These are technical terms that have a role in linguistic description if one follows certain linguistic theories. They are not logical terms that prove arguments. Their persuasive force is particularly lost if a listener does not even know what phenomena they refer to. This leads to the related problem of the nature of evidence. At the very least, I would want to know what a different theoretical view would have made of the evidence just offered to me as definitive proof of an issue that has also eluded me.
Nobody ever says.
Every field owns a technical language, but it needs to be used meaningfully and to be defined appropriately. Finally, one needs to find the most direct and lucid means of presenting the information. We all know that linguists use handouts and psychologists use transparencies, but linguists have recently taken to putting their handouts onto transparencies and projecting them during the talk. This is especially futile if the transparencied handouts are illegible beyond about the third row of seats. Handouts and transparencies are different media, each serving different purposes.