1887
image of How can one explain “deviant” linguistic functioning in terminology?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article looks at so-called “deviant” functioning in terminology. The notion of deviancy seems to be situated in relation to a “neutral” functioning of the language, which does not take any particular communication situation into account. The article aims to show that this supposed deviancy has to be related to the communication situation itself, which, in the present case, implies specialised knowledge. Rather than just being deviancies, it is argued that these linguistic formulations are a tangible manifestation of the specificity of the communication situation. Three types of explanation are put forward for their use: linguistic (linguistic prolixity and linguistic economy), sociolinguistic, and cognitive. Each type is exemplified by various studies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/term.20029.con
2021-02-22
2021-02-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersen, Øivin
    2007 “Indeterminacy, Context, Economy and Ill-formedness in Specialist Communication.” InIndeterminacy in Terminology and LSP. Studies in honour of Heribert Picht, ed. byBassey E. Antia, 3–14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tlrp.8.04and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.8.04and [Google Scholar]
  2. Antia, Bassey E.
    2000Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of Practice and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tlrp.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banks, David
    1999 “Aspects of the Development of Grammatical Metaphor in Scientific Writing.” Cahiers de l’APLIUT19/1: 5–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumann, Klaus. D.
    2007 “A Communicative-cognitive Approach to Emotion in LSP communication.” InEvidence-based LSP, ed. byKurshid Ahmad and Margaret Rogers, 323–344. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brannen, Mary, and Yves L. Doz
    2012 “Corporate Languages and Strategic Agility: Trapped in your Jargon or Lost in translation.” California Management Review54/3: 77–97. 10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77
    https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cabré, Maria Teresa
    1999Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications, John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 10.1075/tlrp.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Callies, Marcus
    2018 “Patterns of Direct Tranzitivation and Differences between British and American English.” InChanging Structures, Studies in Constructions and Complementation, ed. byMark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund, and Paul Rickman, 151–167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.195.09cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.195.09cal [Google Scholar]
  8. Condamines, Anne
    1995 “Terminology: New needs, new Perspectives.” Terminology2/2: 219–238. 10.1075/term.2.2.03con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.2.2.03con [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 “Quand la passion autorise la transitivation d’un circonstanciel de lieu.” Journal of French Language Studies23 (3): 335–356. 10.1017/S095926951300001X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926951300001X [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 “How Can Linguistics Help To Structure A Multidisciplinary Neo-Domain Such As Exobiology?” BIO Web of ConferencesVolume2, 06001. https://www.bioconferences.org/articles/bioconf/abs/2014/01/bioconf_epov2012_06001/bioconf_epov2012_06001.html. 10.1051/bioconf/20140206001
    https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20140206001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2017 “The Emotional Dimension in Terminological Variation: the Example of Transitivization of the Locative Complement in Fishing.” InMultiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. byPatrick Drouin, Aline Francoeur, John Humbley, and Aurélie Picton, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tlrp.18.01con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.18.01con [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “Is “to fish in a river” Equivalent to “to fish a river””? A Study at the Crossroads of Cognitive Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies5/2: 208–229. 10.1075/cogls.00019.con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00019.con [Google Scholar]
  13. Condamines, Anne and Picton, Aurélie
    2014 “Des communiqués de presse du Cnes à la presse généraliste. Vers un observatoire de la diffusion des termes.” InLa néologie en langue de spécialité : détection, implantation et circulation des nouveaux termes, ed. byPascaline Dury, José Carlos de Hoyos, Julie Makri-Morel, François Maniez, Vincent Renner, and María Belén Villar Díaz. 141–161. Lyon: CRTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, William
    2012Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Vecchi, Dardo
    1999La terminologie en entreprise : formes d’une singularité lexicale. Thèse de l’Université Paris13.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dijk, Teun A. Van
    2011 “Specialized Discourse and Knowledge: A Case Study of the Discourse of Modern Genetics.” Cadernos De Estudos Lingüísticos44: 21–56. 10.20396/cel.v44i0.8637063
    https://doi.org/10.20396/cel.v44i0.8637063 [Google Scholar]
  17. Faber, Pamela
    2012 “Introduction”. InA Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. byPamela Faber. 1–6. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110277203.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110277203.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1986 “Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.” InProceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gotti, Maurizio
    1999The Language of Thieves and Vagabonds. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110924404
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924404 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, Stephan
    2015 “The Role of Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics.” InChange of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and linguistics, ed. byJocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens, 311–325. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    2004The Language of Science. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hymes, Dell
    1972 “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” InDirections in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. byJohn Gumperz, and Dell Hymes35–71. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, Mark
    1987The Body in the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kilgarriff, Alan
    1997 “Using Word Frequency Lists to Measure Corpus Homogeneity and Similarity between Corpora”. InProceedings of ACL-SIGDAT Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Beijing and Hong Kong, 231–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kocourek, Rostislav
    1991La langue française de la technique et de la science. Vers une linguistique de la langue savante. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag and Co., 2e édition.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lehrberger, John
    1986 “Sublanguage Analysis”. InAnalyzing Language in Restricted Domains, ed. byRalph, Grishman R., and Richard Kittredge, 19–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MacIver, Robert Morrison
    1917/1970Community, a Sociological Study. London: Frank Cass and Co.4th edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Martinet, André
    1955Economie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Oliveira, Isabelle
    2005 “La métaphore terminologique sous un angle cognitif.” Meta, 50/4, doi:  10.7202/019923ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/019923ar [Google Scholar]
  31. Pearson, Jennifer
    1998Terms in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rastier, François
    1995 “Le terme : Entre ontologie et Linguistique.” La Banque des Mots7, Numéro spécial. 35–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ricoeur, Paul
    1977The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language. London/New York: Routledge (first edition, Edition du Seuil, La métaphore vive 1975).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rayson, Paul, and Garside, Roger
    2000 “Comparing Corpora using Frequency Profiling.” InProceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora9, 1–6. 10.3115/1117729.1117730
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1117729.1117730 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sager, Juan C.
    1990A Practical Course in TerminologyProcessing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.44 [Google Scholar]
  36. Shulman, Hillary C., Dixon, Graham N., Bullock, Olivia M., and Daniel C. Amil
    2020 “The Effects of Jargon on Processing Fluency, Self-Perceptions, and Scientific Engagement.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology. doi:  10.1177/0261927X20902177
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20902177 [Google Scholar]
  37. Swales, John M.
    2016 “Reflections on the Concept of Discourse Community.” ASp, La Revue du GERAS69, 7–19. 10.4000/asp.4774
    https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4774 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vendler, Zeno
    1967Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
    https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  39. Vicentini, Alessandra
    2003 “The Economy Principle in Language”. Mots, Words, Palabras3, 37–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zipf, George K.
    1949Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge (Mass.): Addison-Wellesley Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/term.20029.con
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/term.20029.con
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error