Comparing Joseph D. Edler's Jargon-Good And Bad

In the article, Jargon - Good and Bad, Joseph D. Edler discusses the pros and cons of jargon and advises that jargon should only be used if the audience will understand it, which is consistent with my scene because the doctor did not anticipate the needs of his audience and improperly used jargon, causing a breakdown.
Jargon can be used to increase efficiency among members of a field but can also confuse and prevent effective communication. Jargon, when used in an appropriate setting, can ease communication and be a real asset. Edler explains that by using jargon, “A single term...can be made to stand for a whole paragraph” (537). Scientists, doctors, and professors can use one phrase and explain what might take ten minutes to explain when not using jargon. Jargon, however, can hinder communication as much as it helps. When people do not …show more content…
In his article, Edler explains that including jargon, “depends on the audience for whom the writing is intended” (537). If a scientist is writing a report for a group of scientists, it would be appropriate, even encouraged, to use jargon in the piece. If a scientist is writing a report for the general public, however, incorporating jargon would not be ideal. Edler explains that if jargon must be used in this situation, the author needs to define the jargon in simple terms, so the audience can comprehend the piece. Before writing a message or planning a speech, authors need to be Mindful and think about the composition of their audience and use jargon accordingly. In my scene, the doctor did not define the jargon, which led to a communication breakdown. If the doctor would have followed Edler’s advice, he would have defined “dyspepsia” as “normal stomach pain,” which would have allowed the mother to decode the message, and the communication would have been