N.Y. Times mines its data to identify words that readers find abstruse
If The New York Times ever strikes you as an abstruse glut of antediluvian perorations, if the newspaper’s profligacy of neologisms and shibboleths ever set off apoplectic paroxysms in you, if it all seems a bit recondite, here’s a reason to be sanguine: The Times has great data on the words that send readers in search of a dictionary.
As you may know, highlighting a word or passage on the Times website calls up a question mark that users can click for a definition and other reference material. (Though the feature was recently improved, it remains a mild annoyance for myself and many others who nervously click and highlight text on webpages.) Anyway, it turns out the Times tracks usage of that feature, and yesterday, deputy news editor Philip Corbett, who oversees the Times style manual, offered reporters a fascinating glimpse into the 50 most frequently looked-up words on nytimes.com in 2009. We obtained the memo and accompanying chart, which offer a nice lesson in how news sites can improve their journalism by studying user behavior.
All of the 25-cent words I used in the lede of this post are on the list. The most confusing to readers, with 7,645 look-ups through May 26, is sui generis, the Latin term roughly meaning “unique” that’s frequently used in legal contexts. The most ironic word is laconic (#4), which means “concise.” The most curious is louche (#3), which means “dubious” or “shady” and, as Corbett observes in his memo, inexplicably found its way into the paper 27 times over 5 months. (A Nexis search reveals that the word is all over the arts pages, and Maureen Dowd is a repeat offender.)
Corbett also notes that some words, like pandemic (#24), appear on the list merely because they are used so often. Along those lines, feckless (#17) and fecklessness (#50) appear to be the favorite confounding words of Times opinion writers. The most looked-up word per instance of usage is saturnine (#5), which Dowd wielded to describe Dick Cheney’s policy on torture.
This is mostly just interesting — quiz: how many of these words can you define? — but it’s also a reminder that news sites are sitting on a wealth of data, from popular search terms to click rates, that can help them adjust to reader preferences. So are Times scribes being asked to rein in their vocabularies? That might be a Sisyphean (#37) task, but no, Corbett merely advised reporters to “avoid the temptation to display our erudition at the reader’s expense.”
After the jump, I’ve taken the original chart of 50 words, which was compiled by director of web analytics James Robinson, and run my own spreadsheet that also calculates look-ups per use. Below that, Corbett’s memo.
For comparison, here are the 25 most-frequently looked-up words on Dictionary.com over a few recent months. There’s no overlap.
And here’s the portion of Corbett’s memo concerning the list:
Big, Fancy Words
We know Times readers are a well-educated group. They expect sophisticated coverage and literate prose. They delight in good writing and don’t shy away from complicated topics.
On the other hand, they probably don’t carry an unabridged dictionary along with the newspaper as they take the subway to work. And they don’t expect a news article to pose the same linguistic challenge as “Finnegans Wake.”
Our choice of words should be thoughtful and precise, and we should never talk down to readers. But how often should even a Times reader come across a word like hagiography or antediluvian or peripatetic, especially before breakfast?
One benefit of reading The Times online is the “look up” function: double-click on any word and a little question mark appears. Click the question mark and you get a definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Our colleague James Robinson, the director of Web analytics, shared some intriguing data with me: a list of the words that had been looked up most often by Times readers so far this year.
Before you check out James’s list, a few words of caution. Don’t take the precise ranking or numbers too literally. Obviously, how often a word is looked up depends partly on how much it’s used and how many people are reading that article online. If Tom Friedman uses some moderately unusual word (say, fealty), and I use a real head-scratcher on the same day (say, phlogiston), it’s a good bet that more readers will look up his word.
And remember, I’m not suggesting that we should ban these or any challenging words. Some uses may be perfectly justified. But let’s keep in mind why we’re writing and who’s reading, and under what circumstances. And let’s avoid the temptation to display our erudition at the reader’s expense.
That said, here’s the list. Check it out, then return for a few final comments.
•••
I’ll admit that there were two words on the list that had me thoroughly stumped: sumptuary (“of or regulating expenses or expenditures; specif., seeking to regulate extravagance on religious or moral grounds”) and phlogiston (“an imaginary element formerly believed to cause combustion and to be given off by anything burning”).
Our handling of “phlogiston,” though, showed one way to help readers with a tricky word, even if they don’t click to look it up. It was in a quote in a Science story about physicists who work on Wall Street, and we gave the background before using the word:
But it is not so easy to get new ideas into the economic literature, many quants complain. J. Doyne Farmer, a physicist and professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and the founder and former chief scientist of the Prediction Company, said he was shocked when he started reading finance literature at how backward it was, comparing it to Middle-Ages theories of fire. “They were talking about phlogiston — not the right metaphor,” Dr. Farmer said.
•••
Some entries seem self-referential: it’s no coincidence that a list of obscure and difficult words includes abstruse and recondite, not to mention solipsistic. And while many of these words may look like a foreign language, some actually are: sui generis, bildungsroman and my old friend schadenfreude all make appearances. And some entries just seem baffling: how did we end up using louche 27 times?
•••
Remember, too, that striking and very specific words can become wan and devalued through overuse. Consider apotheosis, which we’ve somehow managed to use 18 times so far this year. It literally means “deification, transformation into a divinity.” An extended meaning is “a glorified ideal.” But in some of our uses it seems to suggest little more than “a pretty good example.” Most recently, we’ve said critics view the Clinton health-care plan as “the apotheosis of liberal, out-of-control bureaucracy-building,” and we’ve described cut-off shorts as “that apotheosis of laissez-faire wear.”
So what do we say if someone really is transformed into a god?
I think the most interesting implication of all this is the NYT’s data-mining potential. This kind of intelligence is what was only hinted at in that video of the NYT R&D ad lab.
With these kinds of wheels in motion, it’s no wonder that the NYT is weathering the storm so much better than most papers. This kind of intelligence can be applied to hyper-targeting ads, and that potential is something that can really help the NYT retain the confidence of its advertisers.
I wonder, though, what they’re doing to mine the data they get from the third-party APIs that they’re leveraging. Are they even collecting that data? I hope so, ’cause that kind of data is what will really give them the ability to hyper-target ad offers and bolster their revenue streams.
Right on. In fact, CT, the analytics team at the Times is in the same office as the core R&D group that we featured in those videos. I’m sure there’s a ton of fascinating data floating around there. And while I don’t know for sure, I’d bet they’re closely. tracking API usage. —Zach
As the creator of Wordle, I couldn’t resist this juicy data.
http://www.wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/935383/NY_Times_Hard_Words
For others who wish to follow suit, see the unadvertised “advanced” Wordle interface, at http://www.wordle.net/advanced/ .
I wonder what the picture would look like if the lookups per word were divided by the views per article in which each instance of the word appeared. You get close in listing the number of articles, but views of each word would be the most interesting.
Yeah, that would definitely be more rigorous. For instance, it’s clear that the popularity of Maureen Dowd’s columns (in addition to her large vocabulary) is skewing some of the data.
One very crude way to make the estimation you’re looking for would be to assume that the average opinion piece gets twice as much traffic as the average news article. (I have no idea if that’s a fair assumption, but my hunch is that it lowballs reality.) The original chart actually differentiated between news and opinion when tallying the number of times each word was used. I totaled them up for the spreadsheet above, but if you take that data and give each opinion piece double weight, this is what you get:
Thanks for asking about this, Josh. Now, if someone wants to run some searches, it would be interesting to learn which writers are most responsible for these 50 words. —Zach
Yeesh! I’m a professional writer AND a Mensan and I say there is simply no good reason for the use of the majority of those words in a mass communications medium.
Newspapers are supposed to communicate news. While you think using $10 words makes you look smart, it really just makes you look pompous. And calls your communications skills into serious question. Write for your audience, not for ego.
That must be the most erudite Wordle ever created. Thanks, Jonathan!
And, KTS, I generally agree with you, but sometimes a fancy word is just more precise. The worst, however, is when writers spend ten bucks on a word and then misuse it. Corbett makes that point about “apotheosis” in his memo. —Zach
Do they necessarily have to be writing for ego? I don’t see a problem with using those words in articles, especially considering the great lookup functionality mentioned. The content in NYT articles is generally interesting and well-written, and if I learn a new word while I’m reading it, then even better! Perhaps the audience doesn’t mind having their vocabulary stretched at the same time as their world view?
I have no fundamental problem with these words, ascian, and there’s nothing more satisfying than the perfect use of a great word. (My favorite on this list is ersatz.) Still, I suspect that “louche” has been thrown around a few times in less-than-perfect contexts. —Zach
Nervous clicking! Yes! OH I HAVE FELT SO ALONE.
So how cool would it be if this functionality were included when you have to teach high school kids. If it were added to wikipedia, and the data could get to the classroom teacher, the curriculum supervisor and the school chancellor..
You get the data once a week, then print out a dictionary to distribute in class.
Plus it would probably be really good for text prep.
We should start a support group, Michael. I’ve highlighted this comment at least a dozen times already. Josh is a nervous clicker, too, perhaps worse than I am. Have you had the experience of someone looking at your screen and thinking you’re pointing out a passage of text when you’re just randomly highlighting stuff? Happens to me all the time.
