A Discourse of Our Own?: on the merits (and demerits) of a cohesive vocabulary for embodiment in the study of religion

As embodiment has sought to assert itself in humanities and psychology, it has had to borrow and augment existing language from other theories and methodologies. This might be a necessary step in establishing a new body of theories and/or methods. It may also be a particular growing pain for introducing a theory/method that contrasts so distinctly from the established theories and methods for those topics that embodiment tends to address: ritual, performance, religious experience, religion and psychology, etc.... However, since embodiment has been emerging for decades now, it seems fair to ask: Have we arrived (or are we arriving) at a point when we can point to a cohesive vocabulary for embodiment studies? If such a cohesive vocabulary is desirable, what would it look like and where might gaps in vocabulary suggest gaps in research or in embodiment as a theory/method?