WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE Consequences of Linguistic Uncertainty for Insect Management THERESA M. CIRA, KATHY QUICK, AND ROBERT C. VENETTE JA'CRISPY/ISTOCK 258 AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST | WINTER 2019 his is a call to entomologists to consider the un- certainty introduced into our works through the language we use. Albert Einstein remarked, “Every- thing depends on the degree to which words and word-combinations correspond to the world of im- Tpression,” which makes language a “dangerous source of error and deception” (Hawking 2007). Scientists usually research and deliberately choose the language they use to propose new concepts or terminology. Often, however, terms slip into the lexicon through less systematic means. Words may seem to have meanings so obvious that broad understanding of the term may be taken for granted, but individual contexts are diverse, and to assume that a word’s meaning is unchanging across time and space is to overlook the uncertainties of lan- guage. Thus, communication through even the most common entomological vocabulary can fail. Language is a mutable, un- certain, and imperfect way of representing the world. Because language is integral to science and yet inherently imprecise, it is important for scientists to recognize and address uncertain- ty in the language of our works. Uncertainty, as defined by the Society a phenomenon is repeatedly observed and for Risk Analysis (2015), is “not knowing the individuals agree that measurements con- true value of a quantity or the future con- verge, to some degree, on a specific point, sequences of an activity,” or “imperfect or more certainty about the true nature of the incomplete information/knowledge about phenomenon can be asserted. However, a hypothesis, a quantity, or the occurrence that agreement assumes a common use of of an event.” This state of not knowing language to describe phenomena. arises from a lack of knowledge, inherent Language is a “system for describing THERESA M. CIRA, variability in systems, and/or inconsisten- perceptions” (Zadeh 2004); however, lan- KATHY QUICK, AND cies introduced by language (i.e., epistemic guage is dynamic and in a constant state of ROBERT C. VENETTE uncertainty, aleatory uncertainty, and lin- change. In 2000, there were approximately guistic uncertainty, respectively; Hoffman 1,022,000 words in the English lexicon, and Hammonds 1994, Regan et al. 2002, nearly double the 544,000 words in 1900 Society for Risk Analysis 2015). All types (Michel et al. 2011). Not only do new words of uncertainty can impede effective deci- arise and unused words fall away, but one sion-making (Carey and Burgman 2008, word may have many meanings (polysemy), Milner-Gulland and Shea 2017). Certainty and the meanings of words change over about natural phenomena increases time (semantic change). Britton (1978) ana- through the convergence and agreement lyzed the 100 most frequently used English of perceptions among people and across words for polysemy and found, conserva- time (Eckhardt 1981), but will never be fully tively, that 32% of these words had more achieved (Popper 2012). The scientific pro- than one meaning, and the median number cess primarily addresses epistemological and of meanings for an ambiguous word was aleatory sources of uncertainty. The empiri- three. More than half (52%) of the English cal nature of the scientific process is, in part, lexicon was found to be completely undoc- what makes scientific knowledge useful. If umented in the Oxford English Dictionary, AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST | WINTER 2019 259 so-called “dark matter” (Michel et al. 2011). Table 1. The five types of linguistic uncertainty according to Regan et al. (2008), with entomologically Similar challenges affect communication in relevant examples. any language. Ambiguity When a word has more than The term “significant” has multiple Within the context of pest management, one meaning and the intended meanings (e.g., statistically the uncertainty of some terms has been meaning is not stated. significant, or subjectively perceived noted or examined. Horowitz et al. (2009) to be important), and often the introduce their book on biorational control intended meaning is not stated. of pests by noting the confusion caused by a Context dependency When the context a statement The sentence, “Syrphid flies are lack of a standardized definition of the term should be understood in is not predators” lacks context because it “biorational.” Eilenberg et al. (2001) found stated. does not specify which life stage (the that different disciplines that encompass larva) is predatory. biological control research use different Underspecificity When the necessary degree To say “the specimen was found terms, which has led to confusion among of specificity to understand a east of Minneapolis” is underspecific people such as extension agents and regula- statement is not stated. because it would not be possible tory officials. Crump et al. (1999) identified to determine exactly where the confusing terminology related to biological specimen was found. weed control and pointed out that the con- Indeterminacy of When the meaning of a term In the 16th century the term “pest” notations of certain words, such as “chemi- theoretical terms changes over time. arose from the term pestilence, or cal” and “synthetic,” could affect the public a fatal epidemic, specifically the bubonic plague, and “pest” referenced trust and, ultimately, the fate of one type the plague or a contagious disease. of control over another. They concluded Through semantic change, “pest” has that allowing terms to be defined individu- since come to mean noxious people ally in each paper, rather than insisting on or things (Onions et al. 1966). a common definition, complicates com- Vagueness When a sharp boundary cannot In the spectrum of visible light, it is munication and increases confusion, and be drawn around the meaning difficult to draw a sharp boundary that “Clear, meaningful terminology is one of a term. around the specific wavelengths that essential step in gaining public confidence.” constitute the color red. The occurrence and consequences of linguistic uncertainty in entomology have rarely been considered, meriting atten- Fig. 1. Relative frequency of use over time of the term “broad-spectrum insecticide” compared to other tion as potentially significant barriers to tri-grams (three-word phrases) in books scanned by Google. the development of concepts and effective communication within the discipline. Do ambiguous and indeterminate terms pro- vide flexibility, or do they increase confu- sion? Table 1, a summary of a taxonomy of linguistic uncertainty proposed by Regan et al. (2008), illustrates this point with ento- mologically relevant examples. We intend to illustrate how linguistic uncertainty may affect the strength, validity, reproducibility, and long-term stability of research. Our assertion that linguistic uncertainty is com- monplace and consequential is illustrated through an analysis of how insecticides have been described and categorized in ento- mological publications, particularly with respect to broad-spectrum insecticides. enables us to call an ant that has lost two Insecticides are categorized and legs an insect. This individually unique and described in a variety of ways. In some Case Study: Insecticide Categoriza- vast prior knowledge builds the matrix for cases, categories have been structured by tion and Broad-Spectrum Insecticides a person’s mental representation of a typi- governments, non-governmental certi- Categories can be shortcuts to convey cal member in a category, and guides where fying agencies, or research communities meaning without extensive description. they believe the delimiting bounds of the (Table 2). Regulating bodies can outline The concept of a specific category, such category should be (Taylor 1995). Individual the category or set of categories and/or as “insect,” is not independent from a per- understandings of a category are never certify which insecticides are in different son’s acquaintance with members of that identical, yet, in general, the overlap of indi- categories. In addition to formalized lists category. Although a dictionary definition vidually created meanings for a category is of categories, less-structured categories of “insect” indicates an animal that has six substantial enough to communicate with are commonly used to describe or classify legs, familiarity with insects and the world an adequate level of precision and accuracy. insecticides (e.g., “biorational,” “botanical,” 260 AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST | WINTER 2019 “soft,” “persistent”). These less-structured Table 2. Categories of insecticides defined or certified by an organization, with aspects of linguistic categorization schemes sometimes make uncertainty noted. sense and are useful. However, there is neither consensus about what these cate- Terms Regulating Characteristics on which gories mean nor a consistent set of guide- body* membership is based lines for placing different insecticides in Reduced risk US EPA Risk in comparison to alternatives (USEPA 2016) given categories. No categorization system captures the entire profile of an insecticide, Organic OMRI Physical components of insecticide (OMRI 2016) from its chemical makeup to its effects on various living organisms. Even so, assign- Insect physiological systems affected; mode of action Group, subgroup, classification informs the symptomology, speed of ing an insecticide to a category frames chemical class, active IRAC action, and other properties