Jack De Ment
De Ment Laboratories Portland, Oregon
Translating and Re-Jargonizing the Little-hguages of Science
It is trite to say that as science blossoms Translated into simple English this may become: in splendor the likes of which we have never known, a . . . hedonistic (or materislistie) trend in present American hungry non-science public waits for each and every life. . . new development. Finding a way to satisfy the public Fully re-jargonized for the man-in-the-street this beappetite for science is, however, a very real problem. comes: Bridging science and non-science is becoming more and . . . guband-buck jag. . . more difficult, for as the language of science moves in one direction, the language of non-science moves in the Crude, coarse, and undignified? Perhaps. But other. the last gets the point over and carries a very plain On the one side are the many jargons and littlemessage which is brief, to the point, and easily rememlanguages of science; on the other side are the many bered. slangs and little-languages of norrscience. Somewhere From Jargon t o Jargon in between is what most of us would prefer-good, The kinds of sciencesetheir number has never been simple English.' estimated-must be tmly enormous, involving dead and The professional scientist, wittingly or not, has set an dying jargons as well as the firmly established and the example or a t least has followed a trend (one might recently born. Borrowings and re-definitions are chareven call it a recurring fad). He speaks and writes in acteristic of sciencese. Extra-mural borrmings: sunone or more of the different varieties and species of the shine unit, aeon, barn, bit, pot, dope, jerk, and the often-remote little-language of sciencese. names of things, places, persons, and events. IntraThe problem, therefore, is not only communication mural borrowings: symmetry, countdown, fission, of science with non-science, but also intercommunicafusion, field, energy, space, radio, ray, and wave (used tion among the various speciaNies within science. The latter is essentially no different from the former, for jargon-wise a t least several hundred different ways). when one is illiterate in a given science argot it matters When science borrows from itself-and makes great, leaps in re-definition-it engenders difficulties for both little whether he is a scientiet. science and non-science. The problems in translating and re-jargonizing can be said to derive from two maxims: Certain science jargons amount to cryptic slang. e.g., the little-languages of cyhernetics (we have psycho( A ) Nan-communicated science is nm-existent science. cybernetics), the variegated schools of psychologic ( B ) Non-communicable science is non-existent science. A recent editorial iu THIS J O U R N A L ~ - - ~ ~ Sand C Upsychiatric S S ~ ~ ~ thought and, especially, the argotese arising from the hybridization of several little-lanC. P. Snow's "The Two Cultures and the Scientific guages, e.g., magnetohydrodynamics, biomedical elecRevo1ution""handily set out the gist of things: tronics, control engineering, computers, avionics, biIt is easy to talk in generaiities ahout society and forget that onic~,psychopharmacology, and p a r a ~ e a p o n r y . ~ we are individuals who ran do something about it. It is not I n some cases, often unfortunate ones, a tme science enough to smugly point out that there are more scientists who know who Job or Hamlet m-as than there are literary men who code is approached or actually attained, as in advanced know what the second law of thermodynamics is or why Libby military and space science and technology (readers won the Nobel prize. Rather thew is an increasingly pmssing acquainted with classified literature often encounter personal obligation to fell the non-seirnlkt wzvhat science is doing. "projected thinking" reports where a peculiar codeEach must do this i n his own way; there is no formula to follow. like lingo completely defeats the purpose and makes The oboirms ingredients are a thmough undwatanding of what the essential concepts are and a willhgaess lo abandon the jargon of t.he document unintelligible). the professional scientist when doing il. [italics added] The titles of scientific and technical papers show the ever-increasing trend to science code and cryptic slang Examples of science lingo-seiencese-are familiar based upon a huge preponderance of clippings. to all of us. I n the semantic hierarchy we may take acronyms, tip-terms, and the like. Onomatopoetic or the following for examination: echoic synthetics and coinages are frequent. The . . . existentialism-oriented within the rontemporl~ryAmerican reader may find himself engaged in mental gymnastirs socio-political macro-module. . . trying to guess the specific meauing or particular disciThie paper contains built-in rsamples of the subject at hand. pline of the following:
Thr term "little-language" is used more loosely here than that H., A N D FLESNER. STUART B., "Dictiondefined by WENTWORTH, ary of American Slang," Th. B.Crou.rll. Wew York, 1960. * J. CHEM.EDUC.,37, GO9 (19G0). a SNOW, C. P., "The Two Cuitorrs :rnd the Rrientific Kevolution," Cambridge Univ. Press; Y e w York. 1959.
