Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 27:2 (2021) ► pp.322–343

How can one explain “deviant” linguistic functioning in terminology?

ORCID logo | Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie (CLLE) | CNRS | University of Toulouse 2 Jean Jaurès
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.
Keywords: cognitive approach, deviancy, discourse community, emotion, experience, specialised discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic deviancy in specialised contexts
    • 2.1Major studies on deviancies in LSPs
    • 2.2Sociolinguistic aspects of deviancies in LSPs
    • 2.3The role and implications of jargon
  • 3.Corpus studies of lexical deviances in specialised languages
    • 3.1Deviances explained by linguistic factors
      • 3.1.1Linguistic prolixity
      • 3.1.2Linguistic economy
      • 3.1.3The case of nominalizations
  • 4.Deviancies related to cognitive factors
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20029.con
References (40)
References
Andersen, Øivin. 2007. “Indeterminacy, Context, Economy and Ill-formedness in Specialist Communication.” In Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP. Studies in honour of Heribert Picht, ed. by Bassey E. Antia, 3–14. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antia, Bassey E. 2000. Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of Practice and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banks, David. 1999. “Aspects of the Development of Grammatical Metaphor in Scientific Writing.” Cahiers de l’APLIUT 19/11: 5–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Klaus. D. 2007. “A Communicative-cognitive Approach to Emotion in LSP communication.” In Evidence-based LSP, ed. by Kurshid Ahmad and Margaret Rogers, 323–344. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brannen, Mary, and Yves L. Doz. 2012. “Corporate Languages and Strategic Agility: Trapped in your Jargon or Lost in translation.” California Management Review 54/31: 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré, Maria Teresa. 1999. Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications, John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2018. “Patterns of Direct Tranzitivation and Differences between British and American English.” In Changing Structures, Studies in Constructions and Complementation, ed. by Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund, and Paul Rickman, 151–167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne. 1995. “Terminology: New needs, new Perspectives.” Terminology 2/21: 219–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Quand la passion autorise la transitivation d’un circonstanciel de lieu.” Journal of French Language Studies 23 (3): 335–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “How Can Linguistics Help To Structure A Multidisciplinary Neo-Domain Such As Exobiology?” BIO Web of Conferences Volume 21, 06001. [URL]. DOI logo
. 2017. “The Emotional Dimension in Terminological Variation: the Example of Transitivization of the Locative Complement in Fishing.” In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francoeur, John Humbley, and Aurélie Picton, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne and Picton, Aurélie. 2014. “Des communiqués de presse du Cnes à la presse généraliste. Vers un observatoire de la diffusion des termes.” In La néologie en langue de spécialité : détection, implantation et circulation des nouveaux termes, ed. by Pascaline Dury, José Carlos de Hoyos, Julie Makri-Morel, François Maniez, Vincent Renner, and María Belén Villar Díaz. 141–161. Lyon: CRTT.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vecchi, Dardo. 1999. La terminologie en entreprise : formes d’une singularité lexicale. Thèse de l’Université Paris 131.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. Van. 2011. “Specialized Discourse and Knowledge: A Case Study of the Discourse of Modern Genetics.” Cadernos De Estudos Lingüísticos 441: 21–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela. 2012. “Introduction”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber. 1–6. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. “Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.” In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 1999. The Language of Thieves and Vagabonds. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stephan. 2015. “The Role of Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics.” In Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and linguistics, ed. by Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens, 311–325. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. The Language of Science. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1972. “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” In Directions in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John Gumperz, and Dell Hymes 35–71. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Alan. 1997. “Using Word Frequency Lists to Measure Corpus Homogeneity and Similarity between Corpora”. In Proceedings of ACL-SIGDAT Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Beijing and Hong Kong, 231–245.Google Scholar
Kocourek, Rostislav. 1991. La 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
Lehrberger, John. 1986. “Sublanguage Analysis”. In Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains, ed. by Ralph, Grishman R., and Richard Kittredge, 19–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacIver, Robert Morrison. 1917/1970. Community, a Sociological Study. London: Frank Cass and Co. 4th edn.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Isabelle. 2005. “La métaphore terminologique sous un angle cognitif.” Meta, 50/41, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Jennifer. 1998. Terms in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastier, François. 1995. “Le terme : Entre ontologie et Linguistique.” La Banque des Mots 71, Numéro spécial. 35–64.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 1977. The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language. London/New York: Routledge (first edition, Edition du Seuil, La métaphore vive, 1975).Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul, and Garside, Roger. 2000. “Comparing Corpora using Frequency Profiling.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora 91, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in TerminologyProcessing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 2016. “Reflections on the Concept of Discourse Community.” ASp, La Revue du GERAS 691, 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vicentini, Alessandra. 2003. “The Economy Principle in Language”. Mots, Words, Palabras 31, 37–57.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge (Mass.): Addison-Wellesley Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Condamines, Anne
2023. Présentation. Éla. Études de linguistique appliquée N° 208:4 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yujing & Xiangqing Wei
2023. From “three doors” to “one revolving door”. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 29:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Kunch, Zoriana Y.
2022. THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF STUDYING TERM VOCABULARY WITH STUDENTS OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology 1:23 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.