Negotiating Techno-Scientific Definitions: A Conversational Analysis of Experts and Linguist-Terminologists in Space Science

Ma’moun  Alshtaiwi

doi:10.35516/hum.v51i2.3023

Authors

Ma’moun Alshtaiwi Department of Modern Languages, Faculty of Arts, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4458-7694

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v51i2.3023

Keywords:

Conversational Analysis, Corpus Linguistics, Techno-Scientific Definition, Decision-Making, Terminology, Language Policy, Popularization of Science

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to explore the negotiation process used by subject matter experts and linguist-terminologists to agree on the definition of specialized terms. Specifically, the study analyzes a conversation between members of the French General Commission on Terminology and Neology in Space Science and Technology (SST) and linguist-terminologists to understand how they coordinate to reach a common understanding of a chosen term and agree on its definition.

Methods: Based on an audio and video corpus, a theoretical framework was used in social linguistics specific to interactional linguistics (LI) and conversational analysis (CA) to clarify the decision-making method and agree on the proposed definition of the term studied through the corpus that was analyzed.

Results: Experts and linguists negotiate a perception of the concept through discourse and exchange to agree on the definition of the term presented for the study. Three regularities during the standardization activity were identified: proposing a new definition, modifying an existing definition (with a footnote, a reference...), and deleting an existing definition or an element.

Conclusions: Team coordination between subject matter experts, linguists, and terminologists is needed to introduce and modify definitions of specialized terms to promote their use and better support language policymaking development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adam, J.-M. (2001). Les textes : Types et prototypes (4th ed.). Nathan / HER.

Bruxelles, S., Greco, L., Mondada, L., & Traverso, V. (2009). La co-conception du point de vue de l'analyse interactionniste. In F. Détienne & V. Traverso (Eds.), Methodologies for the analysis of cooperative design situations: Corpus Mosaic (pp. 39-60). PUN.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

Goffman, E. (1973). La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne. Tome 2, Les relations en public. Minuit.

Laurent, F. (2005). Négociation langagière et prise de décision dans le travail collectif. Négociations, 1(3), 27-43.

Markaki, V., Merlino, S., Mondada, L., Oloff, F., & Traverso, V. (2022). Choix de langues et gestions dans la participation dans des réunions internationales. In L. Mondada & A. I. Davoine (Eds.), Interactions cosmopolites. L’organisation de la participation plurilingue (pp. 99-131). Editions Lambert-Lucas.

Mondada, L. (2022). Corpus en interaction : Participation, spatialité, mobilité. ENS Editions.

Mondada, L., & Meguerditchian, A. (2022). Sequence organization and embodied mutual orientations: Openings of social interactions between baboons. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377(1859), 20210101.

Nouveau Petit Robert de la langue française (Le). (2009). Dictionnaires Le Robert.

Roulet, E., et al. (1985). L'articulation du discours en français contemporain. Peter Lang.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics of the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.

Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge Press.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I and II). Edited by G. Jefferson with an introduction by E. A. Schegloff. Blackwell.