I have been reading an entertaining article, a portion of which discusses the difficulties of codifying one�s field of research through the creation of dictionaries and encyclopedias. Do you, as in earlier times, come down on the side of specificity and simplicity of explanation at the risk of limiting the meaning in a way that perhaps belies actual language use? Or do you allow for the maximal nuances of meaning at the risk of being vague or contradictory or both? In the current days of concern about and hyper-awareness of our own place in the writing of our histories, of our biases and prejudices, we tend to err towards the latter, a quality that the author of the article terms �meandering.� The author cites Ambrose Bierce in his 1911 Devil�s Dictionary as a supporter of this type of dictionary: �Dictionary, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic.� As an argument to the contrary, however, she cites one of my favorite quotes by Don Randel from his introduction to the New Harvard Dictionary of Music: �Most readers do not turn to a dictionary to witness the free play of the signifier.� Derridaian deconstruction has no place in a dictionary because it renders such a work fundamentally useless.

I am finding these questions interesting as I wrestle with the twin issues of language and audience in my dissertation. I tend to be a militant jargon-o-phobe. At the same time, however, I have a great respect for precision in language, perhaps, in part, because I�m working in an arena where the vocabulary tends to be rather fuzzy. Am I pitching my work at the right level of discourse? I want to be clear and precise, but I don�t want to be simplistic. And then there is the question of whether in academic writing that one is expected to wield the vocabulary of the field even when it is not the best choice for clear expression.

I�m struggling with these issues once again as I try to finish up my conference paper. In the end stages of papers, these days, I seem to re-entrench myself into a cycle of self-doubt. Diaryland is a nice respite. I can write in whatever tone I please. But even here audience is becoming a factor. I am aware of who reads me for AJ anecdotes and who reads for academic angst. I try to keep a balance of the two.

----

And in the interest of balance, AJ�s preschool teacher grabbed me after class to suggest that we have AJ screened for speech therapy. AJ�s pronunciation of Rs and Ls in particular are a bit lazy. He can say them correctly, but frequently chooses not to. I�m not particularly concerned about this. It�s generally something most kids grow out of. I had speech therapy at about the same age for about the same reason. The interesting thing, however, is that the screening test apparently tests for a variety of developmental issuies, including learning disabilities and IQ. Strangely, this may help us in our quest for improved gifted programs in the local public schools.

0 people said it like they meant it