Re: [Critical-Realism] Neologisms in Critical Realism

[Karl Maton <matonianuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Just a quick one, as at conference, but surely the question isn't 
whether concepts are neologisms but their structure.  For anyone 
interested in the form taken by concepts, and the work they do in 
theories, there's some work in systemic functional linguistics that 
looks at the role of what they call 'grammatical metaphor' in the 
technicalisation of a discourse, such as in science.  And there's work 
in the sociology of knowledge developing Bernstein that explores 
concepts in terms of what he termed their 'internal grammar' (degree of 
interrelatedness) and 'external grammar' (relation to correlates beyond 
the theory), as well as what's known as their 'semantic gravity' (or 
degree of context-dependency).  Many theories in sociology, for example, 
have a strong internal grammar but weak external grammar, making it 
problematic when one tries to use them in practical social research.  
They can often either exhibit overly strong semantic gravity, locking 
them into a context such as a particular object of study, or overly weak 
gravity, making them unrelated to anything beyond the theory.  

Whether something is a neologism or not is, I'd suggest, not the central 
issue, though it may be initially daunting to a reader.  .... of course, 
another issue that I think is jumbled up in this debate is the question 
of the style of writing deployed. 

-- 
With best wishes,

Karl

----

Dr Karl Maton
Department of Sociology & Social Policy
Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney

http://www.KarlMaton.com

Editorial Board, Journal of Critical Realism
General Secretary, Australasian Association for Critical Realism

'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism