Oh dear. You might be right about "syntax", but definitely not "type". There're all kinds of arguments over what a "type" is; "stack" is probably safe; "message", eh, has different definitions in reference to different programming languages, but I think everybody knows that and won't be confused in the context of any particular language, so that probably counts.
For those interested in debates about the word "type" here is just one out of a million online discussions that have taken place: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6113 It started with an argument over what a "dependent type" was. That said, type-as-interface and class-as-implementation gets some traction because it is just vague enough.
Re parallelism and concurrency, a similar vague-enough distinction would be: parallelism is the state of things happening at once, while concurrency is the coordination and management of parallel activities? But I agree that a lot of people don't really make the distinction, and use the terms interchangeably, which is something Rob Pike pointed out (in the context of Go, here: http://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism)
But definite;y not "type". That's a can of worms.