While recently reading an article in an education journal , the word “frame” kept jumping out at me. The author, a sociologist, kept using this normally unremarkable word in a way that I found unusual and confusing. Soon, though, I realized that “frame” was probably a piece of jargon with a specific meaning within sociology, distinct from its everyday use in English.
The author likely failed to clearly explain this usage (he parenthetically defines it later in the article, unfortunately not immediately after the first instance) because he was so accustomed to speaking sociology’s language of jargon that he forgot the double meaning of this word: its standard English usage, and its sociology usage. Certainly this is an easy mistake to make for any scholar, but it poses a barrier to effective communication of ideas to a larger audience.
I think there are generally two classes of jargon which (in the spirit of creating even more jargon) I will define as class I and class II. Class I consists of words that are unique to a particular field of knowledge, with no meaning in standard English. We have lots of excellent examples of these in physics: “fermion,” “quasar,” or more infamously, “boojum” . While these terms tend to be the scariest for a non-technical audience, in some sense they are also safer from a communication standpoint: “fermion” has no meaning outside of physics, so while lots of folks won’t know what you’re talking about if you say it, they will never confuse it with something else.
Class II is sneakier. It consists of words that DO have a common, everyday meaning, but also have a very specific technical meaning within a field, like the aforementioned example of “frame.” Ref. , which discusses the challenge of communicating climate science to the public, provides several fascinating examples of such words. The most notorious of these words is probably “theory.” To a scientist, theories are the most established and complete scientific ideas, typically referring to whole frameworks for understanding a wide range of phenomena that have been rigorously validated by experiments and observations over decades. Good examples include Newton’s law of gravity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. To the layperson, however, a theory is what a scientist would call a “hypothesis” or “claim”: an educated guess that hasn’t been verified or fully understood yet (e.g., “conspiracy theory”). Obviously, you can see why biologists cringe every time someone derides Darwinian evolution as a mere “theory”!
So while we tend to focus most of our attention on class I jargon words when communicating to a wider audience, we should pay greater attention to class II words. They have much more potential to mislead. This was demonstrated especially in the recent “Climategate” ordeal, in which e-mails of climate science researchers were made public. One point of contention for climate science deniers was the scientists’ use of the term “trick” in analyzing data. Most scientists recognize this usage as referring to a legitimate but clever method for solving a technical problem (e.g., “I solved the equation using Fourier’s trick”). But in ordinary English, “trick” usually refers to an intentional act of deception, which is obviously what climate science deniers were hoping to find in the e-mails. Awareness of these class II terms in our respective disciplines, and an alert eye for them while reading about other disciplines, would serve us all well.
 Wilson WJ. (2011) “Being Poor, Black, and American: The Impact of Political, Economic, and Cultural Forces.” American Educator, Spring: 10.
 Mermin ND. (1981) “E Pluribus Boojum: the physicist as neologist.” Phys. Today 34: 46.
 Somerville RCJ, Hassol SJ. (2011) “Communicating the science of climate change.” Phys. Today 64: 48.