Using A Vernacular Language To Present Unfamiliar Lexicons In Mining And Reclamation

There are different contexts to describe man-made and natural elements in mining and its<br>associated landforms. All of them are important in perceiving the process of surface mining and in<br>making land-use decisions. The study of mining and reclamation must bridge the chasm between<br>science and art; one way is to use a common language. Too often, one discipline undervalues the other’s<br>expertise. Scientists, designers, and citizens can be aware of a wider mutual understanding in their<br>different perspectives of mining and landscape through the use of a vernacular language (i.e. the<br>normal/common spoken form) rather than filling sentences with their unique subject vocabulary<br>(lexicon). The public, governmental agencies, and industry can then more effectively communicate with<br>one another.<br>In sharing data and presenting site information at public meetings, it behooves industry and<br>consultants to speak with citizens and each other in easily understood forms or to explain specialized<br>expressions indigenous to a particular field. We speak of and view mining from four fundamentally<br>different disciplines:<br>1) Architectural—spoken by the “designer” (including land planner or landscape architect)<br>2) Natural context—the “science speak” of the geologist, hydrologist, or engineer<br>3) Social—regulated by health, safety, or transportation departments<br>4) Cultural—relating to aesthetics and customary beliefs<br>The author presents a spreadsheet of the four perspectives and includes citizen reaction to<br>permitting through newspaper articles. Regulatory consideration is taken from a State and Federal law<br>standpoint. People are more willing to accept the presence of mining if they understand the science and<br>if the industry is responsive to aesthetic and sociocultural factors.