Speaking the language, but lacking the thought

I came across this quote today (see it at the bottom of the post) that made me wonder about paradigmatic shifts on the individual level - the kind that requires us to accept the new paradigm if we don't want to end up at the philosophy department (as per Kuhn's warning). I admit it's kind of a long shot, and an even longer question-filled post, but if you manage to bare with me, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts...

In a paradigm’s popular success, how often does the change of vocabulary mask the actual change of thought? Do you think that scholars (including graduate students) sometimes espouse the idea of identifying themselves with a certain paradigm; then, master the language that goes along with the chosen image, and use that language freely without really understanding the meaning behind the words? Really, the closest metaphor I could think of here is the learning and speaking of an actual foreign language – a continuum from 1) memorization and reproduction of verbiage (does not really require understanding) to 2) learning a language by cultural immersion and developing an understanding of the social significance and nuances of the language. Or… I am also reminded of Leo DiCaprio in “Catch me in you can” – putting on the pilot uniform did not mean he can drive the plane, though it was perfectly sufficient for him to fake his way into being treated as a pilot.

So, how ready are we to accept, master, and use the “esoteric vocabulary” (Kuhn, p. 64) of the paradigm-de-jour without grasping the meaning of that vocabulary or, for that matter, the claims of the paradigm? Has it ever happened to you to listen to someone who uses all the appropriate terminology for the topic, and still think to yourself “This person really has no idea what she/he is talking about”? But just as use of appropriate language can mask our lack of understanding, not using the appropriate language can mask our perfect understanding of the issue…

Before I become too incoherent, here is Kristeva’s quote that triggered this rambling… perhaps committing the “sin” she warns against:

Please, no! Dare to invent words, but not without the ideas that you lack; cut the long sentences with foreign syntax for which you don’t have the thought; change the rhythm; don’t drone through the old elementary stuff, but also don’t ape the tricks of those who, unlike you, come from a boudoir and a baroque of which you have no idea. (…)

In principle, I am not even at war with neologisms, if they are the result of an attempt to think anew, if communities of men and women have ripened them in a concern for singularity in the memory of their language and in the discussions that forge their concepts. I do not see these communities, I do not see these singularities, I do not see this memory of language, I do not see these discussions. This is my suffering. Perhaps it is only a matter of blindness, since distance deprives me of information. This will be the lesser evil, and I ask your pardon. But if my suffering is justified, these lapses in taste would be only the final sign of the abject surrender of a people (and so many other) to the new world order that
wants to see only a single head – no, a single computer.

(J. Kristeva, from "Bulgaria, my Suffering")