You are on page 1of 6

Abbreviations and vivid language used by neurobiologists: a unique method to ease

communication

By: Karen Cornejo

Introduction
Scientists, in general, have a unique method of communication composed of complex
words that are hard to understand if one is not familiar with scientific terminology. In this sense,
scientists are a unique group that can communicate within themselves using their own language.
Similarly, neurobiologists at the Center for Neurobiology in UC Davis are a specific group of
scientists that have a unique lexis, an aspect that distinguishes their linguistic ability to
communicate. In addition, neurobiologists have a common set of goals, a mechanism of
communication, different genres to communicate and a method to explain science to members
outside their community. Scholars in writing, such as Erik Borg (2003) characterize this as a
discourse community (Borg, 2003, p.398). In this paper, I will address how neurobiologists at
UC Davis meet the requirements of a discourse community and how the language they use is
important to their communication with members outside of their community: specifically, non-
scientists within the general public. The study of this discourse community is of interest to me
because I am part of this group and I have noted a change in my vocabulary when
neurobiologists surround me, but also a vocabulary change when I speak to someone who is
outside of this discourse community. Upon my research, there are two aspects of the language
neurobiologists use that my paper would focus on. Those include the use of abbreviations and
descriptive words. This discourse community ultimate has a versatile language that changes the
vocabulary they implement based on the audience: neurobiologists use more abbreviated words
within their discourse community, but descriptive language with non-scientific members to
facilitate communication.

Preliminary research

Initially, upon analyzing the language and words used by neurobiologists there appears to
be a pattern of elongated words, which explains why the practice of abbreviations is common in
their language. The use of abbreviations is a method of communication that neurobiologists use
to communicate with one another rather than enunciating long complex words found in their
field of study. For instance, the term Long term potentiation is simply abbreviated to LTP,
which is widely understood within all neurobiologists. According to scientist B. Raad, a typical
trait of modern terminology inheres elements of common language readily available for special
usage (Raad, 1989, p. 131). In this quote, Raad refers to the change of words used in science.
He suggests that modern scientific terminology is highly susceptible to the effects of elements of
common language. For example, the elements can include abbreviations, acronyms, or codes that
the scientific community can understand and be familiar with. The reason as to why this happens
as he explains it, its because abbreviations accomplish the purpose of derivation by using a
variety of shorthand to replace the complete meaning equivalent instead of finding an equivalent
in Latin of Greek (Raad, 1989, p. 131). In other words, neurobiologists create abbreviations to
ease their communication since it is easier to shorten a long, complex word than to 1) verbally
say the complete word with multiple syllables and 2) create an equivalent in Greek or Latin. This
practice is a creative innovation that is employed within the discourse community of
neurobiologists that contributes to their exclusive method of intercommunication within its
members.

Secondly, the second pattern of communication within the language employed by


neurobiologists is the use of descriptive words, which is mainly found when they communicate
their ideas to members outside of their community. As it was established previously, the
members outside of their community is referring to the non-scientists individuals within the
general public in society. Based on my observations, neurobiologists used descriptive language
to help others who are not in the discourse community understand their scientific findings and
the purpose of their research. According to scientist B.Shen (1985), when science is explained to
non-scientists the essence is explained in non-technical language (Shen, 1985, 267). Not only
this, but he also mentions that it must be analyzed in plain language for the average citizen to
fully understand (Shen, 1985, p.267). This creates a logical assumption as to why neurobiologists
change their vocabulary from abbreviations to a simpler form of language composed of
descriptive words. It would be illogical to use long words like Acute Disseminated
Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) when the public wont understand what this means. It would be
easier to explain that ADEM is a disease that causes inflammation to the brain and spinal cord.
The change of lexis from abbreviations to a more descriptive language is part of the versatile
ability of neurobiologists to communicate with a broader audience. As part of the common goal
of neurobiologists, they must communicate their ideas to different audiences. Consequently, this
involves adapting different variants of their language to address different audiences.

Methods
To extend my argument, Im going to define how neurobiologists are a discourse
community and how their lexis supports their goals. I have identified neurobiologists in UC
Davis as a discourse community since my experience as both an outsider and now an insider
allow me to see the characteristics that define this community. The following data will provide
further analysis and the other aspects that make this a discourse community. For instance,
neurobiologists in UC Davis have:
A set of common goals: communicate their research with others
Mechanism of intercommunication: use of abbreviated language that only
neurobiologist understand
Genres used to communicate with each other: emails, texts, conferences, posters,
etc
A lexis: composed of abbreviations and descriptive language
Previously, I analyzed the language neurobiologists use, but to further my research I was
interested in the types of genres that neurobiologists use and the type of language they
implement in each. I conducted a survey among members of the Neurobiology Center in UC
Davis to address the following question: what genres are used in their communicative methods?
To answer this question, I asked around twenty-five neurobiologists their methods of
communication within their colleagues. The following data was collected:

Genres used to communicate within


Neurobiologists in UC Davis

100

80
percent

60

40

20

0
Email Text Conference Presentation Poster
message
Genre used

Yes, I have use it

These were the predominant genres analyzed. I chose these genres because according to the
members of the community, they used these genres very frequently. Based on these results,
neurobiologists prefer to communicate via technological methods due to the ease and speed of
those resources. For instance, all the participants seem to have used email as their primary genre
of communication. Interestingly, the other genres that ranked high include methods that appeal to
larger audiences which can include or not non-scientists. This is mentioned because some of the
conferences and poster podiums have a broad audience where scientists and non-scientists can
attend. However, the importance of these results is that public speaking within this discourse
community is a strong genre that alludes to their common goal: that is, share their knowledge
and new findings with others. By giving presentations, creating posters, and attending
conferences, neurobiologists maximize achieving their goals. In terms of the language they use
in those genres, I also asked the participants if they used common neurological abbreviations or
descriptive language for each genre. The term descriptive language referrers to vivid language
that describes the processes in a simpler way that is more understandable. The following data
was collected:

Types of words used in their genres: abbreviations,


descriptive language, or both

100%

50%

0%
Email Text Message Conference Presentation Poster

Abbreviations Descriptive lenguage

Analysis:
Based on the data collected, there were two aspects that were interesting. The first one is that
there is a distribution associated with the audience and the type of language neurobiologists use.
For example, when neurobiologists communicate at a conference or a presentation, we see a
similar pattern where the use of abbreviations decreases and descriptive language increases.
Logically, this is expected since the audience is much broader when giving a conference or a
presentation, hence the method of communication must include descriptive language to assure
that their message is conveyed. Those individuals within the same community that attend a
conference or a presentation are familiar with the subject and therefore, they dont need a lot of
explanation regarding the topic. However, those that attend and are not familiar need further
explanation. This can be accomplished by employing descriptive language. Nonetheless, we do
see that the use of abbreviations is maintained throughout any genre. I interview the lab manager
at one of the laborites, Julie Culp. She has been there for over 10 years and I asked her how does
she communicate her scientific ideas or explanations to someone who doesnt have a background
in neurobiology or science. She responded, I try to keep it very simple and I explain to them in
basic terms the overall picture because I am aware not everyone will understand the complexity
of this subject. It is because of this that I noticed a pattern of communication between how the
members of this discourse community communicate with one another and the way they
communicate with someone outside their group. Using abbreviations is an innovative practice
that has its limitations. Abbreviations are useful in intercommunications between members of the
neurobiology community. Nevertheless, these abbreviations are not as beneficial when
communicating to a non-scientific member. Neurobiologists would approach the public will a
different language then the one they use daily in their work place. That is, they attempt to
simplify the complexity to make it more understandable. It is here where neurobiologists
translate scientific language into descriptive language with the aim of sharing their knowledge
with the general public.

Conclusion
Neurobiologists in UC Davis are considered a discourse community that has an exclusive
type of language that correlates with the communitys goal: share their knowledge with their
colleagues and the public. Based on this research, I discovered that neurobiologists have a
pattern in their language. They implement both, abbreviations and descriptive language
throughout their genres of communication. The most important aspect of this finding is that the
language neurobiologists use depends on the audience they approach. Abbreviations are used
within the discourse community, but the lexis changes to descriptive language when
communicating with the non-scientific public. It is important that we distinguish how language is
a bridge between science and the public. Public understanding of neurobiology is becoming
vitally needed in society since many mental diseases, and drug related issues appeared to
increase within the last decade, according to Blanco C. (2007). Because of this, understanding
scientific terms in simpler language is an aspect that our society needs and scientists have to be
aware of. Ultimately, the use of descriptive language in science can create a bridge that connects
mutual understanding between scientists and the public in our society.

References
Algeo, John. (1980). Where do all the new words come from? American Speech 55: 264-77.
Retrived from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/455231.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A504d461463148378f9f449c
8958119d7
Borg, Erik. "Discourse Community." ELT Journal 57.4 (2003): 398-400. Print.

Blanco, C., Patel, S., Liu, L., Jiang, H., Lewis-Fernndez, R., Schmidt, A., . . . Olfson, M.
(2007). National Trends in Ethnic Disparities in Mental Health Care. Medical Care, 45(11),
1012-1019. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40221575

Evans, W. (1983). Coming to Grips with All the New Words. American Speech, 58(3), 255-267.
doi:10.2307/455231
Green, Michael B. 1986. Superstrings. Scientific American 255 (September): 44- 56.
Raad, B. (1989). Modern Trends in Scientific Terminology: Morphology and
Metaphor. American Speech,64(2), 128-136. doi:10.2307/455039

Shen, B. (1975). Views: Science Literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally
needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265-268.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2784546

Strain of Machine Age Life Causes Increase in Mental Ills. (1932). The Science News-
Letter, 22(596), 169-169. doi:10.2307/3908015

You might also like