• Roberto Cuadros Muñoz, US, España

• Ester Trigo Ibáñez, UCA, España

• María Isabel de Vicente-Yagüe Jara, UM, España

• Manuel Francisco Romero Oliva, UCA, España

• Raúl Gutiérrez Fresneda, UA, España

Secretaria/ Secretary

• Natalia Martínez León, UGR, España

• Elizabeth Marcela Pettinaroli, Rhodes College, Estados

• Abdellatif Limami, U. de Rabat, Marruecos

• Salvador Almadana López del Moral, Instituto Cervantes,

• Yrene Natividad Calero Leo, Asociación Internacional de

• Mercedes Garcés Pérez, U. Marta Abreu, Las Villas,

• Rubén Cristóbal Hornillos, Liceo XXII José Martí de

• Pedro García, Guirao, Universidad de Ostrava, Chequia

• David Caldevilla Domínguez, U. Complutense de Madrid,

• Almudena Barrientos Báez, U. de Iriarte, España

• Inmaculada Clotilde Santos Díaz, UMA, España

• Efrén Viramontes, E. N. Ricardo Flores Magón, México

• Ester Trigo Ibáñez, UCA, España

• Marek Baran, U. de Lodz, Polonia

• Gloria Santiago Méndez, UMA, España

• Marta Sanjuán Álvarez, U. de Zaragoza, España

• Xaquín Núñez Sabarís, U. do Minho, Portugal

• Ana Cea Álvarez, U. do Minho, Portugal

• Inmaculada Guisado Sánchez, UNEX, España

• María Auxiliadora Robles Bello, UJAEN, España

• Magdalena López Pérez, UNEX, España

• Milagrosa Parrado Collantes, UCA, España

• Paula Rivera Jurado, UCA, España

• Begoña Gómez Devís, UV, España

The article warns readers interested in the specialised communication against an uncritical adoption of the term

professional language, which is often used in the extensive literature on the subject without care for terminological

precision. The lack of awareness of the meaning of the term professional language leads to negative consequences in

linguistic argumentation, such as the neglect of the current state of research in general linguistics, the contamination of

the scientific term by its naive understanding in everyday communication between laypersons, or the identification of

language and its use, which is a serious methodological deficiency. The reader of the specialised literature might therefore,

without sufficient linguistic knowledge, mistakenly take the contents presented in the reading as self-evident and

corresponding to the current state of knowledge. In the first part of the article, the aforementioned sources of interpretative

dangers in reading are pointed out, using the history of research as an example. Subsequently, the reader is offered some

constant points of reference fur further interpretation, which allow to recognise a stylistic-functional variety of ethnic

of the ethnic language. In conclusion, their peculiarity was highlighted, arising from the need for precise naming of

professional communication. The knowledge of these conditions will enable the reader to approach the relationship

between language and the so-called professional language with greater understanding.

Keywords: Understanding of language, common and professional language; variety (lect), group-specific communication

However, it has a negative effect in scientific argument:

extra-linguistic elements are included in the analysis, and

linguistically significant phenomena are sometimes

omitted. This, in turn, unnecessarily multiplies the number

of linguistic definitions and obscures the image of the

central concept of linguistics, which is language. A reader

of specialised literature, e.g., a humanities scholar or a

specialist in a particular field of technology, will, unless he

or she has knowledge of linguistics, take every

terminological decision of the author of the reading for

stages and shaped the horizon of knowledge on the question

of how to understand language. The most important

contributions to the study of the essential features of

language as such, understood in opposition to other modes

of communication, have been made by European

structuralism (de Saussure, Trubetzkoy, Jakobson, Mar-

tinet, Benveniste, Tesniére and others) and American

structuralism (i. a. Boas, Sapir, Harris, and Hockett). The

last important phase of the debate over defining language

is marked by the dispute between the behaviourist Hockett

perspective under the influence of philosophers from

thecircle of ordinary language theory (Frege, Bühler,

Wittgenstein, and Carnap, among others). The work of

Austin and Searle (the pragmatic turn) and the so-called

cognitive revolution shifted the focus of linguistic research

to the description of forms and purposes of language use.

Contemporary research on so-called professional

general linguistics have remained unanswered.

ethnic languages (naming the linguistic community, e.g.

Russian, Polish, English, German and many other); jargons

of professional groups, often also called languages (e.g. the

language of IT specialists, chemists, stockbrokers,

philosophers etc.); languages characterised by the way they

were created (natural or artificial/planned languages);

confidential languages of criminal groups (argots); and

finally languages assessed by the degree to which they are

mastered (mother tongue or native language, foreign

language). General linguistics has abstracted from them

a language and which make it possible to distinguish

foundations, resulting in divergences in the way language

is understood. This has been point-ed out by Schäfer (2016,

13), who notes three dominant perspectives on language:

as a cognitive human activity, as an interaction

(communication) and as a symbolic system.

