Article published In: Terminology
Vol. 27:2 (2021) ► pp.322–343
How can one explain “deviant” linguistic functioning in terminology?
Published online: 22 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20029.con
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20029.con
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.
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
- 3.1Deviances explained by linguistic factors
- 4.Deviancies related to cognitive factors
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (40)
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.
Antia, Bassey E. 2000. Terminology and Language Planning: An
Alternative Framework of Practice and
Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Banks, David. 1999. “Aspects
of the Development of Grammatical Metaphor in Scientific Writing.” Cahiers de
l’APLIUT 19/11: 5–25.
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.
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.
Cabré, Maria Teresa. 1999. Terminology: Theory, Methods and
Applications, John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
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.
Condamines, Anne. 1995. “Terminology:
New needs, new
Perspectives.” Terminology 2/21: 219–238.
. 2013. “Quand
la passion autorise la transitivation d’un circonstanciel de lieu.” Journal of French Language
Studies 23 (3): 335–356.
. 2014. “How
Can Linguistics Help To Structure A Multidisciplinary Neo-Domain Such As Exobiology?” BIO Web
of
Conferences Volume 21, 06001. [URL].
. 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.
. 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
Studies 5/21: 208–229.
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.
De Vecchi, Dardo. 1999. La
terminologie en entreprise : formes d’une singularité lexicale. Thèse de l’Université Paris 131.
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.
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.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. “Pragmatically Controlled Zero
Anaphora.” In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 95–107.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MacIver, Robert Morrison. 1917/1970. Community, a Sociological
Study. London: Frank Cass and Co. 4th edn.
Martinet, André. 1955. Economie
des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie
diachronique. Bern: Francke.
Pearson, Jennifer. 1998. Terms
in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rastier, François. 1995. “Le
terme : Entre ontologie et Linguistique.” La Banque des
Mots 71, Numéro
spécial. 35–64.
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).
Rayson, Paul, and Garside, Roger. 2000. “Comparing
Corpora using Frequency Profiling.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on
Comparing Corpora 91, 1–6.
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in
TerminologyProcessing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.
