Limit Jargon

Limit Jargon

The excessive use of jargon makes it difficult for the public to receive the Department's messages. Planning touches on many disciplines, including architecture, engineering, environmental science, data analysis, and geography. If you were to combine the specialized terms each field uses, there is a tremendous amount of jargon (in addition to planning-specific jargon) that may be unknown or confusing to the public we serve.

To be clear, not all jargon is bad. Sometimes, it is necessary to efficiently describe a complex concept. And as language continuously evolves, specialized jargon can come into common usage because it conveys a specific meaning better than any others (such as "gentrification").

We place additional barriers for the public when unnecessary jargon is embedded with an academic or bureaucratic style of writing. While bureaucratic and academic writing certainly have their place, a well-written plain language document is understandable to scholarly researchers, planning professionals, and County residents alike.

Tips:

• Use the Plain Language Thesaurus for alternatives to words or phrases, including planning-specific phrases.
• Don't know if you should use a certain phrase in your project? Use the technical jargon decision tree to help you decide.

Eliminate Garbage Language

We are all guilty of using garbage language. Professionals are taught to use words and phrases that sound effective and authoritative. But most garbage language is filled with words and phrases that are overly complicated, such as:

1. iterative
2. catalyze
3. engender
4. incubate
5. implementation framework
6. transformative
7. focal point
8. synthesize
9. synergy

Garbage language can also render a word meaningless and hide potential areas of disagreement. Consider the sentiment of planner Daniel Herriges:

The ubiquitous word livable ... is a good candidate for the garbage heap. People like it because it's vague and meaningless, and it allows you to pretend to agree with all sorts of people you don't actually agree with. A search for "livable city" very quickly turns up references to Copenhagen and its world-famous compact neighborhoods and bicycle-friendly streets, which would surely prompt eyerolls among the members of Livable California, a group formed to oppose measures that would allow increased residential density in that state. One suspects the Livable California crowd would also fail to see eye-to-eye with folks at AARP's Livable Communities initiative, who have championed such senior-friendly housing innovations as backyard accessory dwellings. The point of using livable is to stake a claim to moral authority, not to convince anyone or communicate anything. Source: Daniel Herriges, "Does 'Garbage Language' Infect How We Talk About Cities?" Creative Commons License CC BY SA 3.0 DEED

Using garbage language may lead to miscommunication when used in messages intended for your audience.

See plain language alternatives in the plain language thesaurus.