Lexis as the axis of scientific accessibility

terminology, comprehension, and intralingual reformulation

Abstract

This article offers a theoretical analysis of the role of specialized lexis in making scientific texts accessible to non-specialist readers. It begins from the observation that the expansion of access to scientific information, driven by digitalization and by the diversification of dissemination channels, does not in itself ensure that knowledge is understood by the public, which makes it necessary to examine the linguistic conditions that enable its appropriation. Among these conditions, specialized lexis stands out, understood not as an inventory of labels applied to previously formed concepts, but as a component that organizes, relates, and communicates scientific knowledge. The study, which is theoretical-bibliographical, qualitative, and critical-conceptual in nature, draws on contributions from the Lexical Sciences, Terminology, and research on textual accessibility, without constituting a systematic review, empirical research, or a proposed model. It first discusses the functional distinction between word and term, arguing that the specialized value of a unit is activated in context and genre rather than in its form. It then examines the lexical dimensions that may hinder comprehension, such as familiarity, density, conceptual opacity, and syntagmatic length, arguing that complexity is relative to the reader and that quantitative indices are only estimates. It distinguishes textual complexity as a relative condition, simplification as a process, and Textual and Terminological Accessibility as a desired condition of the text for a defined audience. The notion of intralingual reformulation is employed as a hypernym for the operations of lexical treatment, which include retaining terms accompanied by explanation, definition, paraphrase, exemplification, and contextualized substitution. The article defends four central propositions: not every term must be eliminated; a familiar word may represent an unfamiliar concept; lexical substitution may modify the concept; and terminological precision and reader comprehension can be compatible. It concludes that the problem of accessibility does not necessarily lie in the presence of terminology, but in the absence of linguistic, discursive, and conceptual conditions for readers to appropriate it. The limits of a conceptual study are acknowledged, and the need for empirical research relating the reflection of the Lexical Sciences to the actual reception of specialized lexis is highlighted.