EType X Circulator The S Plant The N Process 'Any day now I expect to see in print the terms geogeriatriv, astrohorrnology, and psychocosmorhe~niaty. Volume 38, Number 8, August 1967
/
41 5
Effects of Mountains with Smooth Crests on Wave Prapaaa. . tion Some Remarks on the Spreading Reaction Constant-S Equalizers Are Statistical Life-Testing Procedures Robust? Is Horizontal Education Lying Down? Experimental Immersion Leg Role of Cleft Palate Team L. E. Prep Technique /CTS/Unrestive Feedback of Psyohobionir Scission in Boolianized Agate State Ba~rier/CTS/~
The examples just given were picked at random. One only has to glance through a current issue of Chemi c d Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, Nuclear Science Abstracts, or any other similar periodical-specially bibliographies of government research reports-for verbal do-it-yourself kits. When bred from science and law the offspring can become a true semantic mutant: a case in point is forensic sciencese and its numerous species. For example, the little-languages set out in the chemical patent are very apt to be completely alien to chemists not directly engaged in industrial or applied research. Those in strictly theoretical or "pure" chemical research often find chemical patent lingo as baffling as pentagonese. Scientific pentagonese has dramatically changed since Sputnik-I. It is probably the fastest moving and "farthest out" of all lingos, beatnik and jive talk notwithstanding. This is sad commentary on a kind of jabberwocky which, because of its enormous significauce, should be among the clearest of little-languages. Those slangs which are the fastest moving-and get farther and farther out-resemble fads in that they are most likely to die quickly, be replaced, and be forgotten sooner (however, depending upon their coverage and impact, they often contribute to the body of the more static little-languages). Scientific pentagonese exemplifies how. within a period of a few years, a snccession of dead and dying lingos is built. What is said above applies also to a vigorous and growing family of slangs as yet unnamed: those having to do with politics and ecieuce [and these would seem to have little to do with the more orthodox littlelanguage(s) of political scieuce (a misnomer) ]. These working slangs are not now widely known or understood because of their newness, but they will be of extraordinary importance during the coming years. When they become so firmly embedded as to work their way into the language of the law they will really have come into their own. The mixed-meaning terms of science itself would fill volumes and, indeed, have done so (e.g., specialized dictionaries, glossaries, and encyclopedias). An interesting example of m-hat goes into science's little-languages comes from my own field, that of luminescence. We have, for example:
Sow, which of these has to do with fluorescence? Which with the measurement of fluorescent substances? Which with fluorine chemistry? Which with the analysis of fluorine? Which with phosphors and the measurement of their spectral emission? Which with the solid-state physics of phosphors? Which with phosphorus chemistry;' Which with phosphorus determinations generally? Which with phosphorus determinations spectrophotometrically? And so on.= Semantic Equations
Actually, each of the previous t,erms is a semantic equation with different solutions, depending upon the discipline. The puzzle-and sometimes the dangerfor the unwary science translator is to lind out as best he can which term means ~r-hat. As the same or similar terms become more firmly embedded in the matrices of different little-languages, the problem of correct meaning within a given frame of reference is compounded immensely. So the science translator who aims a t transduction to non-science does more than scratch his head in wonderment, asking himself whether "scientists really do speak the same language." Our third maxim comes to his mind: (C) Scientists do not speak the same language! I t is not for me to say vhether this maxim represents a good or a bad situation; each reader will have to form his own opinion. And it is not for me to indulge in an attempt at definitive moralizing, and to say that this represents deterioration or retrogradation of the language of science. If nothing else, it shows the limitations d the English Innguage, the multi-functional role words play in science, and the necessity of invention to cope with a linguistic esplosion for which our Ianguage was not designed. I t should be emphasized that t,he semantic equation approach is an excellent tool when properly used, that it enables the solution of otherwise very difficult problems in t.erminology, and that it will be employed to an increasing extent as time goes by. For better or worse, it is far too late to change things radically. For better or worse, the little-languages of science will move away from those of non-science with increasing velocities-sciencese, by its very nature, is a "restless little-language." Like it or not, the translator deals with highly dynamic entities which are constantly in a state of flux and he must be const,mtly alert if he n examples given is to make the bridge b e t ~ ~ e ethe earlier. What the foregoiug boils dotr-nto is a fourth maxim: (D) The science translator and re-jargonizer must be both science philologist. and non-science philologist if he is to make "nun-existcnt science" real. Non-Science Jargon
Photofluorometry Photofluorimetry Spectrophotofluorometry Photospectrofluorimety
Phosphoraphotometry Photophosphorimetry Speetrophotophosphoron~etry Photaspectrophosphorimetry Spectrofl~~orophotametry Spectropl~onphorophotometry Fluorisuectronhotametrv Soectro~hotoohasohorimetrv ~hotoff;~orosl;eetrometr;r dhosphorosp~ctrophotomet~y [and some few mor~l
.
. .
