Fellow Histarchers:
As a compulsive editor with some experience, I have never found a direct
correlation between the use of jargon and economy in writing. I have
discovered a correlation between the use of jargon and overwrought prose
and lack of clarity. The principal goals of a writer must be clarity and
accuracy. Economy is secondary.

As technical readers, experienced in reading technical publications, we
all fly through reams of jargon-ladened prose with the implicit
understanding that we know what the writer is trying to communicate.
Most of us glide over pomposities such as 'utilize' (a worthless verb)
and metaphors like evolve (a verb of dubious value outside of its
original application in biology) without batting an eyelid.
Comprehension is quite another matter. We accept passive voice
constructs without hesitation, even though such phrases generally fail
to identify the actor; e.g., "it is believed that... ." Who believes and
why, as scientists, are we at all concerned with what a colleague
believes (i.e., accepts on faith, without benefit of evidence)? Aren't
we interested in what the writer thinks and why?

Avoiding jargon, inapropriate word choices, and elliptical, often
pompous prose, not only will improve communication between scientists
and the public, it also will improve coommunication within the
discipline.

Jim Gibb
Ned Heite wrote:
>
> Celso Lago-Paiva wrote:
>
> >     I believe that any technical report must be written
> >in technical language, because communication among
> >researchers need to be on a higher, technical, concise
> >level, in order to economize words.
>
> I see no benefit to be gained from making technical writing opaque to the
> non-technical reader.
>
> In my experience, reports filled with jargon and tech-speak are more
> verbose, less precise, and anything but concise. I return to my original
> advocacy of simple declarative sentences and simple vocabulary.
>
> There is a vast difference between precision and pomposity.  "Lithic
> implements" is neither more precise nor more "technical" than "stone
> tools."
>
> Such pompous affectations do nothing but make the author look silly.
>
>