Abstract

Background:Readability is a cornerstone of effective professional communication. However, a central tension exists in abstracts: while knowledge dissemination demands clarity, the promotional goal of securing impact may paradoxically incentivize authors to compromise readability by using linguistic complexity to signal competence.Literature review:Foundational critiques and global diachronic studies have documented a widespread decline in abstract readability, often interpreting it as “professional obfuscation.” Yet, it remains unclear how this professional practice manifests in foreign linguistics journals in China, a field uniquely positioned between international paradigms and a domestic community.Research questions:1. How has the readability of abstracts in top foreign linguistics journals in China changed over time from 2004 to 2023? 2. How do their readability features compare with those observed in philosophy and information science? 3. Are there any variations in abstract readability across different top foreign linguistics journals in China?Methodology:A corpus of 14,088 abstracts from eight top foreign linguistics journals in China and journals from two comparison disciplines (philosophy and information science) was quantitatively analyzed using a multidimensional framework assessing five indicators: lexical richness, syntactic richness, semantic richness, semantic accuracy, and semantic clarity.Results and discussion:The findings reveal three key patterns. First, a significant diachronic decline in overall readability was observed: lexical and semantic richness increased, while semantic accuracy and clarity decreased. Syntactic richness exhibited a more complex two-phase pattern, declining until 2018, before rising again. Second, cross-disciplinarily, linguistics abstracts have evolved to mirror the low semantic accuracy of information science and the diminished clarity of philosophy. Third, substantial variations were found across individual journals, reflecting differing topical specializations and editorial practices. These trends are collectively interpreted as evidence of a shift toward professional obfuscation, likely driven by institutional pressures.Conclusion:Our findings reveal that the trend toward professional obfuscation has not only persisted but, in some respects, intensified, confirming in a specific local context what remains a pressing global challenge. To counter this, we recommend that stakeholders implement concrete editorial policies, such as integrating readability metrics into peer review, requiring plain language summaries, and promoting visual abstracts. They can equip technical and professional communication (TPC) practitioners with a multidimensional framework to effectively diagnose and counteract this textual complexity. These actionable steps are critical for academia to champion readability over obfuscation in scholarly communication.