And, MichaelJ, that sounds like a great idea. I wonder if anyone’s experimenting with data on students’ reading habits within individual classes. Could work with other subjects, too, and certainly sounds better than standardized testing. No Datapoint Left Behind. —Zach
I have wondered about the vocabulary guidelines ever since I stumbled on “tatterdemalion” in the Style section a few years ago. I love a surprising, well-made word choice and I commend the writers and editors who make ample use of our exhilarating vocabulary. The online dictionary feature renders the reverse-snobbery of #6 moot.
you might want to refer to words used in “the west wing.” i recognize several of those words from episodes because i myself looked them up the next day.
The West Wing
from the TV series “The West Wing” created by Aaron Sorkin
President Bartlet (Martin Sheen): You’re a son of a bitch you know that? She bought her first new car and you hit her with a drunk driver. What, is that supposed to be funny? “You can’t conceive nor can I the strangeness of the mercy of God,” says Graham Green. I think I know who’s ass he was kissing there, ’cause I think your’re just vindictive. What was Josh Lyman, the warning shot? That was my son, what did I ever do to yours but praise his glory and praise his name? There’s a tropical storm that’s gaining speed and power. They say we haven’t had a storm this bad since you took out that Tender ship of mine in the North Atlantic last year, sixty-eight crew. You know what a Tender ship does? It fixes the other ships, and, delivers the mail, that’s all it can do. Gracias Tibiago Domine. Yes, I lied. It was a sin, I’ve committed many sins. Have I displeased you, you feckless thug? Three point eight billion new jobs that wasn’t good? Bailed out Mexico, Increased foreign trade, 30 million new acres of land for conservation, put Mendoza on the bench, we’re not fighting a war, I’ve raised 3 children. That’s not enough to buy me out of the doghouse?
Hace credam a deo pio? A deo iusto, a deo scico? Cruciatus in crucem. Tuus in terra sertvus, nuntius fui. Officium perfecti. Cruciatus in crucem. Eas in crucem.
(Translation: Am I really to believe that these are the acts of a loving God? A just God? A wise God? To hell with your punishments. I was your servant here on Earth. And I spread your word and I did your work. To hell with your punishments. To hell with you.)
Ooh, tatterdemalion is a new one for me. Thanks, Andrea!
And, Stella, I remember that episode well — and, right after it aired, heading eagerly to the West Wing fan sites for a translation of the Latin. Oh, hell, why not, here’s the clip:
Wow. I didn’t know my vocabulary was so limited after reviewing the list of words.
Sometimes a writer will see a word, think it particularly useful, and try to work it into his or her own work (and that readers won’t recall having seen it elsewhere): I suggest this is how “louche” found its way into the NYT so many times.
You’ll recall when the Harry Potter craze first hit, how many writers managed to include “muggles,” a Rowling coinage, into their story; chiefly, I expect, to demonstrate that they’ve read, if not the books, some other person’s writing about the books.
You’ll find similar phenomonae elsewhere: start listening to TV drama shows for how often some character comes up (when challenged about what they’re doing) with some variation, usually in a very annoyed tone, of “I’m doing my job!”
And, of course, a term is sometimes generally useful, though it seems odd (or does it?) that we have to borrow a German word for rejoicing at others’ misfortune.
I’d buy your theory, Harold, if we could pinpoint where the Times’ writers picked up the word “louche.” Is it possible they picked it up from each other? Below is a list (from LexisNexis) of all 27 articles in the Times that used the word between Jan. 1 an May 26, 2009, with each usage noted (a total of 30, it turns out).
“Louche” was used to describe absinthe five times, clothes four times, and Barack Obama once. There’s some evidence that the word is used in bunches — twice on Feb. 15, three times on April 12 — but it’s a small sample size. And as noted earlier, seemingly every arts writer tried his or her hand at the word. Anyone see any other patterns?
