‘Théorie’, ‘hypothèse’, ‘modèle’ et ‘méthode’ dans le domaine de la linguistique: perspectives sémasiologique et onomasiologique

'Theory', 'hypothesis', 'model' and 'method' in linguistics: Semasiological and onomasiological perspectives The subject of this thesis is the use of generic scientific terms, in particular the four terms 'theory', 'hypothesis', 'model' and 'method', in linguistic research articles written in French and in Finnish. The thesis examines the types of scientific constructs to which these terms are applied, and seeks to explain the variation in the use of each term. A second objective of the thesis is to analyze the relationships among these terms, and the factors determining the choices made by writers. With its focus on the authentic use of generic scientific terms, the thesis complements the normative and theoretical descriptions of these terms in Science Studies and offers new information on actual writing practices. This thesis adheres to functional and usage-based linguistics, drawing its theoretical background from cognitive linguistics and from functional approaches to terminology. The research material consisted of 120 research articles (856 569 words), representing different domains of linguistics and written in French or Finnish (60 articles in each language). The articles were extracted from peer-reviewed scientific journals and were published between 2000 and 2010. The use of generic scientific terms in the material has been examined from semasiological and onomasiological perspectives. In the first stage, different usages related to each of the four central terms were analyzed. In the second stage, the analysis was extended to other terms and expressions, such as 'theoretical framework', 'approach' and ‘claim’, which were used to name scientific constructs similar to the four terms analyzed in the first stage. Finally, in order to account for the writer’s choice among the terms, a mixed methods approach was adopted, based on the results of a previously conducted questionnaire concerning the differences between these terms as experienced by linguists themselves. Despite the general ideal that scientific terms should be carefully defined, the study shows that the use of these central terms is not without ambiguity. What is understood by these terms may vary according to different conceptual and stylistic factors as well as epistemic and disciplinary traditions. In addition to their polysemy, the semantic potentials of these terms are in part overlapping. In most cases, the variation in the use of these terms is not likely to cause serious misunderstanding. Rather, it allows the researcher to express a specific conceptualization of the scientific constructs mentioned in the article. The discipline of linguistics, however, would benefit from a more elaborate metatheoretical discussion.