Teaching Effective Word Choice
I remember clearly, though it was many years ago, when my junior high school language arts teacher told the class that we needed to use a larger variety of words in our writing. We were no longer allowed to use commonplace words like “said” and “walked”. Instead, we were supposed to choose a synonym from a list with which we had been provided, like “mumbled” or “sauntered”. However, while this surely provided variation in my vocabulary, I was just writing my paragraph as I normally would and then replacing “said” and “walked” with supplied synonyms. The benefits of word variation were often outweighed by the effects of unusual (and often illogical) combinations like “mumbled in surprise”. We were never given the background knowledge required to make vocabulary choices in an informed manner, which is something that I am quite concerned about now as an education student. If teachers are to expect their students to make effective vocabulary decisions, the foundation for informed word choice needs to be introduced through teaching the rhetoric and fluency of word choice.
Effective Word Choice
Effective word choice lies in the realm of rhetoric, particularly in the potential activity of the text, which William Covino and David Jolliffe have defined as being present when “the rhetor intends it to do something, to affect or change the auditors’ minds or actions or environments” (329). They also recognize that since all texts have the potential to affect the reader, a text may also have unintended potential activity (329).
This makes effective word choice difficult because different people will have made different connections with certain words depending on their upbringing and exposure to different language. As a result different words will have more or less potential activity for certain people.
For example, I have always encountered the word ‘soar’ in contexts that have caused me to relate the word with a sense of freedom and power. Thus, if I were to see the sentence, “the bird soared across the sky,” I would immediately assume the bird is important and powerful (perhaps an eagle) and that the theme of freedom may play a role in the following text. On the other hand, “The bird flew across the sky” sounds more like a background description than a main action.
The Role of Emotion
Inclusion of terms can also be used to elicit an emotional reaction, such as exhibited in the following excerpt from a rhetorical analysis of an IKEA advertisement; “The language of “rubber duck,” “warmth of wood” and “natural materials” reminds the audience of a care-free period from their childhood when they would run around in the parks and play in the bathtub without any worries” (Xu et al.). Even in junior high, students should be able to identify the connections they make to certain words and understand how those connections influence them. They can thus also be shown how to make use of those connections to influence the emotions of their audience. These reactions, however, are contingent on the childhood experiences of the readers. As such, writers need to be familiar with the experiences of our audience in order to understand what additional meanings words will have. This means that students need to develop an understanding of rhetoric and discourse-specific language in order to develop effective word choice.
The Audience
Anne Beaufort has designed a conceptual model of knowledge domains to address areas of knowledge expert writers draw on to create effective texts. It discusses knowledge domains that should be addressed when writing and identifies the information we should look at when evaluating our audience. Particularly relevant when addressing word choice are the areas of “Subject Matter Knowledge”, “Genre Knowledge”, and “Rhetorical Knowledge” (19).
- Subject matter knowledge involves awareness of specialized terms and of existing ideas about the topic (Chilewska et al. 1). Students can gain an understanding of this through exposure to relevant literature and access to scaffolding in the case of more advanced texts.
- Genre knowledge involves understanding the type of writing required in a certain situation (Chilewska et al. 1). This is a concept that can initially be explicitly taught in the classroom as a series of rules and then developed implicitly through exposure to example texts.
- Rhetorical knowledge involves adjusting writing to the expectations and needs of the audience (Chilewska et al. 1). This can be taught through discussing how language is used to address different demographics and practice activities that call for critical analysis of language-audience relations in provided texts.
Through in-class explanation and application of these three concepts, students’ understandings of writing to appeal to audience expectations can be developed. From there, these concepts can be applied to word choice.
When you have an awareness of the associations your audience has with particular words, as well as the expectations they hold for the language of a text, you can use this knowledge to draw their attention to certain information.
