• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Complex Syntax in Academia. Is it really needed?

Augustus

Augustus

…
Nowhere Man said:
Should Academia use simpler terms and expressions that people can understand?
Click to expand...

Yes. This is undeniable. The purpose of communication should be to be understood, especially in an academic context.

Academics, on balance, are among the worst writers and communicators in the world. I'd say <10% of academic articles are well written. Maybe 20-30% are passably written. The rest range from common or garden poor to stab yourself in the eyeball excruciating.

Why are they so unnecessarily complex? Pretentiousness, a cover for lack of substance in the argument, imitation of the style of others, thinking it is expected, writer writing for themselves and not for the audience, etc.

As Orwell said, never use a complex word when a simple one exists with the same meaning.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I see a huge difference between complex and *needlessly* complex.

Some aspects of our universe are complex and language occasionally has to be complex simply to convey the notions involved. That is *needful* complexity. For example, many subjects in science have to distinguish between situations that an average person may not ever consider nor see the distinctions even if shown. The same happens in mathematics.

BUT, there is clearly such a thing as *needless* complexity, where the complexity is used simply to show the erudition of the writer and is NOT used to clarify closely related concepts.

One clear difference between the two types of complexity is that the *needful* complexity is almost always defined before use: the goal is clarity, so making clear definitions and distinctions is a necessary step.

But the *needless* complexity usually fails to define or distinguish the terms used. The writing is used to obscure rather than clarify.

So, the recommendation: make the language as complex as required, but no more so.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
From a guide on the exposition of mathematics (by R. P. Boas)

“Long convoluted sentences, bifurcating into a plethora of
dependent clauses, especially those with verbs deferred to the end, with the consequent effect of demanding close attention from the reader, as well as comprehension of sesquipedalian and abstruse words, or of highly specialized technical jargon, are rebarbative and should be sedulously avoided. In short, don't write sentences like the previous one!"
 
beenherebeforeagain

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I think one must look at the distinction between the 'hard' sciences and the humanities, as Polymath257 hinted at above. In the sciences, there is often necessary use of large words that are unfamiliar in their use among the general population, and sometimes truly complex sentences...because the writers are referring to very specific things that can be measured (even if often not measured well). In a field such as Literature, there are rarely specific, measurable concepts

The social sciences fall in between, and yes, there is often unneeded verbosity in many papers and reports...but not always.

And remember the target of most journal articles and reports are not the general public, but very specific audiences.
 
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
David T said:
If it was simple no one would pay for it!!!!
Click to expand...
People are often willing to pay extra for simple things. Learning professional language isn't even hard if it's their field. Garbage research gets ignored and not cited.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Scholarly papers are not aimed at the general public
Any more that papers written in french are aimed at english readers.

Both sorts need translating to be comprehensible to other readers..
They are written in language that conveys the most accurate information to their respective readers.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Those who criticize academics for their writing style might want to compare academic writing with that of the "average person". The truth is most people don't write all that well, whether they are academics or not.

Furthermore, that's fairly typical of nearly ever field. Most people don't sing or play music all that well, most people don't do auto mechanics all that well, etc, etc, etc. Academia merely tries to squeeze a whole lot of bad and mediocre writers into a more or less traditional and uniform style.

All of that is to say nothing about the fact that most people do not read at the university level any way, and often enough have difficulty comprehending even clearly explained, simple ideas, if those ideas are unfamiliar to them.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
By chance, yesterday I came across a paper in English literature on a poem, Poly-Oblion, by Michael Drayton. Right at the start the author says 'synchronic and diachronic' when she means 'then and later'.

Since it was a paper to do with her doctorate, it would have been supervised, but I dare say her supervisor made no comment.

The reasons are various ─ confusing long words with necessary technicality, speaking jargon because taught in jargon (thus not translating ideas into simplicity even to oneself), fear of sounding unacademic, fear that what you're writing is essentially shallow, and so on.

But it's not confined to academe. Corporatespeak and governmentspeak and more can be equally bad. ('I misspoke' is a famous example from politics, though I guess that's more an example of weaseling.)
 
Last edited:
Kuzcotopia

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Sunstone said:
Those who criticize academics for their writing style might want to compare academic writing with that of the "average person". The truth is most people don't write all that well, whether they are academics or not.

Furthermore, that's fairly typical of nearly ever field. Most people don't sing or play music all that well, most people don't do auto mechanics all that well, etc, etc, etc. Academia merely tries to squeeze a whole lot of bad and mediocre writers into a more or less traditional and uniform style.

All of that is to say nothing about the fact that most people do not read at the university level any way, and have difficulty comprehending even clearly explained, simple ideas, if those ideas are unfamiliar to them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think it also depends on the field. It seems as no surprise that the softer fields are gong to be the one with unnecessary jargon. . . Literature, philosophy, art criticism, etc. I can see why academics in those fields would have something to prove or obfuscate.

If there is "jargon" is harder sciences, it is often going to be more necessary to demonstrate methodology, results, and the discussion sections.

My wife has published some 30+ papers in academic journals in the fields of women's health and cancer. I often read and provide feedback.

Ten years ago, I would have been lost . . . But now it's easy to understand papers in her field, and many other fields as long as the mathematics aren't too challenging. There's a surpising consistency in the the academic language in her field. Just because you aren't educated in that, or any, particular field does not automatically mean the jargon is excessive or unnecessary. You just don't understand it.

P.S. I'm going to venture that 62% of RF users don't have the academic vocabulary to understand the writing of scientific publications, and 17% are probably eating potato chips right now.

Apparently, it's okay now to just completely make up numbers to prove a point.
 
Last edited:
beenherebeforeagain

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Kuzcotopia said:
Exactly. I think it also depends on the field. It seems as no surprise that the softer fields are gong to be the one with unnecessary jargon. . . Literature, philosophy, art criticism, etc. I can see why academics in those fields would have something to prove or obfuscate.

If there is "jargon" is harder sciences, it is often going to be more necessary to demonstrate methodology, results, and the discussion sections.

My wife has published some 30+ papers in academic journals in the fields of women's health and cancer. I often read and provide feedback.

Ten years ago, I would have been lost . . . But now it's easy to understand papers in her field, and many other fields as long as the mathematics aren't too challenging.

There's a surpising consistency in the the academic language in her field. Just be sure you aren't educated in that, or any, particular field does not automatically mean the jargon is excessive or unnecessary. You just don't understand it.

P.S. I'm going to venture that 62% of RF users don't have the academic vocabulary to understand the writing of scientific publications, and 17% are probably eating potato chips right now.

Apparently, it's okay now to just completely make up numbers to prove a point.
Click to expand...
sorry---I like your post, but rated it funny based on the PS...
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
Those who criticize academics for their writing style might want to compare academic writing with that of the "average person". The truth is most people don't write all that well, whether they are academics or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did some technical editing for a while and by the end of it felt the department granting these graduate students their MS's and Ph.D.'s should be embarrassed that they let them finish their program with composition skills like theirs. :sweat:
 
beenherebeforeagain

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Quintessence said:
Yeah, I did some technical editing for a while and by the end of it felt the department granting these graduate students their MS's and Ph.D.'s should be embarrassed that they let them finish their program with composition skills like theirs. :sweat:
Click to expand...
Yeah, had the same experience in my master's and doctoral programs...including faculty, not just students...as well as with many of my students...there were some gems, though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top