From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Proper Use of Acronyms (was Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?)
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:40:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.000146.6117@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote:

      The best one can to in a field where the disease [initial mania]
  is epidemic is to avoid it as much as one can.

  I confess I use them myself, but never more than two or three distinct
  initialisms in a single paper, and usually ones that will be familiar
  to most of my readers (DNA, CLT, MLE).

In article <1992Nov19.142610.23350@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
lange@lmsc.lockheed.com (Alex Lange) replies:

> A blessing that you don't _have_ to deal with more than two three
> at a time.

I don't have to because I refuse to.  If I didn't resist using initialisms
as much as possible, I would use many more.  As soon as one seriously
starts to question each use of an initialism and experiment with alternatives,
it becomes clear that you don't _have_ to deal with many in any field, unless
it is mandated from on high.

> And after you introduce the abbreviations, you use them throughout your
> entire paper, correct?

Incorrect.  I use them sparingly.  I often spell out "central limit theorem"
and "maximum likelihood estimate" rather than have a page littered with CLT's
and MLE's, though, as van Leunen points out, often it is clear from the context
which theorem or estimate are under discussion and a simple "the theorem" or
"the estimate" will do.

On the other hand, some initialisms are cast-iron.  I would never bother
to spell out DNA.

> I completely agree that this is the most important consideration in whether
> to use acronyms or not: your audience  I made the assumption that
> srinivas@lips.ecn.purdue.edu's audience, too, was familiar with the
> abbreviations he used.

I don't think it is enough that many of the audience will have seen the
initialisms somewhere else.  I would not call that the most important
consideration.  I will not use an initialism unless it is so familiar
that almost all of the audience will not be slowed down at all -- they
will recognize it without thinking.

Moreover, the density of initialisms is important, as is the number of
different initialisms used.  Too many, more than a few per page, and
the writing stops looking like language.  It feels unreadable even before
one starts to read.  Too many different ones, even if they are familiar,
are also a strain on the reader.

> Used wisely, acronyms can _include_ your reader; used blindly, they will
> alienate.  They can either entirely obscure your writing or greatly speed
> it up.

Who can argue with wise usage?  The question is what that is.

I would question whether they speed up reading.  The first few do.  When only
a few are used, they place no strain on the memory, and are easier to grasp
than the long phrases they abbreviate.  Who would want to have DNA spelled
out all through "Double Helix"?  When DDT was first used, it seemed to be
a simplification.  But when hundreds of initialisms are used in a single
field, they become a nuisance.  They slow down the reader.  In the mind's
ear, they must be spelled out.  In the mind's eye, they must be looked up
in a glossary.  They are not words; they are not language; they are not
what people remember naturally.

It would do every writer good to try to eliminate them as much as possible.
The exercise is instructive and leaves a lasting impression, even after the
the experiment is over.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu