Chapter Sixteen
360
We can outline the following situation: While meaning is context-
dependent, the semantics of scientific terminology seems to be rather
“normed”, i.e. based on mutual understanding. Thus, the question remains,
can we establish a generic understanding of such a term as quality (see
Table 1) in the field of sensory science? Can we investigate a frame
template which serves to understand terminological units more generally?
Framing terminological units
For the sake of exemplification, the following discussion is based on two
terms in particular, namely quality and protein. While all of the terms
found in Table 1 could serve a closer analysis of specialized language in
food science, the use of these two concepts nicely exemplifies different
semantic dimensions, namely a) the continuum between everyday and
scientific language use, b) the context or domain-specificity of lexical
semantics, c) the terminology-specific features of notion. While both
quality and protein occur in everyday, as well as scientific contexts, we
may more convincingly associate protein with the specialized domain of
food, especially since, even in everyday contexts, the term is used to talk
about nourishment. I am interested in whether we can establish a frame
template that serves as a semantic reference tool for both domain-specific
and more general terminology.
What differentiates the use of these notions in sensory science (or any
other scientific domain for that matter) and non-scientific contexts, is
based on contextual features. Such contextual cues include the objectives
of the scientific activities, as well as the communicative aims between
participants in the field (and consumers). As discussed by Lehrer (2009:
209), one main characteristic of scientific language is precision: “...I want
to suggest that precise language is something special–a marked form of the
language. But the need for precision arises only under certain
circumstances”. In food science, for instance, precision is necessary to
differentiate between objects and criteria. In the communicative settings,
precision further enables participants to find consensus. As such, precision
is one main feature which distinguishes sensory scientific and everyday
judgments of food. I do not want to claim that food assessments in
everyday contexts lack precision–rather, they do not rely on precision for
successful communication. How can we assess the degree of precision in
the case of specific terminological units (i.e. quality and significant)? As
stated by Salthe (1998: 132):
In LSP [language for specific purposes] we often find words with a rather
precise meaning. This is because the speciality in question has succeeded