Fellow Histarchers and Alan Stead:
Jargon often does not convey clarity. Consider the widely used concept
'status.' Social scientists have batted around the concept for decades,
generally without specifying what it means. Ward Goodenough attempted to
clarify its meaning in a 1965 paper, without any apparent impact on
archaeological writing. Special use words and phrases--jargon--should be
defined in-text, if they are to be used at all. The writer should not
assume that all readers, even fellow professionals, define those words
and phrases in the same way.

There are words that sound very important, but which add nothing to the
meaning of a sentence. The word 'utilize,' offered in my previous
posting (see below), is an excellent example. Why use a multisyllabic
word to convey the same meaning that a single syllable word, 'use,'
conveys? Precisely what meaning does the one word have that makes it a
prefered choice over the other. Given the concern for economy, I use the
short one.

While I am on the subject, I am concerned less with jargon and more with
poor syntax, passive voice, and general inelegance in archaeological
writing. I am disappointed in what passes for acceptable professional
writing in theses and dissertations. I recommend that all of us enable
the spelling and grammar check options in our word-processing softwares
and seriously consider their recommendations...not automatically accept,
but consider.

Wishing all good words,
Jim Gibb
Alan Stead wrote:
>
> >[quoting Gibb] The principal goals of a writer must be clarity and
> >accuracy.
>
> Wouldn't argue with that at all, but surely, as your recognition of a
> secondary one makes clear, they are far from the only goals. Readability,
> while linked to, is not just dependent upon clarity and accuracy. Which
> leads us onto:
>
> >[quoting Gibb] Most of us glide over pomposities such as 'utilize' (a worthless verb).
>
> Er, why? Languages contain many different words that express more or less
> the same concept. I fail to see that this necessarily makes any of the
> particular alternatives either 'worthless' or pompous. In fact, through
> the avoidance of monotonous repetition, their judicious utilisation (a
> worthless adjective?) can enrich our accounts in much the same way in
> which they enrich our language(s). I may be missing the point here, but
> let's not just just write off vast swathes of words because we disagree
> with some of the ways in which they are used (is that better?) by some
> writers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan