Here’s an interesting quote:
Narrative criticism is a precise, subtle, and complex discipline that has developed a refined conceptuality and vocabulary to express its nuances. It is relatively easy to discuss these nuances with other specialists, using the technical jargon designed for this purpose. It is not so easy to communicate such subtleties to noninitiates without either dumbing down the content or talking down to the reader. It is also risky to be clear, for sometimes when the complex jargon is removed and the point is made in plain English, it no longer seems all that profound.
This is from M. Eugene Boring’s RBL review of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Boring indicates that this comment is an “appreciative narrative aside” and that he things Malbon has avoided this danger. Since I’ve not read the book, I can’t judge that conclusion, but I am quite sure that Boring’s observation (that jargon often sounds technically impressive, but simple English explanations result in a more banal assessment) is quite true of other work, no less in grammar and related fields than in “more abstract” approaches to the text.
I’m wary of a claim such as this. The fact is that the discipline of Linguistics is no less a matter of theory than traditional grammar. I think that the practitioners of this discipline want to believe that they are being scientific in some sense approaching that in which the natural sciences are scientific. Unless they can come down and out of the ivory tower of Babel and explain what they wish to demonstrate to ordinary intelligent mortals and offer demonstrative evidence for their propositions, they will only be talking to each other and their propositions can expect no credence outside of themselves.
My point exactly. I do not deny that any discipline must have technical terms (traditional grammar has them aplenty!), but there comes a point in the use of them, and esp. of new terms and systems, where they reach the point of jargon—insider terminology that is obscure to all but the initiates, who sometimes tend to be critical of those who describe the same matters with less esoteric language. I think Boring has made a very valid observation that “in plain English, it no longer seems all that profound.” So Carl, I think we agree, and I’m not sure of what claim you’re “wary” (mine, Boring’s, or Malbon’s)–or perhaps I wasn’t clear.