Wow! That's impressive. It's a very long list, and must have taken hours to compile. But this reminds me of Russian Roulette. You're just shooting yourself in the head, Ray.
First of all, none of the links can be followed without a Monash login. It's difficult to read into them.
Also, there is very little context with each example.
Next, a number of these are by scholars working in other areas. Some are foreigners, who do not speak English as a native language. You include, for example, Slovenians talking about blacksmiths.
Many of these are English abstracts for foreign language articles. If you work in the humanities, or scholarly publishing, you will know that few abstracts are translated by the authors themselves.
Another thing is... many of them are clearly using the term in the popular rather than the technical sense. You've only really demonstrated that with internet search tools, you can find examples of everything -- including scholars using the word jargon in its ordinary sense, to indicate external incomprehensibility, rather than its linguistics sense.
Most importantly, though, you yourself say "none" of the examples cited "are pejorative." But clearly several are used in that sense, if you read carefully. The word jargon is used, in your cited snippets, in the same sentence as words like nonsense, babble, incomprehensible to others, underworld language, free of jargon, freed itself from jargon, and the like. There are even examples where the word itself is questioned. There are even examples that support what I am saying (North Sea Traders' Jargon...) So it's a rather hasty list, not what would convince a scholar.
So I have to say, overall, I'm impressed but not persuaded by your barrage of links. But maybe you were only trying to convince another reader, I don't know.
I cited the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a respected academic authority, on the actual definition of "jargon" in the very field of linguistics. I myself work in a field related to linguistics.
If you think humanities scholars (some above are from developing countries and foreign-language journals, but even native English speakers can be included) always write impeccable English, maybe you will think googling for tidbits is a useful enterprise.
But I think, if you mean that your original sense of jargon (a specialized lexicon) is growing more popular, you are right.
Last edited by konungursvia; 19-Nov-2009 at 12:06.
And here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica reference for the actual term, in the actual field of linguistics:
in colonial history, an unstable rudimentary hybrid language used as a means of communication between persons having no other language in common. Although the term was long synonymous with pidgin—as can be seen by the use of jargon in the names of such pidgins as Chinook Jargon and Mobilian Jargon—in the 1980s some linguists began restricting its use to denote pre-pidgins, or early developmental forms of pidgins.
Nonlinguists more commonly define jargon as the technical or specialized parlance of a specific social or occupational group such as physicians or lawyers. Jargon has also historically been defined as gibberish or as an outlandish, unintelligible, barbarous, debased language; in this meaning it is similar to patois and carries negative connotations. When the term jargon was originally applied to pidgins, it no doubt reflected the negative attitudes toward pidgins held by fluent speakers of the languages from which the pidgins derived most of their vocabularies. Indeed, jargons and pidgins were often characterized as “broken” languages, suggesting that they lack grammar, in contrast to full-fledged languages that function as the vernaculars of particular communities. Technically, jargons and pidgins have no native speakers and are used only as lingua francas, although expanded pidgins may be used as vernaculars.
Anyhow, you're right, we should leave well enough alone.