[_xnmw]

> Lexical homogenization is not the same as idea homogenization

Actually it IS evidence for idea homogenization. Words represent ideas. Unless you are claiming that the same word is used to represent different ideas, which would be even more confusing than having different words representing the same idea. Therefore fewer unique words => fewer unique ideas.

[riedel]

I would not call it a consequence of idea homogenisation but it might certainly lead to this. The basic scientific idea IMHO is compatibility of research. Which is important at least in a competitive and comparitive setting. If people call a measure like 'sensitivity' different in every adjunct field it does not help reviewers. If structural elements of a proposal are similar, it helps understanding quickly the key difference that remain. And this difference should be actually the actual idea, which is often the smallest part. We actually teach students to emulate style and do the same to write successful grant applications.This sure creates a bubble and in effect hinders outsiders to enter. That we see a gradual assimilation is IMHO rather an effect of available 'training material' and interdisciplinarity. Sure there are dangers that this might be an indicator for. However, do not misinterpret it in a way that it make a grant proposal more novel just because it uses totally different language...

[cornel_io]

When, for instance, a science is young, the same concept is often explained using many different terms. Over time canonical naming conventions emerge which standardize the settled parts of the field, leaving less settled future frontiers to be discussed productively with the aid of shorthand.

All named theorems do this in math, continually compressing the lexical space as a way of enabling further out ideas to be even expressed. Granted, math may be the except that proves the rule, but it is an important one.