Discussion Details
| Title: | Is Linguistic Terminology Always Appropriate? |
| Submitter: | Jon Driver-Jowitt |
| Description: | As a neophyte in linguistics at the University of South Africa I have found
the terminology perplexing. I realize that many terms are borrowed from other disciplines, and have become entrenched, with implied meanings which might differ from the literal. However, should it not be linguistic science which is most concerned with, and leads, language and semantic accuracy? The “linguistic” usage of the following English terms (in bold or underscored) seem to differ from the literal, dictionary or logical use. A suggested alternative, designed to evoke discussion, is in red italics (inverted commas in plain text) Lateralisation. In the linguistic context it is intended to mean that one of the cerebral hemispheres becomes the predominant site of neurological control of a specific activity. For example right handedness is usually associated with left hemisphere dominance. It seems to refer to the process by which dominant control is assumed. The word is a misnomer in that the literal meaning is to make more lateral, and implies the antonymic concept of medialisation (which does not exist). A more appropriate term could be “asymmetrical cortical control”, which might be “contra laterally effective”. Top down seems intended to mean “whole-word recognition”. Could a better term be “en bloc”? Bottom up has nothing to do with bottom or up and seems intended to mean “by assemblage”. Expansion This word seems intended to mean a “correction” if one is considering the replacement of an ungrammatical chain by a conventional chain, in some circumstances, far from expanding the word it might be a contraction, such as in correcting “feets” to feet. A term that might be instead considered is “extension”. Extension seems inappropriate (because it might even be a reduction). For example children become reduced to the childs, when the plural rule is generalized. Over-generalization could simply be termed “generalization”. (The term “under-generalization” does not appear to exist). The term “function word” is also difficult for me. All words have a function, none more than others. Perhaps the best word has an analogy in music. Words that come to my mind are “directives” or “conductives” or “blenders”. Continuity referring to the possible extension of animal language into human use seems an inappropriate term. Animal language has not continued into humans; but instead has taken entirely new dimensions, perhaps by evolution. “Lineage theory” might be an appropriate term The term communicative competence is too loose to be of value. It seems to mean “context-refined communication”. Re-duplication. Why is this not simply “duplication?” Linearity. It seems to mean a “sequencing” of words. Behaviorism: Strictly speaking this word means the forming of an abstract of behaviour. Therefore it is an inappropriate word for the concept of the effects of conditioning. Suggested is “Behavioristic” (pertaining to behavior), Protowords. This implies that the utterance is a forerunning of a “word”. In reality this word-symbol becomes obsolete and is discarded, never developing into a word. Would not “token word” be better? Holophrases also seems a misnomer. It is not a “complete” phrase. However, it will develop and extend into a phrasal string and therefore it can be considered a “protophrase”. (Protos = first). Reduction implies “omission”. (I realize that the “omission” is a convention used for another meaning). I am told that /pa/ involves reduction of the unstressed second syllable. Since the unstressed second syllable is never pronounced, it can’t be reduced, it must be omitted. Object permanence is confusing to me. The very inverse is the case because the object is not permanent or said in another way, what is permanent is not the object. How about “virtual substantiality”? String (of words). The analogy (I assume) is from “string of beads, fish etc”. The word used does not reflect the analogy. Perhaps “word-chain” would be better. The extraordinary terms used in Language Theory are hard to credit. Bow-wow theory could be called “onomatopoeia”. The pooh-pooh theory could be called “reflexive” and the yo-ho theory could be called the “spontaneous”. Is there any evidence that the yo-ho theory is any different from the pooh-pooh theory? |
| Date Posted: | 23-Apr-2007 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
General Linguistics
Semantics |
| Language Specialty: | None |
| LL Issue: | 18.1234 |
| Posted: | 23-Apr-2007 |
