ლექ­სე­მა „ტერ­მი­ნის“ ხმა­რე­ბი­სა­თვის

ანოტაცია

For communicative practice, it is essential to contrast two types of knowledge – in-depth knowledge and surface knowledge, or, in other words, orienting knowledge. The latter has a broader scope. The key difference between them is that in-depth knowledge is stable. It turns into belief and becomes the foundation of a person’s worldview, whereas surface knowledge, due to its nature, is subject to continuous change. We can explain and describe only what we know well, but thematically, we can only approximate and characterize what we know less. The pair "knowledge-recognition" illustrates this difference effectively. The lexical units – vxvdebi, mesmis, vigeb, čaxeduli – which mean less than the word "to know," are evidence of the existence of different types of knowledge. It is not problematic to use only orienting knowledge in everyday discourse because a minimum number of verbal signs is sufficient to meet daily needs and requirements. Furthermore, these signs often serve an additional, complementary function. They have a phatic role and mostly serve to indicate simply the contact between speakers. The same cannot be said about other types of discourse, especially in scientific and mass media contexts.

This paper discusses the misuse of terms. In particular, it analyzes contexts in which the main structural-semantic units (such as any word or expression, or idioms in the common literary language) are designated as terms, thereby neglecting the key characteristics of a term as a special linguistic sign (i.e., being definitive, conventional, and systematic).