If I understand this sentence correctly:
MayaRefugee wrote:...a collection of thought forms with an associated symbol i.e. word, graphic representation, manipulation of sound, gesture, etc that have been allocated a certain meaning
What you are referring to is more accurately, 'language'. The term 'vocabulary' is somewhat awkward as it is really a category or subset of language.
By language, I'm not referring simply to the English language, French, Spanish, Mandarin, etc. By language I am referring to any system of representation, which therefore includes all those things you mentioned.
My understanding of language is informed by various perspectives in Continental Philosophy. Continental Philosophy underwent a major development in the 20th century known as the 'linguistic turn'. I don't have enough expertise to explain myself succinctly but generally speaking, it challenges the conventional understanding that language is simply a transparent window through which we experience the world. Rather, language is seen as that which structures and shapes our experience of the world.
As to how this relates to Buddhism.... There is a significant body of scholarship that attempts to cross-fertilize continental philosophies of language with Buddhist thought. However, it mostly engages with Mahayana. I suspect this is because Buddhism encountered highly developed artistic and literary cultures when it migrated to East Asia. The first group of people who engaged with Buddhism in these cultures were largely the intelligentsia. Hence, there was more emphasis on the workings of language, art, and so forth.
Early Buddhism, on the hand, developed under somewhat different conditions. So I don't think Theravada is lacking in this respect. It simply emphasizes the Dhamma differently. There is, however, a term used in Theravada called papanca which means something like 'conceptuality'.
Anyway, in dealing with language, we are really dealing with conceptuality.
Both continental philosophy and Buddhism recognise that language--which is to say conceptuality or thought--shape the 'self'. But they also recognise that language and meaning is inconstant. Meaning is not fixed but is shaped by conditions; language/conceptuality is thoroughly unstable. So if conceptuality shapes the self but is itself inconstant and unstable, then the self is not a fixed entity or essence.
Both bodies of thought argue (in their own way) that it is important to understand the workings of language for what it really is. So to answer your question, I suppose a good attitude is to learn how to use language without clinging onto meaning/conceptuality/thought too tightly--for it is, after all, always slipping and sliding.
For Buddhism, bhavana or mental cultivation is indispensable.