' Hypothetical classified document: /CTS/ Secret (NATO). The other titles are real. 416
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
=
Cosmic Top
At the other end of thr spectrum are many and varied highly specialized non-science jargons. Of course, the desirable in-between "zrmantic bands" cover good, simple English but, as has been indicated, this does Fluorspar came before either fluorescence or fluorine, but both claim it aa namesake. The prefix fluor* is preferred for fluorescence, whileJZuori-would he more appropriate for fluorine. In his earlier writings on lominesrence the writer probably didn't helo matters much.
not always suffice and re-jargonizing must be relied upon. Many factors interfere with the use of the more desirable "linguistic wavelengths," particularly the highly efficient jamming resulting from the . h e r ican public's reading and speaking habits. I n re-jargonizing into non-science media the leeway is greater, and the translator can often coin his words and expressions to suit the need (often with considerable impact). Thus: it frequent,ly does little good to lean on a shop-worn expression like "a thermonuclear device carries 25 megatons TNT explosive power" unless it is propped up with something like "a 25 megawhammy wallop." This is what the average persou can understand and remember. Besides getting the message through, one of the endvalues of non-science phrasing is t,hat the memory of the sensor is not unduly taxed if he should later wish to re-communicate what he has absorbed. The hazard of course is that in re-jargonizing, oversin~plification and conceptual marring can and do occur, and importaut parts of what is communicated are insulted or lost along the way. A good example is the relatively new field of television which, although it has not received the attention it deserves. deserves utmost at.tent,ion because of its in molding human thought, attitude, and great behavior. I t is interesting to explore briefly one small part of television. The television set and the typed actors aud programs are referred to by various segments of the industry in many different ways, as expected in a medium where mercurial human elements are an integral part. They range from the most glowing of superlatives to the most derogatory of terms. Examples: ETV (educational TV); vacuum-pack; lip-sinking (dubbing in English for a foreign language): nibflieker (derogatory); Big Brother (paranoid connotation of being watched, not watehing); huhhle-hoard (derisive, Iron, the numerous soap cornmereials); phosphor pie (connotating viewing and eating); cancer hucket, coffin seller, lung embalmer, eanrer jockey, and others (all derogatory, from the many cigarette commercials and the alleged connection of smoking and neoplasia); UTV (universal TV, i.e., multi-lingual TV); TVierer; idiot-har (derogatory, some suspect with good reason).
Many strictly taboo words and expressions might be given, but these might make this magazine unmailable, so I will leave that problem to the philologists and etymologists who write scholarly works on such suhjects. By way of note, it is suspected that nuclear, space, and military scientists and engineers are most adept at lacing their little-languages w t h ~olorful xords and expressions. Why Translate and Re-Jargonize?
There are many answers to this question. If there is a simple one, it is to get science over to the public. In turn, this often implies that "it's not. always what you say, but how you say it.." Maxim, (D)above, indicates still another answer: To make "nouexistent science" real. "To make people think" may be the ideal answer but, as most educators well know, this is not easy to do. Properly translated, science does not lose diguity. Sciencese cannot regain dignity that was not there to
begin with. S o r is the converse true: non-science lingo cannot lend a dignity when inherently it is unable to do so. Non-sciencese may or may not be offensive or irritat,ingto the professional scientist but, in the absence of the more desirable simple English, it serves a common and valuable purpose. Re-jargonizing is not to he confused with sensationalism. Perhaps such confusion does exist among scientists and is one reason why science writing is looked down upon. If a presentation is brief and right to the pointalthough partly in another language (seldom, if ever, is it wholly in another language)-it does not follow that the presentation is merely balloon juice, i.e., highly exaggerated ("balloon juice" is slang for helium used to inflate balloons). Accurate information expressed clearly and concisely should be the goal. This seems to he attained as often in non-science jargon as in much of the insipid sciencese of t,heprofessional. It is well to remember that an anti-science ezacerbation can occur whenever more is expected of science than it is inherently capable of. Re-jargonizing, or translating the "mystic language," therefore has an added unexpected value for science: it is one means of dispelling the widespread, vague, and sometimes uneasy suspicion with which science is frequently viewed by those who do not comprehend its methods and aimsand one way of helping to build and sustain rapport between scientists and the non-science public. Moreover, science should protect itself from illfounded abuse and misinterpretation. An editorial in Science7 entitled "So Scieuce says . . . " advocates the use of ridicule and protest to combat these abuses. When the scientist who doubles as translator couples his knowledge, experience, and prestige with appropriate ridicule the results may be most gratifying. It is up to him and his common sense to decide where ridicule leaves off and sarcasm, cynicism, carping, and axgrinding begin. Caution: The line between effective ridicule and the ridiculous is indeed thin! Like ridicule, humor deserves special care; it can he a powerful tonic or (like humor in politics) it can have unforeseen consequences. The translator who tries humor risks a posture which may be sidesplitting to some and silly to others, so he must choose whether he wishes to riskconjoining humor with an apparently humorless science topic. Those who contemplate the transduction of science will do well to follow the advice earlier quoted from THIS JOURNAL.^ It is not a boilerplate proposition. I t is, instead, one where the individual's efforts and occasionally his personality should get through to the reader. He must be able to use one simple word for six technical words-and still keep the meaning. This is not easy to do for one long in the habit of writing and speaking a particular little-language, and it will entail hard work a t the outset and a t times perhaps a false feeling of self-compromiee. . Who knows how many young people will become our future scientists from having read such articles? This is the great obligation and respousibility of the science translator. 'Science, 132, 1749 (1960).
Volume 38, Number 8, August 1961 / 417
