Superb opinion piece about transportation jargon, abbreviations and gobbledegook

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Jargon and lingo in a forum where taxpaying citizens (who are not transportation fans or insiders - in this context I mean roadgeeks, railfans, plane spotters and the rest) is wrong, for it implies "you are not welcome to participate."

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Using jargon means there is some specific concept that nobody outside the field has reason to have a word for. There is no reason for anyone not involved in public works projects to have names for things like "environmental impact statements" or "records of decision". But they are a critical part of the process of building a public works project in this day and age, so there is a need to have a name for them—you can't just call it "that environment thing EPA wants us to have"—and writing/saying/typing out "environmental impact statement" is cumbersome with repeated use so it's an EIS.

So the Geography professors at OU encourage the use of jargon and lingo in student papers and reports? Certainlly not what I was taught at Ohio State and Louisiana State (and I haven't been out of school that long). No, it is best to spell it out the first time around, then you can go ahead and use your abreviations. At least that's what I saw from five professors that I had to write papers/thesis for.
Maybe technical writer jobs are just overrated

Any linguist will tell you that the way brain processes things is tied to the language used. It's difficult to discuss concepts your language lacks terms for. Some languages have no distinction between "green" and "blue", and as a result speakers of those languages sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between the two, since they are both mentally categorized as "greenblue". How could you possibly discuss the process of obtaining an EIS in a meeting without using those terms? It seems to me like "dumbing things down" by glossing over the finer points of the processes and requirements involved with the aim of making it easier to understand is more exclusionary than letting them in on exactly what is happening by using more precise language.

The alternative is to gloss over the process entirely—it's really hard for people

No, the alternative is to breakdown your presentation so that your audience can understand you. You can attempt to reach the widest possible audience, or you can be an elitest who believes that the rest of us are beneith you because you know something that the rest of us don't.

[Scott5114]

Jargon and lingo in a forum where taxpaying citizens (who are not transportation fans or insiders - in this context I mean roadgeeks, railfans, plane spotters and the rest) is wrong, for it implies "you are not welcome to participate."

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

So the Geography professors at OU encourage the use of jargon and lingo in student papers and reports?

How the fuck would I know?

No, it is best to spell it out the first time around, then you can go ahead and use your abreviations. At least that's what I saw from five professors that I had to write papers/thesis for.

Yes, and the DOT is doing that in the examples given in the article. I can only find one instance where that was not done and that's because the author of the article excepted a piece of the report and didn't include the bit where the abbreviation was introduced.

Any linguist will tell you that the way brain processes things is tied to the language used. It's difficult to discuss concepts your language lacks terms for. Some languages have no distinction between "green" and "blue", and as a result speakers of those languages sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between the two, since they are both mentally categorized as "greenblue". How could you possibly discuss the process of obtaining an EIS in a meeting without using those terms? It seems to me like "dumbing things down" by glossing over the finer points of the processes and requirements involved with the aim of making it easier to understand is more exclusionary than letting them in on exactly what is happening by using more precise language.

The alternative is to gloss over the process entirely—it's really hard for people

No, the alternative is to breakdown your presentation so that your audience can understand you. You can attempt to reach the widest possible audience, or you can be an elitest who believes that the rest of us are beneith you because you know something that the rest of us don't.
[/quote]

Christ, it's not like the dictionary of DOT terminology is guarded by sixteen dragons in the middle of the KDOT office in Great Bend, Kansas. If you don't know what they're saying it's possible (and easy) to actually learn what is being said.

[Special K]

Christ, it's not like the dictionary of DOT terminology is guarded by sixteen dragons in the middle of the KDOT office in Great Bend, Kansas. If you don't know what they're saying it's possible (and easy) to actually learn what is being said.

Exactly.  For cryin' out loud, raise your hand and ask a question if you don't understand. 

[vdeane]

If you're reading a publication, just go to Google.  It's what it's there for.

So the Geography professors at OU encourage the use of jargon and lingo in student papers and reports? Certainlly not what I was taught at Ohio State and Louisiana State (and I haven't been out of school that long). No, it is best to spell it out the first time around, then you can go ahead and use your abreviations. At least that's what I saw from five professors that I had to write papers/thesis for.
Maybe technical writer jobs are just overrated

Jargon goes WAY beyond abbreviations.  Many science/engineering terms require at least a paragraph (or even an entire article) to explain in even a simplified way.

[Beltway]

Using jargon means there is some specific concept that nobody outside the field has reason to have a word for. There is no reason for anyone not involved in public works projects to have names for things like "environmental impact statements" or "records of decision". But they are a critical part of the process of building a public works project in this day and age, so there is a need to have a name for them–you can't just call it "that environment thing EPA wants us to have"–and writing/saying/typing out "environmental impact statement" is cumbersome with repeated use so it's an EIS.

One way to handle that when writing a document or article, is to introduce the term as "Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)", then use "EIS" routinely after that, but to periodically spell it out in full "Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)".  Maybe every fifth or so use.  Put it in a glossary as well.

That applies to any acronym, for example, NEPA, DEIS, FEIS, FONSI, EA, etc. just in the NEPA process arena.