Selected Problems in International Terminology of the Human Movement Science

The authors discuss the problem of human movement science terminology and point out the fact that terminology is (together with the field of research, subject of research, methods and methodology) one of the basic epistemological assumptions of any scientific discipline. Building the abstract models of reality, which is the fundamental task of science, seems to be impossible without the proper terminology, because the words are the main building material of theoretical models. Here lies the great responsibility of scientists, especially the English-speaking ones because English is the most commonly used language in contemporary science, in order to avoid ambiguous words and use clear terminology. Unfortunately, the scientists often seem not to be aware of this problem, and consequently some terms used in the science of human movement seem to be used inconsistently. This phenomenon is especially dangerous in translation from one natural language into another, because an improperly used term becomes even more improper in the process of translation. Thus the authors distinguish between two types of linguistic problems the intralingual and the interlingual ones. The authors show some obvious inconsistencies in the usage of basic movement science terminology. They discuss the notions of physical efficiency, endurance and exercise tolerance. At first the authors quote some definitions formulated by other authors and show their obvious inconsistencies. The main source of inconsistencies seems to be treating each of them separately, while in fact they form a coherent system. Thus the authors show at first the interdependencies of all these notions and turn to the basic physical roots to describe the terms properly and to build their coherent system. Taking the previously mentioned into consideration, such a system should consist of four notions: physical efficiency, endurance, exercise tolerance and post-exercise tolerance. They make up a logical system, combined with the basic laws of physics and firmly rooted in biological realities. Especially illustrative is the phenomenon of supercompensation, which creates a fundamental basis of every sport and recreational training. The authors discuss the notion of force and its variants used in human movement science terminology. In physics it is an axiom, thus it may be described only by its effects in the environment. The most popular description of force is the second Newtonian Law which shows the relation of force to mass and acceleration. However, there are also other descriptions of force (e.g. according to Hooke’s law). Nevertheless, the attempts to relate the notion of force to mass and acceleration in each situation sometimes leads to paradoxes. Thus, the definitions of shear force, fast force and endurance force, commonly used in human movement science, seem to have no roots in physics. There is also no clear differentiation between the notions of force and strength. From the point of view of physics especially doubtful are the notions of explosive strength, static strength, dynamic strength or starting strength. From the point of view of physics some of the previously mentioned terms do not denote forces at all. The authors suggest two definitions of force, useful in human movement science and congruent with general physics; the first description is the one denoting force as a physical quantity and the other one denoting muscular force, that is, strength as a motor ability. Then the authors turn to the reaction time paradigm and point to the semantic and logical inconsistencies in the model (the difference between reaction time and response time). They suggest a consistent model of sensorimotor response scheme. After having discussed these problems, the authors suggest more precise definitions of some commonly used terms. They also point to the necessity of creating an international encyclopaedic dictionary of human movement science.