On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael A R Biggs wrote:
> ... My comment was that the conference
> had revealed to me that we use common words, but often mean something
> rather different by them, according to our discipline backgrounds. Thus
> words become "false friends". Much of the discussion at the conference was
> handicapped by this undisclosed lack of commonality/communication. I was
> sufficiently surprised ...

This is a common (pun noted) reaction and reflects both the flexibility of
language and the limitations of the human mind - we are all implicitly
egocentric and either remain ignorant of failures of communication or put
the *blame* on the other party, regardless of whether we are transmitting
or receiving.  One feature of learning a second language is to note how
*maddening* these foreigners are, for having so many homonyms with such
perverse collections of alternative meanings.  Similarly, as noted, many
words in one's own language can be understood only in context - a feature
I hope the chair will open to the floor.

In formal writing it is therefore essential to identify, highlight or
avoid ambiguity, but the countervailing pressure is that the use of a
specific vocabulary is often equated with membership of a clique.  The
pressure to "professionalize" design was cited on this list as one way in
which such processes exclude "outsiders".  Hence any questionning of
the use of jargon, or request for clarification, is seen as a challenge or
an admission of ignorance.  All cliques are self-supporting and
self-purpetuating.

When looking at the way software tools are used by researchers, I
suggested that students (at least) could use the technology to mark#, as
they wrote, any term that had a technical or unusual meaning. It is (IMHO)
*unhelpful* to recurse at the word is written, but better to review the
text at some stage to check (a) that such terms have been used
consistently and (b) that the student has a firm idea of the meaning and
implications.  My recommendation was that all theses should contain a
Glossary, specifically to note any special usage.  One example to support
this recommendation was an acronym for a chemistry analytic tool; no doubt
it was an everyday usage to the student, but only five years later I had
difficulty tracing the one technician who remembered it.

Each time I have attended a group of mixed academics discussing the nature
and essence of the PhD degree, the outcome has been that many express
amazement at the range of provision, support and expectation, while going
on to say that they could "recognise" PhD quality work in their own
discipline.  These are therefore not standards, but cliques.  A frequent
complaint from students is that they are expected to present original
work, but no one has discussed or informed them as to what is meant by
"originality".  It certainly covers a wide spectrum of achievement.

Some dangers in challenging vocabulary are that the questionner may be
perceived as a pedant, and that the discussion may descend into sophistry
or simple multiplication of the jargon.  Again, I feel the way to avoid
this is in the first place to make oneself aware of the danger, and to
emphasize that the need is primarily to clarify rather than limit the
usage.  There are many concepts that *are* vague, ambiguous or evolving;
what is to be avoided is a cosy, unquestionning  "we all know what we
mean."

# typing an additonal, odd, character as a marker is better than stopping
to apply some arbitrary word-processor tool.

Anything which is unclear in the above is NOT MY FAULT; I did my best.

R. Allan Reese                       Email: [log in to unmask]
Associate Manager GRI                Direct voice:   +44 1482 466845
Graduate School                      Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.   Fax:            +44 1482 466436
====================================================================