As I addressed earlier, this can be done by appealing emotionally to those associations and expectations. However, it can also be used to give emphasis to specific parts of a text. In reference to grammar, Elizabeth Sargent and Cornelia Paraskevas showed that “one way we, as writers, can catch the reader’s attention is to make an unexpected move” (263). When a passage consists of generic, high frequency words (walked, talked, etc.), a reader is able to move through at a quick pace. However, when a segment contains lower frequency words, or language that is unexpected within the discourse, it can slow down the reader and distract them. This occurs often in novice academic writing to the detriment of the text (Hanne Bjornstad), however can be a powerful tool for the experienced writer.
To see this effect, we can replace the sentence “they also recognize that since all texts have the potential to affect the reader, a text may also have unintended potential activity” (the second sentence below the first image) with the following: “They also announce that since all locutions have the opportunity to inspire a peruser, a text may also exhibit unpremeditated potential activity”. Personally, I find this sentence itself difficult to read because many of the words are relatively uncommon, despite being synonyms of the words in the original text. Within the context of the second paragraph, it also causes the reader to stumble, as it has altered the writing style and broken the discourse expectations of academic writing.
In some contexts, this may be the goal of the writer: to grab the reader’s attention and make them think twice. However, in contexts such as this article, it causes needless confusion and gaps in comprehension. Thus, to promote sentence fluency, students need to learn where and when it is appropriate to make the readers pause. This can be done by having students examine texts in which using uncommon wording is constructive and those in which it is not (such as in the example above).
Conclusion
While junior high school students may be able to figure out some of these intricacies of word choice on their own over time, such an implicit approach to writing education is certainly not conducive to efficient skill development. Rather than simply telling students to use a larger vocabulary and giving them synonym sheets, we should provide them with background knowledge that will allow them to examine the purpose and value of varying vocabulary. We should also ask them to examine word choice and develop their own conclusions of the effects different word combinations make within their context. This is also not a one-time start to finish lesson, but something that should be supported and recalled throughout the year. By continuously contextualizing the role of word choice through examples and by scaffolding word choice development through relevant materials and activities, we can begin promoting the use of more effective vocabulary in junior high school students.
Editor’s Note:
I have been writing for many years now and yet how we learn writing, word use and the choices we make as individuals for structuring what we write is amazing: there are so many techniques out there and I believe we pick and choose parts of our own style from others writings that we encounter. As we become well versed in our language, we forget how we ended up doing the things we do. Danielle mentions the use of synonyms for words at the beginning of her article and I admit I still do the same. However, it is very true that there are certain synonyms that I know fit better than others in my sentences — they have a ring to them which suits my style of writing, which another person might never choose. When we start to develop this personal connection with language, we not only learn to write better, we also learn to relate to our audiences and develop further as individuals.
References:
Beaufort, Anne. “Conceptual Model: Expert Writers Draw on Five Knowledge Domains.” College Writing and Beyond; A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Utah State University Press, 2007, p. 19.
Bjornstad, Hanne. Personal interview with Hanne Bjornstad: Paper 2 conference. 20 March 2017.
Chilewska, et al. “Beaufort Knowledge Domain Questions”. 2015. University of Alberta, Edmonton. Microsoft Word file. eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/course/view.php?id=36287. March 23, 2017, p. 1.
Covino, W.A., and D. A. Jolliffe. “What is Rhetoric?” Writing about Writing: A College Reader. 2nd ed., edited by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs, Bedford St. Martin’s, 2014, pp. 325–346.
Sargent, M. Elizabeth and Cornelia C. Paraskevas. “Understanding Grammar as a Style”. Conversations about Writing: Eavesdropping, Inkshedding, and Joining In. Eds. edited by M. Elizabeth Sargent and Cornelia C. Paraskevas, Nelson Education Limited, 2005, pp. 257–73.
Xu, Yueyang, et al. “Colaborative Inkshed 5”. WRS 101 EXPLORING WRITING (SEM X53 Wi17). Feb. 14, 2017. University of Alberta. March 19, 2017. (unpublished)
