Page 184 - How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 8th Edition 8th Edition

Page 215

Page 215

Chapter 33
Avoiding Jargon

Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and
meaningless jargon.
—William Zinsser

Definition of Jargon

According to dictionaries (e.g., Webster's Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary), there are three definitions of jargon: "(1)
confused, unintelligible language; strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect; (2) the technical terminology
or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group; (3) obscure and often pretentious language marked by
circumlocutions and long words."

All three types of jargon should be avoided if possible. The usage described in the first and third definitions should
always be avoided. The second definition ("technical terminology") is much more difficult to avoid in scientific
writing, but accomplished writers have learned that technical terminology can be used after it has been defined or
explained. Obviously, you are writing for a technically trained audience; it is only the unusual technical terms that
need explanation.

Page 216

Mumblespeak and Other Sins

The most common type of verbosity that afflicts authors is jargon. This syndrome is characterized, in extreme cases,
by the total omission of one-syllable words. Writers with this affliction never use anything— they utilize. They never
do—they perform. They never start—they initiate. They never end—they finalize (or terminate). They never make—
they fabricate. They use initial for first, ultimate for last, prior to for before, subsequent to for after, militate against
for prohibit, sufficient for enough, and plethora for too much. An occasional author will slip and use the word drug,
but most will salivate like Pavlov's dogs in anticipation of using chemotherapeutic agent. (I do hope that the name
Pavlov rings a bell.) Who would use the three-letter word now when they can use the elegant expression at this point
in time?

Stuart Chase (1954) tells the story of the plumber who wrote to the Bureau of Standards saying he had found
hydrochloric acid good for cleaning out clogged drains. The Bureau wrote back "The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is
indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic permanence." The plumber replied that he was glad
the Bureau agreed. The Bureau tried again, writing "We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and
noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest that you use an alternate procedure." The plumber again said that
he was glad the Bureau agreed with him. Finally, the Bureau wrote to the plumber "Don't use hydrochloric acid; it
eats hell out of the pipes."

Should we liken the scientist to a plumber, or is the scientist perhaps more exalted? With that Doctor of Philosophy
degree, should the scientist know some philosophy? I agree with John W. Gardner, who said, "The society which
scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because
it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will
hold water" (Science News, p. 137, 2 March 1974).

I like the way that Aaronson (1977) put it: "But too often the jargon of scientific specialists is like political rhetoric

file:///C|/...0208%20Books%20(part%201%20of%203)/How%20to%20write%20&%20publish%20scientific%20paper/33.htm[4/27/2009 1:32:27 PM]