Bridging the Language Gap: Exploring the Divide Between Scientific Discourse and Everyday Language through Word-Cards

1. Introduction

In the contemporary landscape of science communication, language does not merely serve as a neutral conduit for data transmission: it functions as a sophisticated mechanism of power [1]. For the lay public, the chemical and physical lexicon often manifests as a form of “narrative technocracy”: a discourse that appears inevitable, objective, and incontestable, precisely because it is shielded by layers of highly specialized meanings [2]. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the “black boxing” of scientific facts, where the complexity of the process is hidden behind a polished, authoritative terminology that discourages external questioning [3].

This technocracy emerges when scientific language, due to its inherent precision and perceived authority, is deployed in public discourse. It implicitly establishes a sense of unquestionable expertise, which can effectively marginalize democratic participation and public contestation [4]. As highlighted in the scholarship regarding the “boundary work” of science, technical terms such as “Resonance” or “Plasma” act as devices that stabilize knowledge within expert communities while simultaneously marginalizing those who do not possess the semiotic keys to the code. This is not necessarily a deliberate act of exclusion, but rather an emergent property of specialized communication [5]. The linguistic demarcation between “expert” and “layman” thus becomes a social barrier, where the scientist assumes the role of an epistemic gatekeeper who defines the boundaries of legitimate knowledge [1,5].

This dynamic creates a profound “semantic friction”: while the expert operates within a framework of formal rigor, the public interprets these same lexical entries through sensory, emotional, or cultural metaphors. This “semantic realignment” – a process where terms shift their core meaning upon adoption into a scientific register, rather than a deliberate “sequestration” – is not a mere misunderstanding but a political boundary [2]. It leads to two critical scenarios that underpin narrative technocracy: “Semantic False Friends” and False Comprehension. Many terms from everyday language are adopted by science but endowed with a radically precise and distinct meaning. When these terms (e.g., “Chaos,” “Affinity”) are used in public discourse, the non-expert, naturally reverting to their colloquial understanding, experiences a false comprehension. They believe they grasp the scientific concept, but are in fact applying a nuanced, and often incorrect, interpretation. This illusion of understanding can paradoxically strengthen the technocratic narrative, as the public perceives the scientific rationale as inherently sensible and beyond questioning, having supposedly “understood” it.

Conversely, many purely technical terms have no direct equivalent in everyday language. In these instances, the public is entirely excluded from direct comprehension, lacking any linguistic reference point. This forces an unconditional reliance on the expert, as decoding such language becomes an impossible task for the layperson.

While not generating false comprehension, this exclusion creates an impenetrable barrier, fostering passive acceptance rather than active engagement.

Both scenarios contribute to how the expert “owns” the authoritative definition, while the citizen is relegated to the periphery of the conversation, often excluded from debating scientific decisions that are framed as ontological certainties rather than socially embedded choices [6].

This paper investigates how this gap can be mediated with “Word-Cards”---visual lexical entries designed for LinkedIn. By analyzing eight pivotal terms---including Affinity, Chaos, Complex, and Law---we explore how visual mediation can transform technical discourse from a barrier of authority into a platform for informed public engagement [7]. These cards function as “Boundary Objects”, allowing different communities to inhabit a shared space of meaning without sacrificing their specific interpretive needs [8]. Through this approach, we aim to expose the gatekeeping mechanisms that regulate the interface between science and society, fostering a more symmetrical and democratic dialogue. Since the original Word-Cards were designed and disseminated in Italian, all visual materials presented in this study are accompanied by English translations. These translations aim to preserve the semantic nuances and the specific ‘technocratic’ weight of the original terms, ensuring that the friction between colloquial and scientific registers remains perceptible to an international audience. It is crucial to acknowledge that every language possesses its own ‘semantic false friends’---terms that inhabit both scientific and everyday lexicons but carry radically divergent epistemic weights. For instance, while this study focuses on Italian artifacts, the same logic applies to English terminology. A prime example is the word ‘Matter’: in a chemical-physical context, it denotes the fundamental substance of the universe; in colloquial English, however, it shifts toward the domain of concern or conflict (e.g., ‘What is the matter?’). This dualism further illustrates how narrative technocracy exploits the inherent ambiguity of these “semantic false friends”, transforming shared linguistic tools into specialized barriers. By presenting the Italian cards with English translations, the author does not merely translate words but rather highlights a universal cross-linguistic phenomenon: the tension between the ‘lived’ word and the ‘measured’ term.”