1. Morphing From Lap Dog to Wolf, but Always a Potent Writer
The New York Times, May 25, 2009 Monday, Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Pg. 1, 902 words, By JANET MASLIN
… in Europe, personified the louche life in ways that have …
2. Bedroom Songs and Gossip Girls
The New York Times, May 24, 2009 Sunday, Section AR; Column 0; Arts and Leisure Desk; PLAYLIST; Pg. 20, 938 words, By JON CARAMANICA
… between her Blair Waldorf and the louche Chuck Bass, played …
3. A Hit Parade, Or So They Hope
The New York Times, May 22, 2009 Friday, Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; ADVERTISING; Pg. 7, 1158 words, By STUART ELLIOTT and BRIAN STELTER
… Westwick, who portrays the louche youth Chuck, then emerged …
4. Absinthes To Go Mad Over
The New York Times, May 13, 2009 Wednesday, Section D; Column 0; Dining In, Dining Out / Style Desk; SPIRITS OF THE TIMES; Pg. 1, 1556 words, By ERIC ASIMOV
… deliciously disreputable, so … louche. But it’s poisonous, …
… French call this effect the louche (which has the wonderful double meaning of …
… a cloudy suspension. The louche effect occurs even with …
… much, particularly its iridescent louche and straightforward but rich …
5. Willy Loman Is Lost, Still Looking for Stimulus
The New York Times, May 5, 2009 Tuesday, Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; THEATER REVIEW ‘DEATH OF A SALESMAN’; Pg. 1, 1186 words, By CHARLES ISHERWOOD
… seem naturally to possess the louche affability of a serial …
6. TBR: Inside the List
The New York Times, May 3, 2009 Sunday, Section BR; Column 0; Book Review Desk; TBR; Pg. 18, 446 words, By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER
… Older” — a memoir of louche living and drug addiction …
7. Laureate Of the Louche
The New York Times, April 26, 2009 Sunday, Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 8, 226 words
8. Recklessly Seeking Sex on Craigslist
The New York Times, April 19, 2009 Sunday, Section ST; Column 0; Style Desk; Pg. 1, 1762 words, By DOUGLAS QUENQUA
… fine for people with louche tastes looking to avoid …
9. The News on Paper, And Other Artifacts
The New York Times, April 17, 2009 Friday, Section C; Column 0; Movies, Performing Arts/Weekend Desk; MOVIE REVIEW ‘STATE OF PLAY’; Pg. 1, 1130 words, By A. O. SCOTT
… interrupt the speechifying with some louche and tasty line readings. And the …
10. Laureate of the Louche
The New York Times, April 12, 2009 Sunday, Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; Pg. 25, 5066 words, By WYATT MASON. Wyatt Mason translated the complete works of Arthur Rimbaud for the Modern Library. His most recent articles for the magazine were about satire and how America got its name.
11. Inside the Times, April 12, 2009
The New York Times, April 12, 2009 Sunday, Section A; Column 0; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 2, 1467 words
… 9 Magazine Laureate of the Louche Frederick Seidel has been called …
12. Points of Entry
The New York Times, April 12, 2009 Sunday, Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; Pg. 17, 206 words
… photos of Obama looking louche and smoking, or catch the latest …
13. Hard Times
The New York Times, March 29, 2009 Sunday, Section BR; Column 0; Book Review Desk; Pg. 1, 1124 words, By EDMUND WHITE. Edmund White’s most recent books are a novel about Stephen Crane, ”Hotel de Dream,” and a short life of Rimbaud. He has just finished ”City Boy,” a memoir about New York in the 1970s.
… girl flirts with a louche stranger who plies her with …
14. Blue Eyed Greed?
The New York Times, March 29, 2009 Sunday, Section WK; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 10, 774 words, By MAUREEN DOWD
… financial markets to morph into louche casinos, George W. …
15. No Boiled Carrots
The New York Times, March 18, 2009 Wednesday, Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 27, 769 words, By MAUREEN DOWD
… who were working at the louche London unit, was quite …
16. A Spray of Surf Rock and the Caribbean
The New York Times, March 11, 2009 Wednesday, Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; MUSIC REVIEW TAMARAMA; Pg. 3, 573 words, By JON CARAMANICA
… season, Nevan, the villainous, louche prep, described this band, which was …
17. Con Artist
The New York Times, March 8, 2009 Sunday, Section M2; Column 0; T: Men’s Fashion Magazine; THE REMIX; Pg. 38, 479 words, By MAURA EGAN
… Sander. (Dolce & Gabbana’s louche pajamas would have been ideal for …
18. Even After All This Time, Attitude Still Abounds
The New York Times, March 7, 2009 Saturday, Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; DANCE REVIEW ARMITAGE GONE! DANCE; Pg. 3, 588 words, By CLAUDIA LA ROCCO
… Classicism” (1981), waves of louche dancers, clad in …
19. Antique Road Show
The New York Times, February 22, 2009 Sunday, Section BR; Column 0; Book Review Desk; Pg. 16, 638 words, By TOBIN HARSHAW. Tobin Harshaw is an editor with the Op-Ed page of The New York Times and the writer of its Weekend Opinionator blog.
… Orthodox priest and a louche hotelier named Alexis, …
20. All Kidding Aside, Some Good Clothes
The New York Times, February 20, 2009 Friday, Section B; Column 0; Style Desk; FASHION REVIEW; Pg. 16, 780 words, By CATHY HORYN
… a lovely, vaguely louche robe de chambre …
21. The Last Collection
The New York Times, February 15, 2009 Sunday, Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; STYLE; Pg. 40, 1648 words, By GUY TREBAY
… an affinity for louche decadence, which is one of the things …
22. Miami Beach Feels the Heat
The New York Times, February 15, 2009 Sunday, Section ST; Column 0; Style Desk; Pg. 1, 1473 words, By RUTH LA FERLA
… bay” into a fast-and-louche Eden, where corruption, street …
23. Court Expands Ability to Sue in Sexual Harassment Investigations
The New York Times, January 27, 2009 Tuesday, Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 21, 982 words, By ADAM LIPTAK
