Views on LSP M1 Langues appliquées 2008/9 Cours du 11 février 2009.

Présentation au sujet: "Views on LSP M1 Langues appliquées 2008/9 Cours du 11 février 2009."— Transcription de la présentation:

1 Views on LSP M1 Langues appliquées 2008/9 Cours du 11 février 2009

2 LSP as an artificial language LSPs are often considered to be somewhat artificial or man-made. It is possible to compare them with actual artificial languages –Find out what the similarities are –And what the differences are.

3 Characterisitics of artificial languages They are invented languages –Examples : the Beaufort scale –created in 1805 by Sir Francis Beaufort Chemical nomenclature –Guyton de Morveau ; Méthode de nomenclature chimique,1787

4 Characteristic 2 Artificial languages are based on and/or refer to natural languages the Beaufort scale can be transformed into words 3 gentle breeze 4 moderate breeze 5 fresh breeze 6 strong breeze chemical symbols refer to Latin NaCl – natrium + chloride

5 Characteristic 3 Artificial languages are preconceived as a system –The Beaufort scale is based on the concept of a gradation in wind strengths –Chemical nomenclature is based on a system of elements, their combinations and their molecular weight

6 Characteristic 4 New elements cannot be added –Beaufort scale : 1 – 12 –Chemical nomenclature : possible, but within rules

7 Characteristic 5 No ambiguity –No synonymy –No polysemy Beaufort : need for unambiguous communication between seafarers Chemical nomenclature : need for correctly motivated terminology

8 Characteristic 6 Severely reduced syntax –Beaufort : no combination –Chemical nomenclature : combinations limited Strictly limited number of signs/symbols –Beaufort : 1 - 12 Fixed in writing –Primarily written (or semaphored) symbols

9 Characteristic 7 Internationally used –Beaufort scale Primarily consists of numbers –Translated unambiguously into all languages 4 /moderate breeze/jolie brise/mäßige Brise –Chemical nomenclature NaCl : sodium chloride/chlorure de sodium/Natriumchlorid …

10 Characteristic 8 Artificial languages have no emotive or poetic functions

11 Jakobson’s functions of language Referential – focusing on context Emotive – focusing on addresser Conotive – focusing on addressee Phatic – focusing on the contact Metalingual – focusing on the code Poetic – focusing on the message

12 And what of LSPs? invented ? –The English or French used for scientific texts is contained within general English/French –Only partly invented for some terms created consciously

13 Based on natural language? –Rather part of natural language Preconceived as a system? –Only for highly ordered series (nomenclatures and taxonomies) Impossible to add new elements –not impossible, but regulated Unambiguous –An aim, a tendency of LSP, though not always observed

14 restrictions Severely reduced syntax Strictly limited number of signs/symbols Fixed in writing

15 International scope Terms tend to be international, or have agreed-on equivalents Written styles tends to be similar between languages A French physicist, who is unable to speak English well, may be able to read articles on his subject without any trouble.

16 LSP – language or discourse? Cf. Saussure’s distinction between : Language and speech (langue et parole) The first refers to the system. The second to how it is used (speech or discourse) Is LSP a feature which is incorporated into the language code, or is it a particular way of using the code?

17 LSP is a discourse feature It is the use of a language and not the language itself; It is a phenomenon which is observed in texts (through textual analysis); It is a particular use of a language cf. (Quemada) for French; Vocabulary, which was held to be the main feature of LSP is not central to the language system.

18 LSP is a language feature In studying texts we aim at extracting the language system (Kocourek 1991 :: 16 ; 251) The definition of discourse does not encompas the whole semiotic system; The vocabulary of LSPs is specific and systematic; An LSP cannot be reduced to a style or a register since it itself has styles and registers.

19 LSP or LSPs? The legal texts and chemistry texts use language very differently Many of the language features found in legal texts are absent from chemistry text Can the same methods be used for analysing the English (or French) of legal texts and chemistry texts?

20 Some definitions of LSP Par langue de spécialité, on entend essentiellement « un sous - système linguistique qui utilise une terminologie et d'autres moyens linguistiques et qui vise la non-ambiguïté de la communication dans un domaine particulier » (Lerat, 1995).

21 a technolect? LSP is often referred to as a technolect –This introduces a parallel with dialect idiolect But is it a valid parallel ? Is the English (or French) LSP for motor mechanics any less English or French? It is simply the way English or French is used to talk about motor mechanics.

22 A discursive set of definitions Pierre Lerat points to the advantage of the English LSP, since language is both linguistique activity (in French langage) and language (langue) at once. Sager’s definition as the linguistic means of communication needed to convey specialised information between specialists of the same subject.

23 An assimetrical definition « Je propose de concevoir et de redéfinir la distinction entre LG et LS comme une distinction asymétrique où le concept de LG fait partie d'une distinction épistémologique entre ce qui est particulier et ce qui est général, entre traits qui ne caractérisent qu'une seule forme d'usage et traits que l'on peut trouver dans toutes les formes d'usage d'un langue (et cela à tous le niveaux, des unités lexicales à la cohésion textuelle et au but communicatif lié à chaque genre de texte, en passant par des structures morphologiques et syntaxiques). On a donc, en principe, ici affaire à deux dimensions différentes de la même forme d'usage. Au contraire, le concept de LS fait partie d'une distinction ontologique, c'est à dire d'une distinction à l'intérieur de ce qui est donnée empiriquement, et où l'on compare deux forme d'usage différentes et particulières (par exemple le français technique et le français de la presse). « Frandsen 1998 : 30

24 Further reading Read F. Gaudin, Socioterminologie, 2003, p. 46-49 disponible sur Google books, for a sociolinguistic critique of definitions of LSP.

25 LSP as an ordered set of constraints Constraints of meaning, controlled by definition Constraints on vocabulary used constraints dues to text type constraints resulting from interaction of linguistic and non-linguistic signs Contraints resulting from language policy others?

26 Bibliography CABRE, Maria Teresa (1998 [1992]), La Terminologie. Théorie, méthode et applications, Ottawa, Les Presses universitaires de l’Université d’Ottawa/Armand Colin FRANDSEN, Finn (1998), « Langue générale et langue de spécialité : une distinction asymétrique? » dans GAMBIER, Y (dir.), Discours professionnels en français. Peter Lang. p. 15-34 GAUDIN, François (2003), Socioterminologie,, une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie, Bruxelles, Duculot De Boeck. JAKOBSON, Roman (1963-1973), Essais de linguistique générale, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit KOCOUREK, Rostislav (1991 [1982]), La langue française de la technique et de la science. Vers une linguistique de la langue savante, 2° édition augmentée, Wiesbaden/Paris, Brandstetter Verlag LERAT, Pierre (1995), Les langues spécialisées, Paris, PUF QUEMADA, Bernard (1978) « Technique et langage », dans GILLE B. (dir.), Histoire des techniques, p 1146- 1240. Collection « La Pléïade » SAGER, Juan Carlos (1990), A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphie, John Benjamins Publishing.