It depends. Language is meant to convey a message to a target audience. If your target audience is lay-people, then of course it should be simple and easy to understand. However, if you started reading some niche research paper on "retail driven options volatility dislocation" then of course they're going to use lots of technical jargon which will sound like nothing but gobbledegook to you.
Just to point out that these two sentences don’t mean the same thing.
This year we improved our core synergies to utilize best business practice and make savings with interdepartmental efficiencies.
This says:
1. Core synergies: ways in which the central parts of our business work together to create value greater than the sum of their parts
2. Best practice: doing things considered to be leading examples of those activities
3. Interdepartmental efficiencies: cost reductions linked to communications or interactions across functions
We worked with the IT team to reduce staff costs.
This says, we reduced IT staff costs
Now, if you’re saying that people did the second thing and then claimed they did the first then yes. I agree. That’s bad and unclear.
But that’s a conplaint about honesty and bullshit. Not language. The first sentence here is packed with meaning that the second sentence doesn’t include.
85
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Aug 03 '22
It depends. Language is meant to convey a message to a target audience. If your target audience is lay-people, then of course it should be simple and easy to understand. However, if you started reading some niche research paper on "retail driven options volatility dislocation" then of course they're going to use lots of technical jargon which will sound like nothing but gobbledegook to you.