Social Text issue

[LBernier at tribune.com]

     Murthy writes:
     
     
     
     Coming back to the complaints about the academic jargon of the social 
     sciences (and humanities), here are my questions:
     
     1) Do we have a right to expect the social scientists (and academics 
     in the humanities) to write their stuff in clear jargon-free English? 
     Are they not entitled to their own jargon just as the physical 
     sciences are? Should we conclude that just because a parody got past 
     the editors of journal (which I'm sure can be done in physics too), 
     they should abandon their language? Sure, clear English would be nice, 
     but is that a reasonable expectation?
     
Yes, it is a reasonable expectation.  "Jargon" is extremely overused.  
Obviously, there is some jargon that is necessary, because it describes a 
specific item for which there's no other word.  Find a synonym for "binary 
tree", for example.  BUT, increasingly, jargon is used by those who know 
not of which they speak, so they hide behind a maze of polysyllabic 
garbage, thinking to impress.  Here in the world of business where I live, 
this is very prevalent.  (And don't EVEN get me started about the use of 
impact as a verb, as in, "His paradigm of the seamless manufacturing 
construct impacts upon the foundation of our business model . . . 
AAARRRGGHHH!E#&*&!!(&!! )

Jean.