As Kiklewicz (2012, 7) sarcastically notes, linguists cluster

around different methodological doctrines. Due to the fact

that these doctrines are usually mutually exclusive,

researchers form closed formations in which they

communicate “with their own”, while the ideas of

'linguistics of language' regards the theoretical proposals of

cognitive scientists as a kind of “small talk”.

Another cause of some terminological confusion is the

contamination of different uses of the term language in

communication between professionals and the common-

word language in colloquial communication. The most

important factors responsible for this are the multiplicity of

linguistic theories, each imposing its own specific way of

considering language, the metaphorical use of the term

language is transferred to subordinate terms, including the

term professional language.

To the aforementioned ways of understanding language,

one must add language as a tool for communication. Its

source seems to be the Bloch & Trager definition (1942,

p.5): “A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by

means of which a social group co-operates”. This definition

has been popularised in many variants in American and

later European Structuralism. The metaphor of language as

a tool is very useful in explaining the essence of language.

The phenomenon itself, however, is not the same as the

The above considerations point to a real danger for the

of professional communication. So, is professional

language (let’s temporarily stay with the intuitive

understanding of the term) really a language?

hat are the benefits of reflecting on the problem

area addressed? First of all, it will help readers

of linguistic as well as technical texts

specific field of application of technical texts (their subject

matter often includes complicated processes and activities.

of human teams, natural phenomena in need of research

Precision of terminology is known to be one of the most

to achieve a specific communicative goal (the task of the

grammar of individual languages).

linguistic argumentation.

emphasise: texts, not languages) differ from non-technical

comparing the results obtained in representative corpora of

university lectures, doctoral seminars and research projects

dealing with the language of science, terminology in a

broader sense and the problems of translating specialised

fact not a separate language. It is a stylistic-functional

variety of an ethnic language and inherits the features of its

ethnic language. It does not have any typical articulatory or

distinguishing feature of the phenomenon in question. The

specificity of terminology lies in the fact that its elements

are commonly used in a professional group communicating

as they are commonly used as synonyms of proper

of the discussion. But it is impossible to speak the

professional language of a given professional group

without speaking its ethnic language.

A speaker of a professional language must be familiar with

the phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical

subsystems of his/her ethnic language. They define the

necessary basis of communication, which allows texts to be

recognised as texts of a specific professional language. An

ethnic language identifies a professional language: Polish

IT language, German legal language, English business

Hoffmann, 1984, p.53).

definitions modelled on it are variables: Both the group of

terms of a battle or a theatrical performance, cf.

texts are not completely immune to such register shifts.

these are, firstly, the presence among people

described in professional texts. This fact is often

overlooked in the curricula of humanities faculties (e.g.,

philology), which offer “specialisations” in professional

There is no evidence of the acquisition of professional

in most papers in the study of professional and special

languages. It is possible to see a professional language as a

for the purpose of this article, knowing that the concept

In this sense, for example, the term professional language

would be a simplifying hypostasis. However, while the

concept of language in and of itself makes sense in general

linguistics (e.g., for classification purposes), attempts at

such an approach in the case of professional languages will

language is often at the same time a violation of the

observed and studied. Texts should be understood as

intentionally spoken or written sequences of signs in the act

of communication. In the case of professional language,

these are texts produced by members of a specific

• The criterion for classification may be the field in

• Another criterion is the level of competence in the

• Another criterion is the purpose of the text (e.g.,

It has already been pointed out that the specificity of

specialised texts is distributive. To be more precise: it is

As already stated, professional languages are functional

stylistic varieties of ethnic languages. Stylistics begin

where (at least) two alternative linguistic forms can be

placed in the same segment of a text, so that it is entirely

up to the speaker to decide which one to choose (cf. Vater,

1979, p.2). Communicators pursue their intentions by

selecting from the resources of given language elements

that are useful for the production of professional texts. In

the grammatical area, they must choose what is consistent

area, they choose what they consider to be the most

appropriate to express the relevant content and, at the same

takes place between experts or between experts and laymen

(to whom, for example, specialised information is

explained). This forces a differentiation of language

The prerequisite for good communication in a professional

language is the skilful selection of the linguistic register

the most frequently mentioned features of specialist

communication.

The professional language is not a separate (autonomous)

language; it is rather a dummy word for the overlapping of

certain registers of use (language varieties). Professional

languages can be anthropocentrically defined because of

the people who make use of the respective language

variety. Specialists are in their element; laypeople, on the

other hand, fail when they try to use a professional

language (a medium of communication optimised for the

this purpose, the saturation with terms decreases, and the

by the stylistic decisions of the participants in the

communication, made for the sake of other participants.

The most important genre exponents of technical texts are