Terminology, ideology and discourse

Terms have traditionally been considered as the linguistic representation of concepts, which are produced by a community of experts through a conscious human activity and are used for the development of cognitive processes and communication (Sager 1997, 25). Since term formation is a conscious naming activity, “terms are also the reflection of how knowledge is structured in the expert’s mind” (Fernández-Silva, Freixa, and Cabré 2011, 49). The last two decades have witnessed a burgeoning interest in the dynamics of terminology from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective (see, for instance, Temmerman and Van Campenhoudt 2014). The ensuing literature shows that the multidimensionality and variation characterizing terminology derive from the complexity of the specialized domains and the multiple variables that interplay in specialized communication. One of these variables is the motivation underlying term choice: the sender of the message may have various reasons for choosing one variant over another, such as the need or wish to highlight a particular vision, dimension or facet of the concept and emphasize “the most salient aspects of the concept in a specific situation” (Fernández-Silva, Freixa, and Cabré 2011, 70). It follows that the sender may also choose one particular term to support their argumentation, to influence the reception or interpretation of the concept by the addressees or to manipulate their understanding. This means that the specialized language used, which is generally considered referential, neutral, objective, non-emotive and essentially informative, may acquire persuasive or even ideological overtones. The purpose of this special issue is to investigate whether and how terminology in discourse can be used as a carrier of persuasive, consensus-generating or ideological meaning (see, for instance, Mattiello 2019; Nikitina 2020). The special issue also aims at attracting novel research taking into account not only communication at the “intraspecialist level”, i.e. “communication from specialist to specialist within the same disciplinary field” (Garzone 2020, 20, drawing on Cloître and Shinn 1985), but also communication at the interspecialist level, didactic/pedagogical level, and popular level (Garzone 2020, 20).