Barret M F
Acta Psychiatr Belg. 1979 Sep-Oct;79(5):502-24.
The study deals with the application of a hypothetical key of contemporary terminology to the vocabulary employed in psychopathology: a linguistic unit in use in everyday language and when employed in a technical or scientific field leaves the everyday language for the technical language. In other words, the WORD requires the status of a TERM. The qualifying adjective is chosen as a paradigm. These adjectives which describe patients have been taken from various publications. The results indicate that from a semiologic point of view, the reluctance that psychopathologists have in using-with some exceptions in the psychiatric field-words as terms i.e. in an absolute and monosemic way. The author interprets this concern for the conservation of the mobility and polysemy of everyday vocabulary as a specific congruence between the discipline and the speeches of specialists: if psychopathology has few (or no) pathognomic signs, psychopathologists wish to handle their semantic field with great flexibility.
日常语言中使用的一个语言单位，当它用于技术或科学领域时，就从日常语言进入了专业语言。换句话说，这个词需要成为一个术语的地位。选取限定形容词作为范例。这些描述患者的形容词取自各种出版物。结果表明，从符号学角度来看，精神病理学家在将词汇用作术语时存在不情愿的情况——在精神病学领域有一些例外——即不愿以绝对和单义的方式使用。作者将这种对日常词汇灵活性和多义性的保留的关注解释为该学科与专家话语之间的一种特殊一致性：如果精神病理学几乎没有（或没有）诊断性体征，那么精神病理学家希望非常灵活地处理其语义领域。