… Ms. Crawford had described ”louche goings-on” involving ” …
24. Is That You, Sherlock?
The New York Times, January 25, 2009 Sunday Correction Appended, Section AR; Column 0; Arts and Leisure Desk; FILM; Pg. 1, 1733 words, By SARAH LYALL
… a poet.” A louche, slightly wicked-looking …
25. Clash of the Monsters: The Origins of a Feud
The New York Times, January 24, 2009 Saturday, Section C; Column 0; The Arts/Cultural Desk; MOVIE REVIEW; Pg. 13, 467 words, By MANOHLA DARGIS
… vampire masters, a louche crowd that answers to Viktor (the …
26. Toy Story, the Adult Version
The New York Times, January 8, 2009 Thursday, Section E; Column 0; Style Desk; Pg. 8, 753 words, By RUTH LA FERLA
… novel design and faintly louche leopard-spot packaging or the …
27. Care for An Absinthe? Ptooey!
The New York Times, January 4, 2009 Sunday, Section ST; Column 0; Style Desk; Pg. 1, 1319 words, By ERIC KONIGSBERG
… years ago at the Louche Fest, an absinthe- …
—Zach
One of the subscriber’s to the alphaDictionary daily ‘Good Words’ claims to have known all but two of these as a result of following our series seriously. Our readers tend to revel in words themselves as well as how they are used.
The only times I’ve ever activated that feature have been accidental. In any event, if the NYT starts reading more like USA Today or Highlights For Children I’ll read it even less than I do now.
As for “how did we end up using louche 27 times?” NYT cultural coverage has long been so white bread and so mommy-and-daddy-centric that I’m surprised they don’t use it more often. Anything that happens south of 14th St., for example, still seems pretty louche to most Times reporters. Jeans that aren’t mom jeans? Louche. A new Brooklyn band they heard about on NPR? Louche. A new restaurant downtown? Louche. Etc.
Well, Anonniemuss, see my comment above for all 30 times in which “louche” was used between Jan. 1 and May 26. I don’t think the list supports your conclusion. However, I imagine you’d agree, as I do, that using the word so often saps its meaning.
Also, I just noticed that separate Times reporters described Chuck Bass of “Gossip Girl” as “louche” twice in three days (see #2 and #3). —Zach
I’ve tried to use “tatterdemalion” in print at least once a year, ever since stumbling across it in the Oregonian back in 1997.
Mission accomplished. See ya next year!
The only advantage of the Times in most of its coverage is the literary prose. They should not be dumbing down their vocabulary, instead they should be encouraging their writers to use the most interesting words possible. Use Buckley and Conrad Black as lodestars.
The newspaper is dying anyways, its sole redoubt is amongst the most educated. Why cater to a proletarian ignoramus instead of delivering to your core audience. It would be nice for something coherent to be written at a graduate level, instead of just post-modernist theory and referred journals. Even the Economist and Financial Times are overly focused on accessibility.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. I knew all of the words on the list, and I get a pulse of joy when I see a writer use one of them (properly), especially in a broad market publication like this one. In addition, when I run across words like these, properly used, I tend to think, this is a good writer, and probably a more than usually smart and original thinker, and I tend to have more faith in that article and in the Times as a whole.
Somehow I can’t imagine Bill O’Reilly using louche or laconic, correctly at least. That’s a pretty reliable indication of the depth of his thinking. It’s far easier to imagine it of President Obama or Rahm Emanuel, or Gordon Brown or Jon Stewart for that matter.
PLEASE don’t dumb good writing down to the least common denominator! How else are we, the public, supposed to learn these words if not from our reading? I didn’t even finish college, nor am I a professional writer.
(Also, consider this: many, perhaps most, of the people highlighting and learning these words may be younger readers. They’re far more likely to be reading online anyway.)
This post got linked over on MetaFilter today, and the comments thread is, as always, superb. One commenter, Ian A.T., compiled definitions of all 50 words, and I had to port it over here for anyone who wants to use the list for enhancing their vocabulary:
sui generis – constituting a class alone : unique, peculiar
solipsistic – extremely egocentric (Solipsism)
louche – disreputable or sordid in a rakish or appealing way
laconic – using few words; expressing much in few words; concise
saturnine – cold and steady in mood : slow to act or change : of a gloomy or surly disposition : having a sardonic aspect
antediluvian – made, evolved, or developed a long time ago : extremely primitive or outmoded (originally referred to the period before the flood described in the Bible)
epistemological – related to the theory of knowledge (Epistemology)
shibboleth – a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning
penury – a cramping and oppressive lack of resources, especially money : extreme frugality
sumptuary – relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury : designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds
schadenfreude – satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune
peripatetic – travelling from place to place : esp, working or based in various places for short periods
abtruse – difficult to comprehend
parlous – full of danger or risk
enervating – reducing the mental or moral vigor of : lessening the vitality or strength of
adenoidal – exhibiting the characteristics (as snoring, mouth breathing, and voice nasality) of one affected with abnormally enlarged adenoids : (not usually used technically)
feckless – ineffective; incompetent; futile : having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy
Solipsism – extreme egocentrism (can also refer to a philosophical idea)
ersatz – being an artificial and inferior substitute or imitation
fealty – intense fidelity
sanguine – cheerfully optimistic, hopeful, or confident : a reddish or ruddy complexion : bloody : blood-red
sartorial – of or relating to a tailor or tailored clothes : broadly, of or relating to clothes
hagiography – a biography of a saint or venerated person : often used as a pejorative for uncritical or overly reverential biographies and histories.
pandemic – an epidemic that is geographically widespread; occurring throughout a region or even throughout the world : existing everywhere
Dauphin – formerly, the eldest son of the King of France and direct heir to the throne
antebellum – existing before a war : often refers to the period before the American Civil War
paroxysm – a sudden violent emotion or action
risible – arousing or provoking laughter : often used in a negative sense, meaning “laughable”
interlocutor – one who takes part in dialogue or conversation
swine – a pig or pigs, collectively
apotheosis – the highest point in the development of something : a culmination or climax
comity – a friendly social atmosphere : social harmony : a loose widespread community based on common social institutions : the informal and voluntary recognition by courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another (known as “comity of nations”) : avoidance of proselytizing members of another religious denomination
Atreus – Atreus, king of Mycene, was the son of Pelops and the father of Agamemnon and Menelaus. (more info)
banal – lacking originality, freshness, or novelty : trite
profligacy – recklessly extravagant or wasteful in the use of resources
sisyphean – pointless and interminable (Sisyphus)
inchoate – being only partly in existence or operation : especially, imperfectly formed or formulated : formless, incoherent
apoplectic – of a kind to cause or apparently cause stroke (“an apoplectic rage”) : greatly excited or angered
neologism – a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase
bildungsroman – a novel about the moral and psychological growth of the main character : a “coming of age” novel
peroration – the concluding part of a discourse and especially an oration, typically used to inspire enthusiasm in the audience
fungible – able to replace or be replaced by another item : mutually interchangeable
recondite – hidden from sight, concealed : little known or obscure
Bonobo – a pygmy chimpanzee found in swamp forests in Zaire
phlogiston – a hypothetical substance once believed to be present in all combustible materials and to be released during burning
contretemps – an inopportune or embarrassing occurrence or situation : dispute, argument (pronounced sorta kinda like “con-trah-TAH” or “cone-truh-TAH”)
appurtenance – an accessory or other item associated with a particular activity or style of living
glut – overeat or eat immodestly : flood : supply with an excess of
fecklessness – incompetence; futility : indifference; laziness
One important thing that I didn’t see mentioned is the reason for using a specific (and sometimes sesquipedalian)word as opposed to a more common one.
Granted that many writers are merely flaunting a recently learned word and should be appropriately punished for this sort of solipsistic activity but frequently the specific nuance of connotation as opposed to mere denotation can be quite important and is needed to avoid inchoate messages.
Did WFB write for his audience or his ego?
Bruce, if you’re referring to William F. Buckley, I tend to think he wrote for his audience, which was his ego.
And, Muldoon, touché. —Zach
Very cool – this is EXACTLY the concept behind my recently launched website VocabSushi.com. It helps students learn new words through contextual examples – sentences from recent news articles. My system looks up thousands of vocab words across hundreds of news sites and tests you with them as sentence completion questions. Virtually every word listed above is on the master list. NYT is prevalent. Check it out: http://www.vocabsushi.com/summer
Repeat offender? With subjects like Vice, how could Ms. Dowd not use a word like ‘louche’?
‘Feckless’ should soon set with the sun beyond Crawford, Texas.
But I had guessed that Phlogiston was somewhere in the Pamirs…
Greetings,
I use ‘AdBlock’ to block the Javascript that adds the ‘quick lookup’ feature to the NY Times site, for just that reason (constantly/obsessively highlighting, click to make it go away, and do it again).
I’ve done it since I first started using browsers, forever ago, and the increasing tendency to make the highlight action, or even just clicking on unmarked text ‘mean something’ drives me batty.
– Morgan
Famously, one of Dirty Bertie Russell’s students was famously puzzled as to why more people didn’t believe in Solipsism. Now we know the answer: they had never heard of it.
Sorry, I rarely get the chance to try and appear clever.
The thing that jumped out at me was how much more frequently “solipsistic” was looked up than “solipsism”. Are Times readers unable to extrapolate from a noun to an adjectival form?
Why are you “nervously clicking and highlighting text on webpages”? I think you should see someone about that.
Isa, it is definitely a problem but not one for which I’d ever want to seek help. Lee, that’s just a result, I think, of the Times using “solipsistic” more often than “solipsism.” Max, cleverness registered. Morgan, I think I’d go that route, too, if I used Firefox. Artie, I guess the thing about using the word “louche” is that you’re not an offender until you repeat it. And, Jeff, cool site. Thanks for sharing. —Zach
Bonobos are also the only other creatures that have sex for pleasure.
I think having to look up words is a good thing, if I don’t understand something I look it up & then I learn a fun new word to impress my frienemies with. Here in the UK intellectualism is trying to combat ‘dumbing down’, I’m not sure it exists, I think maybe people are just noticing much more how they are being spoken down to.
I agree with other people who said that NY Times writers are in part picking up words from their colleagues. Also, most people who have had to do a good bit of writing know what a great tool the thesaurus is to create variety in their writing. We want to keep language creative and extensive, and to throw some big words at readers occasionally is a good thing, but word choice seems best used in tandem with good judgment in consideration of the nature of the publication and its audience.
I agree with commenter #4:
Zach, this is a wonderful, wonderful article (best thing I’ve read all week!) but why is the entire conversation framed in a context that assumes obscure word use is bad?
In my mind, the story here is that technology — which for DECADES has been accused of pulling intellectual discourse to the lowest common denominator– is finally elevating that denominator — by making it faster and easier than ever before for the average guy to expand his vocabulary. And consequently, expand our collective vocabulary.
We all (myself included) have had moments of frustration with the most egregious of vocabulary divas, particularly when they drive us to dictionaries too many times within a single paragraph. (Updike did this to me, even when I’d just recently made it well into the 90s on my verbal GRE percentile score.)
Understandably, the NYT wants to make sure their writers, who are too often accused of elitism, aren’t alienating readers, especially while the company is hurting for revenue. I get that, and don’t disagree entirely with the approach taken by Corbett or Zach.
But why aren’t we rejoicing at the high numbers of word clicks with delight and glee, rather than than finger-wagging and blaming writers for improving our readers’ vocabularies?? Or, more precisely put, why isn’t our reaction at least AS positive as it is negative?
Here’s an example: Corbett’s memo reminds us that “striking and very specific words can become wan and devalued through overuse.”
On that we are in agreement. But he says this while criticizing writers whose words have been clicked on most often. But the MOST overused words in the New York Times are not ON this list, because the more a word is used, the more likely readers are to know what it means!
For example: The word “banana” is probably not clicked on much, right? But does that mean it is used less often than “bonobo”? (Which I had to look up.) “Apotheosis,” Corbett tells us, has been used to the point of overuse, though it’s not nearly used as often as words that aren’t on his click-through list.
Perhaps he’s right that it’s been overused. He would probably cite “awesome,” “godly” and “radical” as similarly overused words whose meanings have lost their original power and punch.
And yet because no one is clicking on “awesome” anymore, there will be fewer people learning what the best use for this overused word.
In any case, the less people know a word’s meaning, the more likely Corbett is to censor its use on grounds of obscurity… but the more it’s used, the less obscure it becomes. And while he has a point about “apotheosis,” are we in danger of watering down the meaning of “sanguine?”
I’d argue we’re in danger, merely, of having it better understood, by more people. If we don’t use “sanguine,” we’ll just end up using approximate synonyms that lack the nuance of the words whose nuances Corbett seeks to protect.
Now, admittedly, I already knew the meaning of most of the words on this list, and (oh, OK, I admit it) obnoxiously patted myself on the back. There’s no question that kind of attitude rus the risk of hindering communication with the common people.
But why did I know these words? Because I READ PUBLICATIONS LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES! Shouldn’t there be SOME mainstream publication left fighting to EXPAND understanding by using words with nuance, rather than shrining understanding by forcing writers into banal, un-nuanced word choices?
There’s an interesting example smack in the middle of Zach’s delightfully well-written list of “confusing” words:
“Laconic.”
Zach, mindful of the need for brevity, defined the word “laconic” with one short word: “concise.”
But (IRONY!!!) in the process of being concise he was also not quite accurate.
After all, and I’m guessing he even knows this, “concise” connotes a laudable economy of expression, while “laconic” is more pejorative. It means (to — IRONY!!!– quote an online dictionary) “concise to the point of being rude or mysterious.”
In defense of his imprecise defintion, Zach might say, “I, like the NYT’s writers, must limit the number of words I use. Our readers don’t have all day, and the NYT’s print edition doesn’t have endless space.”
Maybe Zach would have done more justice to “laconic” had he chosen a different approximate synonym. My first thought was to suggest “terse,” which at least carries a similarly negative connotation.