The choice of the “card” format is rooted in the concept of platform affordance [9]. Unlike a traditional scientific abstract or a long-form article, the Word-Card utilizes visual hierarchy and brevity to disrupt the linear, authoritative flow of the technocratic narrative. By isolating a single term and placing it within a high-contrast visual frame, the card forces a “cognitive pause.” This visual mediation acts as a semiotic intervention: it strips the technical term of its protective textual density, making the “semantic friction” visible and accessible. The affordance of the image-text hybrid thus transforms a complex linguistic barrier into a modular, shareable object of reflection.

2. Materials and Methods

To investigate the dynamics of narrative technocracy, this study employs a qualitative methodology based on the creation and dissemination of “Word-Cards” modular visual assets designed to deconstruct the semantic layers of scientific terminology. This approach is rooted in the theory of “Boundary Objects” [8], where the card serves as a flexible interface that allows experts and non-experts to negotiate shared meanings without compromising their respective epistemic backgrounds. The experiment of disseminating word-cards on social media, as Linkedin is ongoing and every week there are some new entries. In this work the first eight are discussed.

2.1. Design and Dissemination of the Word-Cards

A series of eight Word-Cards—specifically focusing on terms such as Affinity, Chaos, Law, and Resonance—were presented in this work to highlight the tension between colloquial usage and chemical-physical stabilization. In the following sections, they are presented without the original social media comments or engagement metrics (likes, shares) to avoid influencing the reader’s perception and to maintain a focus on the intrinsic semiotic tension of the design. The primary objective of the method is not merely the transmission of a definition, but the use of the card as a medium to expose the power dynamics of language. By visualizing the gap between the “lived experience” of a word and its “technical sequestration,” the Word-Cards allow the public to perceive the gatekeeping mechanisms inherent in scientific discourse [10]. This reflexive process transforms the audience from passive recipients of jargon into active participants in linguistic negotiation.

2.2. The Professional Ecosystem: LinkedIn as a Hybrid Space

The cards were disseminated on LinkedIn, chosen as a hybrid epistemic space [7]. This platform allows for “expert-to-expert” and “expert-to-public” communication to overlap. LinkedIn provides a unique sociotechnical environment for this study, distinct from other social networks. It operates as a hybrid epistemic space where “expert-to-expert” and “expert-to-public” communications overlap [10]. Within this professional ecosystem, the Word-Cards do not merely reach a passive audience; they engage a “plateau of peers” who often possess their own specialized lexicons. This allows for a unique form of horizontal validation and debate. By disseminating the cards here, the study captures how narrative technocracy is negotiated among professionals who are simultaneously “insiders” in their own fields but “laypersons” regarding the specific chemical-physical nuances being deconstructed.

3. Results and Discussion

The core of this investigation lies in the qualitative analysis of eight ‘Word-Cards’ designed to expose the mechanisms of narrative technocracy. Each card functions as a semiotic intervention, aimed at disrupting the authoritative ‘black box’ of specialized terminology by visualizing the ‘semantic friction’ between colloquial narratives and scientific stabilization. These entries—ranging from ‘Chaos’ to ‘Affinity’—do not merely provide definitions; they act as ‘reclaiming tools’ that acknowledge the public’s sensory experience while simultaneously explaining the expert’s framework. By placing these domains side-by-side, the cards transform technical jargon into a shared platform for engagement. Following this conceptual framework, the eight Word-Cards are presented below as raw data, providing a foundational overview for the subsequent detailed discussion on linguistic sequestration and power dynamics.

In everyday language, “Law” primarily denotes an imposed order—a codified set of norms, rules, and regulations designed to govern civil life, defining boundaries of permissible behavior. It is perceived as a human construct, sometimes binding, sometimes the indispensable foundation of coexistence. This concept highlights law as a product of human deliberation, contingent and perfectible.However, in science, particularly chemistry and natural sciences, the essence of “Law” fundamentally transforms. Here, a law is not decreed; it is discovered. It emerges from rigorous and repeated observation of reality. Scientific laws do not prescribe behaviors but describe them; they do not impose but unveil. For instance, laws governing gases or the conservation of mass are not obligations that matter must respect, but necessary manifestations of its inherent being. They reflect an intrinsic, human-independent order that scientific inquiry seeks to understand. This dimension portrays law as an expression of universal, immutable harmony. Thus, the same word encapsulates a dual soul: law as a fallible human elaboration, and law as an immutable universal expression. The human dimension is further underscored by mechanisms like referendums, through which a community can modify or revoke a law, demonstrating that human laws are not eternal but dynamic, adapting to time and collective consciousness. Finally, the Italian language introduces an elegant linguistic play: “LEGGE” is also the third-person conjugation of the verb “leggere” (to read). This suggests that law not only regulates or describes but also “reads” the world—interpreting its signs, collecting its phenomena, and translating them into order and understanding. This linguistic connection proposes a poetic insight: comprehending the laws of nature fundamentally means learning to read reality itself. Ultimately, the term “Law” is fascinating in its semantic breadth, suspended between what humanity institutes, what it discovers inherently within the universe, and what it gradually learns to read and comprehend.

This card explores the multifaceted term “Resonance,” tracing its evolution from a metaphorical concept in language and literature to precise scientific and medical applications, ultimately revealing a shared underlying principle of spread, distribution, and harmonious interaction.

In common language and literature, resonance evokes the idea of an echo that propagates and amplifies. This imagery has inspired countless works, from Ovid’s depiction of Echo’s voice to the subtle vibrations in Pascoli’s poetry, where sound becomes memory and reverberation. Rhetorical figures like assonance or alliteration embody this phenomenon, creating a persistent sonic effect capable of eliciting emotion. Here, resonance functions as a metaphor for lingering impact and emotional depth.

In chemistry, resonance reveals a profound and subtle beauty. A molecule, such as benzene, cannot be adequately described by a single Lewis structure; instead, it is represented as a resonance hybrid. In this hybrid, electrons are not confined between two nuclei but are delocalized over multiple atoms. This delocalization lowers the molecule’s energy and significantly increases its stability. The benzene ring, for example, displays an extraordinary symmetry and harmony, with electrons uniformly fluctuating rather than adhering to rigid single and double bonds. Here, resonance describes an enhanced stability achieved through electron distribution beyond localized bonds.

In medicine, resonance takes a rigorously physical form. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), the basis for MRI, exploits the principle that atomic nuclei with spin, when placed in an external magnetic field, can absorb energy at specific frequencies—their resonance frequency. When these nuclei release the absorbed energy, they generate a measurable signal. This signal allows for the reconstruction of high-resolution images of bodily tissues, such as the brain. In this context, resonance is neither metaphor nor echo but a precise quantum interaction between matter and a magnetic field, translating microscopic properties into macroscopic diagnostic information.

Thus, across language, science, and medicine, resonance changes its manifestation but retains its essence. In every domain, it implies transcendence of a single point of origin, diffusion beyond a confined location, and a harmonious distribution—whether of sound, electrons, or atomic nuclei. This inherent characteristic underlines the term’s power to describe phenomena ranging from poetic reverberation to fundamental physical interactions.

3.1. Comparative Lexical Analysis

Table 1 summarizes the findings for the first terms analyzed in this study. It highlights the friction between the colloquial narrative—often rooted in sensory or emotional experience—and the chemical stabilization used by experts to secure technical authority.

3.2. Reclaiming Meaning: Analysis of the Lexical Entries

The selected terms—Chaos, Complex, Radical, Law, Resonance, Plasma, Suspension, and Affinity—demonstrate a recurring pattern of “semantic sequestration,” where the scientific domain narrows common words into precise, measurable variables. However, the Word-Cards disrupt this process by integrating literary registers that validate the “lived” meaning of the terms.

• Chaos and Complex: As illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, these terms shift from subjective experiences of disorder to objective system properties. The technocratic narrative traditionally uses mathematical complexity to move the burden of understanding solely to the expert. The Word-Cards counter this by evoking Hesiod’s Theogony for “Chaos” and the image of a musical band for “Complex,” reminding the reader that disorder and intricacy have always been sources of creative emergence and social harmony, not just technical hurdles.
• Radical and Law: Figure 3 and Figure 4 highlight the shift from political/social spheres to empirical ones. While a scientific “Law” is often presented as an ontological inevitability, the card introduces a poetic linguistic play: in Italian, “Legge” also means “he/she reads”. This literary shift transforms the scientist from a legislative authority into an interpreter of reality, making the “Law” a dialogue with nature rather than an indisputable decree.
• Resonance and Plasma: These entries (Figure 5 and Figure 6) showcase the displacement of sensory metaphors. The “Resonance” card bridges the gap between electron delocalization and Ovid’s myth of Echo, or the vibrations in Pascoli’s poetry. By referencing the “memory and reverberation” of verse, the card validates the emotional resonance felt by the public, preventing the abstract quantum model from entirely erasing the human experience.
• Suspension and Affinity: In Figure 7, the temporal uncertainty of “being in suspense” is reclaimed through Italo Calvino’s concept of “Lightness”. This literary lens transforms a physical state of matter into a liminal space of potentiality. Similarly, the “Affinity” card (Figure 8) references Goethe’s Elective Affinities to reconnect thermodynamic tendency with human attraction. This prevents the “de-humanization” of the term, showing that even in its chemical stabilization, an “echo” of human inclination remains.

