The mental movie of a mouse cowering the corner of a cage that has another mouse in it gets chunked into ‘social avoidance.’ You can’t blame the neuroscientist for thinking this way. She’s seen the movie thousands of times; she doesn’t need to hit the PLAY button in her visual memory and watch the critters quivering every time she talks about whether her experiment worked. But we do need to watch them, at least the first time, to appreciate what actually happened. (Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style. Viking, 2014: p. 71)
Steven Pinker argues that academics like our neuroscientist, above, tend to use abstract language in their writing because they “chunk” together discrete events — the many instances of mice cowering and quivering — into broader categories like “social avoidance.” Yet, as Pinker also notes, many readers won’t have done this same “chunking,” or will have different conceptual “chunks” of knowledge, and so will need to “watch” the mouse avoid its peer at least once in a piece of writing in order to follow the writer’s chain of thought.
So when and how should academic writers write about “social avoidance,” and when should they describe the actions of the mouse?
Continue reading “Bring clarity by objectifying your language”