But this is why I say we’re missing the real story in this list. The NEXT time I see “laconic,” I won’t need to waste any time checking, because I already have. And the FIRST time I saw “laconic,” I may have had to waste even more time, perhaps going so far as to dig out an actual dictionary (to confirm what context probably implied in the first place).
Thus the convenience of the NYT’s wonderful, magical, happy-making word-click feature.
I say this even though, like Zach, I too am a nervous word-clicker in the worst way by nature, and, like other commenters on this piece, am relieved to know I am not alone in this.
So, to be concise (but not laconic): This is why I say, let’s not criticize the GRE-vocab-users unless we ALSO are willing to thank them…!
Hm… Is there a word that means “verbose to the point of being rude?”
The most interesting thing to me, as a non-native speaker — I’m Dutch — is that most of the words on the list were pretty familiar to me. But that’s probably because I took Latin, Greek, French, and German in school.
Though I have little factual basis to support this, what’s always surprised me is that in intellectual American English a lot of foreign language terms are used I wouldn’t use in any other language. Of course, Latin and French are important ingredients in modern English, so no surprises there, and a lot of German can be traced back to immigrants. But rarely have I seen “hoi polloi” used outside of the US. In Dutch, we say “plebs” — but that sounds much more plebeian.
At any rate, most of the words on the list aren’t strictly English — but used much more often in English than other languages. The exception is louche, which we use quite often in Dutch — though we never use it as a verb, not even when drinking absinthe.
@NealeyJo:
“Bonobos are also the only other creatures that have sex for pleasure.”
Not true – but bonobos are one of the only other creatures that will have sex with just about ANYTHING (bonobo-related) for pleasure.
Also, nervous clickers of the world, unite! I love the New York Times website, yet many a time have contemplated leaving forevermore due to that vexing floating question mark.
Question: do any of you other nervous clickers feel the compulsion to highlight things symmetrically? You’ll know what I mean if you do…
I don’t have a problem with long words. I love learning new words, word origins, etc. If I run into a word with which I’m not familiar, I *gasp* look it up in the dictionary. There’s a novel concept!
I don’t believe the almighty fuss this is causing over there. Most of these words would be perfectly well understood by even an averagely well-educated newspaper reader here in England, the home, please remember, of the English language. It’s a pity that one of the greatest cultural achievements of all time is being so impoverished in your country. Oh, and please learn the difference between “what” and “which”. they are not synonyms.
Brief definitions leave out so much of the rich flavor and texture of words. To me, the English language is the biggest, best toy in the world (and it’s free!), so that defining “laconic” as “concise,” for instance, is supremely unsatisfying. A laconic person is someone who needs a vigorous kick in the posterior to get them to utter more than two words at a time. When I read or hear the word “laconic” I think of someone like the Scots farmer saying, “That’ll do, pig,” in response to Babe’s triumph in the sheepherding competition.
It’s this qualitative level of sheer, vivid associational pleasure in the English language that I see as being jeopardized by what modern communications technology is doing to our information sources. I do hope that the Times resists the advice of the marketing consultants who are leaning on them to dumb down; looking up an unfamiliar word never hurt anybody. I had to do it all the time as a kid tackling big, thick Victorian novels, and I ended up making a decent living off my writing.
Ah, feel much better now that I can finally decipher some of the language of management consultants. “Abstruse” was always a favourite of one I remember…
This reminds me of when I came to NY over forty years ago and carried a little notebook around so I could jot down abstruse words (mainly from the Times) and look them up. I’d try to use them three times so I’d learn them, which led to some strange expressions on friends’ faces and hilarious misunderstandings, but it was grand. Really should start doing that again.
There is some interesting thing I notices from being a native French speaker : a large amount of those word are obvious for a mediumly educated French speaker because of the latin origin : abstruse
oh and I forgot to tel comment 40 that louche is a French adjective, still commonly used for something which doesn’t seem very honest. It comes from latin word luscus that means one eyed, and what is funny is that one-eyed is “borgne” in French, a word that can be used like “louche”, but only for places, not for people : un hotel borgne, or un hotel louche…
Intersting isn’t it ?, but the verb loucher also means to squint
Wow! Only the ads click for me on the NY Times.
Thanks for sharing all this.
Grrr. I know I’m 6 months out of date, but Zachary, did you give a link to the NYTimes blog post that you’re writing about? I don’t see it in this post (though perhaps my poor aged eyes are at fault) – it’s
Big, Fancy Words
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/big-fancy-words
- and, it seems, even that post doesn’t provide the words in a way that’ll let readers easily find out their definitions by double-clicking.
Grrrr.
That’s passive-aggressive journalism. “We’ll tell you about stuff you want to know, but no, we will not tell you _what_ you want to know”
(either that, or I am too dense to figure out where you’re providing the latter)
Thanks for that link, Anna. The NYT post was published after mine, which was based on a leaked memo.