's online knockoff, literati). One of the Scrabble sites says outright that most professional players consider knowing definitions to be a waste of brainspace - and those literati elites with whom I've discussed the matter have agreed without exception. You know that X is a word, but have no idea what it means. This is a small portion of my vocabulary, because I forget them if I don't play they often enough. These include words like ULU, QAT, SUQ, and numerous others. For the stronger players this includes very big words to which many do not know the meanings.

2. Partially functional vocabulary. You know that X is a word, you have a vague notion of its meaning - and you could possibly infer an approximate meaning to the word if you saw it in context; however, you would not normally use the word. (I have a very large chunk of my own vocabulary in this category.)

3. Functional vocabulary. This refers to words that one knows extremely well and which one CAN and DOES use correctly or nearly correctly with ease and with volition. I like to think that I have a high functional vocabulary, but most of my vocab is probably in category 2. Still, I have gradually improved over the years - mainly by forcing myself to use words and broadening my reading habits. I'm not too hard myself, as I suspect that type 2 constitutes the bulk of most people's vocabularies. (In fact, despite two decades of roaming the net, before I came here, I'd met a very few individuals whose functional vocabularies constituted the bulk of their knowledge.)

I've met lots of people who "knew" amazing amounts of words, but could barely construct an intelligible sentence. The other day I was playing scrabble with someone who played ARANEID but didn't know that IM is not a word. (This is a recognized sign of cheating, but I hate making accusations like that, as the conclusion is not a necessary inference.) In the literati boards, I'm a mediocre and undistinguished player. And yet, while I can listen to (i.e. "read") the conversation of the high red elites, I'm continually staggered by their near universal poor grasp and usage of language. Anyone with whom they disagree is a moron. Anyone who doesn't know what they know is an idiot. If someone says something unpleasant, he is told to STFU. One can listen the entire evening and amid thousands of sentences, glean perhaps, on a very luck night, a dozen or so sentences that have any redeeming value. After a few short minutes in the lounge area, I can fell my head becoming lighter as the IQ points seep from my skull.


On the good side: while the net provides people with the ability to communicate without thinking, it also makes it easier to communicate better - for those who have the discipline. We can lament all we like, but the best way I know to encourage others to follow this path is to set a good example. It won't persuade everyone. But if a few younger people can be persuaded, it's a worthwhile investment (of time and effort).

k