I just realized that, although I work primarily in the traditions of pragmatism and continental, I teach in an analytic vocabulary. I think that is amusing, because its an unintuitive way to break-down traditional barriers. Breaking down barriers is not the same as breaking traditions; it is being neighborly rather than hostile. I do this not by accident; I honestly think that analytic terms are easier to grasp on the face of it. However, as I would complain if you asked, they are no different from continental or pragmatist terms in assuming a specific background by which they foreground their taken meaning.
I teach most introductory courses in a historical format. Of course, I introduce and insist upon the historic terms, but I also introduce contemporary terms in my commentary, e.g., the "this is what this is about." (The distinction between historical perspective and explicit retrospective is a concept for a higher-level course, in which the distinction between historic and contemporary terms would be more significant.)
Does anyone else notice such tradition-shifting between their research and teaching, or between teaching different subjects in their own practice? In the future, I would love to teach upper-division or graduate courses where we would address issues "bi-lingually" in two traditions' vocabularies. The very first course I would like to do that in would be on phenomenal qualities ... because that's where my research is going. I'll keep dreaming that I'd ever get such a position, as the market looks so terrible.