3.3. Deconstructing Narrative Technocracy Through Visual Media

The LinkedIn “Word-Card” format functions as a “Boundary Object”. By presenting colloquial, literary, and scientific definitions side-by-side, the cards strip away the “inevitability” of technical language. The use of emoticons and high-contrast visuals disrupts the linear, authoritative flow of the technocratic narrative, forcing a “cognitive pause”.

The analysis reveals that Narrative Technocracy is maintained by the unspoken nature of semantic gaps. When the cards acknowledge that “Resonance” or “Radical” possess vibrant lives in poetry and politics, the epistemic hierarchy is flattened. Visual mediation allows the non-expert to “see” the gatekeeping mechanism, fostering a symmetrical dialogue where the expert’s “measured term” and the citizen’s “lived word” coexist.

3.4. Discussion: From Sequestration to Engagement

The results indicate that the “Technocratic Effect” functions by reifying language, shifting words from the domain of human experience to measurable variables (e.g., Affinity as Gibbs free energy). This redefinition effectively “sequestrates” the term from public deliberation.

However, the Word-Card format acts as a reclaiming tool by making this sequestration visible. By presenting both meanings simultaneously, the card does not merely “correct” the public; it validates the colloquial and literary understanding as a legitimate framework. This dual-visibility is essential for breaking the technocratic narrative, moving science communication from a “Deficit Model” , where the public is seen as lacking knowledge, to a “Contextual Model”. In this new framework, scientific precision and literary evocativeness are acknowledged as two halves of a broader social-scientific negotiation.

4. Conclusion

The “Word-Card” project moves beyond the traditional boundaries of science popularization to address the structural power dynamics inherent in technical discourse. Our findings suggest that narrative technocracy is not an inevitable byproduct of scientific complexity, but rather a linguistic boundary that is continuously constructed and maintained through the sequestration of everyday terms. By stabilizing words like Affinity, Law, or Resonance into rigid chemical-physical definitions, the expert community unintentionally—but effectively—marginalizes the public’s lived experience, creating an epistemic “black box” that discourages democratic deliberation.

The methodology of visual mediation introduced here offers a potential path toward a more symmetrical science communication. By presenting the Word-Cards as isolated artifacts stripped of social media engagement to preserve analytical neutrality, this study highlights the intrinsic power of the image-text hybrid to disrupt technocratic authority. The “card” does not merely simplify; it exposes the friction. It allows the non-expert to navigate the semantic gap, recognizing the expert’s definition while simultaneously validating their own colloquial understanding. This process transforms the audience from passive recipients of jargon into active participants in a shared linguistic negotiation.

Furthermore, the choice of LinkedIn as a hybrid professional space proves that these discussions can, and should, occur within the heart of expert communities. The “plateau of peers” on such platforms represents a unique opportunity to foster a more reflexive scientific culture, where experts are encouraged to recognize the “narrative” nature of their own technical descriptions.

In conclusion, breaking the technocratic narrative requires more than just transparency; it requires the reclamation of language. Future research and practice should explore how these visual-lexical interventions can be scaled to other domains of public policy and scientific risk management. By making the mechanisms of gatekeeping visible, we can transition from a “deficit model” of communication to a truly participatory framework, ensuring that science remains a shared human endeavor rather than a secluded technocratic domain.

Ultimately, this study serves as an invitation for experts across all disciplines to test this methodology within their own native languages. While English remains the indisputable lingua franca of global scientific research, the practice of public engagement and ‘divulgazione’ is inherently a local endeavor, rooted in the specific linguistic and cultural fabrics of diverse countries. Each language carries its own unique set of semantic ‘false friends’ and historical nuances that shape how the public perceives authority and expertise. By deconstructing narrative technocracy in one’s own tongue, the communicator does not merely translate data; they perform an act of cultural mediation. Encouraging scientists to become reflexive ‘linguistic architects’ in their local contexts is essential for transforming science from a global, distant monolith into a shared, democratic conversation that respects and inhabits the everyday language of citizens.