Dictionary Abuse

I'm going to be blunt here. Very rarely is it appropriate to open an essay with a definition.

I'm talking about essays where the author says something like, “Merriam-Webster defines (insert term here) as...”. These statements almost never provide relevant context for the issue at hand, and frankly do more harm than good to your own argument. A lot of the reasons we write or argue something is to better understand it, but much of the time when this strategy is employed, it oversimplifies the term being used and broadens the essay's content in the process, while also suggesting the author is not familiar enough with the term itself, and the extent of their research capabilities is looking up a word in a dictionary. Or it suggests you don’t trust your audience’s knowledge and capabilities.

I believe there are a few reasons why students do this:

• First, and most frighteningly, they're taught to do it.
• Second, it's an easy way to do “research” and add another source to a bibliography.
• Third establishes how a specific term is going to be used.
• Fourth, they've seen it done elsewhere, especially in published works, suggesting this is an established and acceptable practice. However, in these published cases, rarely is it as simple as just quoting a definition.

The first two reasons need little explaining. The third and fourth, however, do warrant some explanation.

Sometimes, an author is using a common term in an uncommon way that may not be the first thing their readers will think of. In these situations the essay's thesis relies on a very specific, potentially specialized, unconventional definition. The thing here is your standard dictionaries tend to give the more general, conventional answers, those most people will already be familiar with. This is where using specialized definitions and resources can, however, come in handy. Different disciplines will use the same and similar words in different ways, and if a piece is aimed at an audience who may not share that specialization, defining the term is appropriate. However, these cases are rarely just definitions: they warrant more explanation and examples to help the nonspecialized audience.

The fourth one is a special case, especially because these sometimes pull definitions from several dictionaries. The point of these essays is to point out the problems these definitions have. In these situations, the purpose in bringing definitions into the essay is not to simply define the term but to show how the definitions disagree or leave holes. This then centers the entire essay on the issue of defining the term. It brings definitions together not to say “here’s what this term means,” but to say, “this term isn’t that simple.” In such a case, once you reach the end of the essay, you should be able to look back at the definitions quoted and see how and why they are incomplete or inadequate.

If your use of dictionary or encyclopedia entries doesn't fall into one of these two situations, then it's very likely you're doing more harm than good. Unless you need to define a term in a specialized or unfamiliar way or you’re finding issues with definitions, it’s better to trust your reader to already be familiar with whatever term you’re using. This can be particularly true in student essays where terms and concepts students should be exploring in detail, deconstructing, or should be applying, are merely defined. It’s kind of like summarizing a story or an article rather than analyzing it.

When providing a definition, it better be needed: the definition needs to be unconventional or one worth calling into question. If you find a definition you agree with and expect your reader will also, and if, by the end of the essay, you still agree with the definition and your reader should as well, then you're just wasting time and space.

Introduction...or exposition?

I think some writers feel a need to introduce their subject matter when introducing their essay, to give exposition, which is basically providing background information. This issue shows itself in two major forms: in the introduction, and as the body of an essay.

Essays with expository introductions are when an author, rather than using their Six Journalistic Question criteria to guide them, insists on giving a broad background on the topic, referencing important figures, events, and developments, few, if any, of which will be explored later in the essay. A sentence here or there is bad enough, but the entire introduction being commandeered for the sake of exposition makes it an introduction to the subject and not an introduction to the essay. I think this issue stems from a misunderstanding about what an introduction is for. Introductions don't introduce the whole subject matter to the reader, just the specific topics the essay is focusing on.

You resolve this by taking audience into consideration. First, does your audience need the exposition? An expert in the field wouldn't. A teacher might ask for some exposition, though. If there has not been a request (or requirement) for exposition and if you can reasonably assume your audience will be familiar with the topic, then no exposition. If the situation does call for exposition, keep it out of the introduction. This can create a false sense of the essay being about the broad history of the subject itself.

Expository essays are worse. This is when the exposition is the body of an essay. Note that I didn't say in the body of the essay, I said is the body of the essay. I have read essays that have an interesting and engaging introduction and thesis, only to be met with stifling exposition that ends in time for the conclusion, usually addressing topics new to the essay. Paragraph after paragraph, page after page of it. I'm reading a different essay than I was led to believe I'd be reading. Than the introduction promised me I'd be reading.

I can't be as generous with this one when guessing at a cause. These essays always seem to me like the author has something to say, but isn't even trying to give it in any detail. It's as if the construction of the thesis and its introduction ought to be enough, so the rest of the essay is just fluff: something needs to go there, so how about background information?

These essays almost exclusively outline the chronological events behind the subject itself and suggest that rather than doing analytical work, the author has simply regurgitated details about dates and events. The major culprits behind this are essays about historical events or breakthroughs, anything from pirates to computers, where, rather than offering new insights or interpretations on a historical situation, the author simply traces the events leading up to the situation they should be analyzing. The introductions and conclusions of such essays usually suggest an insight or interpretation, but the essay isn't interested in developing any. Sometimes, the conclusions address topics quite alien to what was in the introduction.

In both these situations, whether an expository introduction or essay, the result is an essay with mismatched introductions, conclusions, and bodies. A hodgepodge of related but unnecessary information where critical thinking should be.

However, there will be times when you need exposition. If so, you should keep it down to a paragraph or two. If the situation calls for exposition, wait until the introduction is done (so never the first paragraph), and then take some time to give only the absolutely essential details. If you discover your first paragraph is more exposition than introduction, then bump it from Slot 1 to Slot 2 and write a new introduction. If the body of the essay is the problem, take those pages of exposition and get them down to a paragraph or two so you free up the rest of the essay for more important information: presenting and defending your own thesis. I would say even if your audience is an expert on your subject and even if exposition wasn't required, a little can help show your expertise and familiarity with the subject. But no matter what, keep it brief and keep it relevant to the essay topic.

There is certainly merit in being able to summarize and paraphrase; it demonstrates familiarity with the research and the topic. However, the ability to develop one's own ideas and conclusions from that information and present and defend your ideas coherently, is of a much greater value.