How articulate are you?

Username567 wrote: »

I'm making a conscious effort to become more eloquent. Hearing someone speak with good grammar, concisely and expressively and with nice pauses instead of filler words such as ummm, uhh, ya know is a melody to behold. Contrast that with say Bertie Ahern who literally gives me a headache to listen to.

I think the goal should be to speak concisely as possible while expressing your thoughts as accurately as possible.

I realised recently I've a terrible habit of saying "get here" instead of arrive for example. I think arrive sounds so much better.

There can be problems with speaking clearly to the point. It often requires the use of words which are not in everyone's lexicon.

Some of the words I got "stop trying to sound smart" type resonses to:

"Tautology". I was badly mistaken in the assumption that most adults would know the meaning of this word. It offended someone I wasn't even speaking to so much they felt the need to interject.

"Vice". As in "X is a vice I allow myself". I was quite surprised that an adult could have made it all the way into their 30s and managed to avoid picking this one up.

"Nomenclature". This one was quite ironic. I was called up on this one when pointing out that experts shouldn't deploy too many discipline-specific terms when decribing what their work to lay audiences. I may have been guilty of a similar charge here

If it sounds like I am some kind of vocabulary snob, I assure you, this is not the case. Given the very large number of words in the english language it is not surprising in the least to encounter ones you haven't heard before. I never think less of a person for not knowing what a particular word means, even relatively common words, but I can't help but think a little less of someone who sneers at someone who happens to know a word they don't.
I have had to ask the meaning of words many times in the past and expect I shall have to do so again in the future.

Vocabulary is to some extent the key to articulation. Most words describe something really specific and while other words can be employed in their place, they don't capture quite as precicely your true intent.

As is probably obvious from this post, I do better speaking words than writing them (though I wouldn't rate myself articulate). Grammar is completely mysterious to me and I can't spell to save my life. Spell check is pretty much the only reason that anyone who works with me isn't convinced I'm a little slow. They have many other reasons for suspicion but that's a whole other conversation

I suppose I'd have to backtrack a little and agree with some of what Procrastinator has said in that it is certainly a useful exercise to attempt to broaden one's breadth of language across all 4 areas.
I originally only meant to highlight that you will not necessarily improve in all those areas at once, there are different methods and indeed thought processes required for each area, some more than others admittedly

When I read the thread title which only mentioned the word articulate and then read the OP which mentioned improving language skills in many different areas, I felt the need to interject with a (I thought so at least) whimsical observation on the difficult task of improving so many areas simultaneously.

The eternal pedant in me really needs to shut up once in a while

To strive to be more articulate is something to be admired, I reckon. It shows you have standards and that 'it'll do' is not the way you live your life. Our language is one of our greatest tools and assets and I don't think it's right to take it for granted.

bluewolf wrote: »

Eschew obfuscation

Communicating effectively is entirely subjective. There are parts of Ireland where the accent used and local idioms leave me baffled. So, I suppose whether or not you are articulate depends on your audience.

Its a bit like accents, most people pick up and adopt the accents around them. The use of language has to be equally flexible. Just because you are able to use big words like 'marmalade' in every second sentence doesn't mean you should.

If your language alienates people, what's the point?

SD

Language should not be used to belittle or demean others for their perceived lack of knowledge or intelligence. But neither should a person be mocked or abused for their use of words.

Language is fabulously diverse and we should all be able use it the way we see fit and should allow others to do the same.

On the remark about the difficulty of being concise and to the point, I have always loved this Twain quote:
“I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

To be honest, blatant mispronunciation of words annoys me more than a lack of diverse vocabulary.

I was in a cafe yesterday and in the queue in front of me was a lady who was clearly up from the country (she said so herself in conversation with her friend). She was ordering a "sangwhich"- she used that pronunciation several times. She seemed perfectly normal other than that, but her fairly heavy accent coupled with her inability to order correctly had the poor Polish deli worker terribly confused....

Username567 wrote: »

Yes of course, but often times effective communication requires you to use language which isn't simple. Say for example you want to convey accurately your sense perceptions and emotions during a trek through the amazon rainforest. That becomes difficult with "simple" language.To convey your exact thoughts, emotions, smells, sounds, feelings, imagery etc is very difficult. I agree simple language should be used if it suffices, however there are times it doesn't suffice.

Yes the use of simple English may not adequately convey all of those things. However, language that is unnecessarily convoluted may act as a barrier to the expression of those very ideas you are trying to convey.

SD

I do sometimes get inebriated by the exuberance of my own verbosity.