In Linguistic, the lexicon of a Langue constitutes the whole of its lemmas or, in a more current but less precise way, “the whole of its Mot S”. Always in the everyday usages, one uses, more easily the term vocabulary .

Cut lexicon

The size of a lexicon is, by nature, impossible to define with precision because the only means of having an idea of its extent is the calculation of the lemmas (or entered ) of a Dictionnaire of this language, when there exists.

In synchrony

No dictionary can count all the lemmas of a language. Indeed, the specialized vocabulary, the Jargon S, the Sociolecte S, the Idiolecte S, the Slang and all the terms which are not yet lexiconized cannot be entered. Moreover, only the written language is really taken into account in the edition of the usual dictionaries: a great number of sociolectes purely oral escapes any investigation.

A usual dictionary, indeed, can only count the written terms most attested but cannot in no case to identify all the lemmas which exist at a given time, in Synchronie, in the language that it describes. Moreover, to suppose that an army of lexicographers is put at the mounting of all the words used by the speakers of a given language, the operation would take sufficient time so that the established corpus is null and void at the time of the publication. New words would have indeed appeared and the different ones would have disappeared, all the more in the oral sociolectes.

One can realize of the difficulty which one has to specify the limits of a lexicon by wondering what means the expression “this word does not exist”. Should it be heard that there does not exist because it is not attested in the dictionary? , in which case one can wonder in whom. Should it be heard that a word exists only because there exists a rather great number of speakers who know it? , in which case it is not possible to give to an exact percentage speakers necessary for this purpose. Lastly, is it necessary that the word is known or used? , which changes the data of appreciation largely.

For example, the word Paryponoïan does not exist for everyone. Usual dictionaries like the the Petit Robert (electronic edition of 2001) or the Grand Robert (updated 2nd edition of 1992) do not count it, either that the Trésor of the French language computerized (version 3 of the 18.6.2002). However, it is well-known specialists in Rhétorique.

To finish, while supposing even that one would find average to join together the whole of the lexicon recorded in the totality of the dictionaries, lexicons specialized including, it constantly remains that certain processes of construction of words are productive, available for the creation of occasionalisms dedicated to an immediate lapse of memory or a better fortune. Such is the case of the addition of many affixes of French: the prefix Re when it marks the iteration of the action or the state indicated in the verbal group, the nominal suffix - old etc Ainsi, on the basis wikipédi- of the proper name Wikipédia (cf wikipédien '') can build ° wikipédier , ° rewikipédier and perhaps ° rewikipédiage (the index ° announces virtual forms), cf will infra the section " Creation of new lemmes". From where an additional question: “to prove the existence of a word” is a paradoxical expression if this word were actually produced (by an adult native speaker, a child, a foreigner etc), or if no rule seems to be opposed to its formation. At most can one then found this inexistence in right by asserting dictionnairic standard, judgment of speakers considered as more qualified etc

Pourt a refutation of the fixity of the lexicon in synchrony, one will refer particularly to work of Danielle Corbin.

In diachrony

Moreover, diachroniquement, the lexicon of a language is in perpetual evolution: lemmas appear and disappear unceasingly from the uses of the speakers without it being for as much possible to count all the cases of them, would not be this because the disappearance of a word can be noted only by the specialists (considering the speakers do not use any more this word) and that its appearance is not inevitably a pledge of perenniality (which can say if such or such expression with the mode will be still used in five years?). The usual dictionaries indeed count the words only when they reach a certain frequency of employment, which, for want of anything better, is generally calculated starting from written corpora.

It often should be waited until a new term is sufficiently attested by varied sources so that the dictionaries accept it like lemma, some being more restrictive than others (like that of the French Academy). Indeed, it would not be useful to count new terms which are only the reflection of an effect of transitory mode. A usual dictionary thus offers only one stereotype of the lexicon, more or less precise, but never exact. The dictionaries etymological S, as for them, count also disappeared terms and, paradoxically, which are not it really since in the absence of being used, they are not less still known.

Life and died of the lemmas

The lexicon of a language is thus a whole of lemmas to fuzzy and variable dimensions. It was said, in addition to it is impossible of all to count them for a precise state of a language, some appears or disappears, making the limits even more difficult to encircle.

Creation of new lemmas

Among the methods of enrichment of the lexicon, one can count mainly the Dérivation (creation of a word starting from a radical or of a morphological Thème preexistent), the composition (creation of a new unit of direction starting from several assembled lemmas) and the lexical Emprunt (loan of a word to another language). One names any lexical creation a Néologisme. When to a preexistent Meaning new a Signifié is added, it can be a question of a Catachrèse, of a Antonomase, a Calque… In this case, it is not really a new “word” but an extension of its direction.

The words appear mainly to meet a need, when one needs a Meaning to represent one meant (that this one is new or not: it can be a question of replacing meaning worn to keep meant to them), or for reasons of mode.

It is not always easy to know when a new term appeared. At most can one realize it when it starts to be sufficiently employed by speakers of different backgrounds. Generally, the dictionaries count the first written certificates of them (for want of anything better when the lemma goes back to one time to which the recording of the voice did not exist or because the lexicography was not developed enough) in a recognized text (even known ), that it is arts person or not.

Disappearance of the lemmas

The reasons of the disappearance of a lemma are numerous. One can, quickly, quote the disappearance of a Meaning for Signifié which does not exist any more, when an object or a concept disappeared from the daily life and that there does not need more to speak about it. In general, complete disappearance is rather rare because, even if a lemma is not listed any more by the current dictionaries, the older texts can use it, in which case there still exists, virtually, for the people reading these texts. It is not because the Daguerréotype is used more and sold only the word indicating it disappeared.

The fashion can also play: currently, bath , within the meaning of “knack”, seems obsolete and probably has to disappear, more especially as it belongs to the familiar register. Such terms, often transitory, appear and disappear very frequently, carried by media and world of mode (like the show business currently, but also the Précieuses at the 17th century, large creative of neologisms which does not have all not survived), then quickly abandoned for the benefit again even simply forgotten (which still knows the word scopitone ?). To also consult French connected .

Lastly, the phonetic wear can play: when, through phonetic evolution, the words become too short to be easily identifiable, they can be protected from disappearance while being derived to even leave the lexicon simply. It is the case for Abeille (of the Latin apicula , properly “small bee”; bee is a loan with the Occitan) which, at the 14th century, replaced the form EFF (of Latin apis , traditional form of the word), become E , too short to remain comprehensible. If one adds to that the homophonous possible ( is , and , has ), one sees that the word did not have any more one rather great output. This replacement, however, was not suddenly and there existed in the lexicon several competitors in concomitance to indicate the same creature: avette , regular diminutive of EFF / E and mouchette , diminutive of fly , inter alia. Abeille however carried it, letting in its wake disappear these parallel forms, which could however be preserved in regional parlures.

Whatever the reasons, the lexicon decreases in fact only seldom. It would be righter to say than it is renewed. One can, for French, to count many medieval words which did not survive time, like cuider (“to think”) or graindre / graignor (“larger”), large Comparatif of . Still can one say that these lemmas are not really French but specific to former French, who is not the same language (the comprehension of a text as former French not being possible with a speaker lambda). These two examples show well that the language is always able to mean these concepts. Moreover, certain medieval lemmas really do not disappear but are preserved in another form. For example, the phrase at the day of today is lexiconized in the current of the 14th century, which would mark the birth of a new adverb. In the same movement, however, the word today (which has the direction of today ) disappeared: can one really speak about the disappearance of a lemma? In fact, there is conservation of the lemma today , which was not sufficiently any more comprehensible, in another form.

In conclusion, one can say that the appearance of a Néologisme is altogether easier to encircle than the disappearance of a mot. Indeed, to say that it really disappeared, it is necessary to be able to affirm that more no speaker employs it. The fact that a word disappeared from a usual dictionary does not constitute of course the proof of it.

Relationship between the words of the same lexicon

The words of a lexicon maintain between them the reports/ratios Sémantique S (bonds between the Signifié S) or formal (bonds between the Meaning S) indicated by technical terms in - onymy (of the Greek ὄνυμα, ónuma , “word”):

• semantic relationships: Antonymy, Autonymie, eponymy, Holonymie, Hyperonymie, Hyponymie, Méronymie, Pantonymie, Synonymy;
• formal reports/ratios: Homonymy, Homophony, Homography, Paronymy.

Current directions

By extension, a lexicon is a whole of words related to a field ( the lexicon of the armament ), a person ( the lexicon of Balzac ) or a whole of people ( the lexicon of the young people ). It should in this case be included/understood like a list of terms. It will be then synonymous with Vocabulaire , Idiolecte , Glossaire , Dictionnaire , etc

Random links:

Egg (kitchen) | Sed (software) | Kevrenn Year Arvorig | Mali Vrtop | Craig Wireless