Lexiconizing

The lexiconizing , term suitable for the Linguistique and particularly with the etymology, the Lexicologie and the compared Linguistique, is the fact that a new term ─ or an expression ─ reaches the statute of lemma in a given language, i.e. its speakers recognize it like a single term, differentiated and autonomous, equipped with a direction and pertaining to the Lexique of their language. In addition to isolated terms, Syntagm S or Périphrase S can be lexiconized. In this case, this word group must constitute one lemma.

Scope of application

So that there is lexiconizing of a term, it is necessary that at the beginning this term can not be regarded a single term or as pertaining of right to the language; thus, the words inherited a language-mother historically cannot be lexiconized, contrary to syntagms made up of such words. Several processes can lead to lexiconizing, like the lexical Emprunt of a foreign term, the Néologisme, the Univerbation or the Catachrèse (fixed Métaphore, Antonomase - a proper name becomes a common noun - etc.).

Criteria of test

For the isolated terms

It is difficult to provide objective criteria making it possible to know when a term or an expression is lexiconized: indeed, it is not a question to consider that their entry in “the” Dictionnaire is enough because the dictionary does not have any direction. There exists, for a language given in a state given in Synchronie, several dictionaries, none not having real supreme authority (not even that of the French Academy in France, which does nothing but sanction one certain use). Each team of lexicographer S follows a different leading line, such acceptor to count a term that another will exclude with the pretext that it is too recent and that one cannot come to a conclusion about his perenniality.

In kind, it seems that the true test is the use, specialization and the grammaticalisation: when a new term is used by a rather great percentage of the population, it is obvious that it was lexiconized. Better, if it follows the usual rules of Grammaire, that confirms its entry in the lexicon. For example, when the term taliban started to be heard, it was mainly used by journalists covering the war in Afghanistan of 2001, which, in contact with Arabic-speaking people, used the rules of pluralisation specific to Arabic, namely a taleb / of the taliban . Later, when the word was employed by a greater number of speakers, this pluralisation was standardized according to the usual rules: a taliban / of the talibans (it is notable that the term, in the press, being more frequently used in the plural, it is this plural which provided a Singulatif and not the reverse). There was grammaticalisation of a loan, first proof of lexiconizing. In addition, the Arab term does not mean, as in French, “fundamentalist islamist” but “studying in theology”. The specialization of the borrowing term in the language is another proof of lexiconizing. Taliban is listed besides in the electronic edition of the the Petit Robert of 2001.

For the made up words and the expressions

One can apply this test to syntagms: potato , for example, is well lexiconized because its direction is specialized. It does not indicate a quite precise apple pushing in the ground but vegetable. The lexiconizing of the syntagm led to the creation of a made up Word, single lemma. The lexiconizing of the French syntagms can also be noted by the use of the Hyphen (of which the uses are however not coherent): the lemma wide-angle lens is thus distinguished from the syntagm great angle (“an angle which is large”). The fact that one cannot intercalate words between the components of a made up word or to bring up to date only one member of it confirms his statute of single lemma: potato does not have any more the same direction and in resistant railroad , resistant can relate only on the unit and not to the only component iron .

Prosodic processes can confirm the lexiconizing of old syntagms, like the Univerbation. For example, the Greek Toponyme Πελοπόννησος Pelopónnêsos (“Peloponnese”) comes from an old syntagm Πέλοπος νῆσος Pélopos nễsos , i.e. “the island of Pélops” (with Πέλοπος Pélopos , Génitif of Πέλοψ Pélops ). However, no Greek lemma can carry, at least taken in isolated manner, more than one accent: the fact that Π έ λοπονν ῆ σος P' E loponn ễ S.O.S (with assimilation supplements of /s/ in front of /n/) becomes Πελοπ ό ννησος Pelop ó nnêsos by univerbation (to note that in the Latin transcription, E represents a /e/ length and not a /e/ accentuated) proves also the lexiconizing of the term, as well as the application of the laws of limitation which prevent the accent from going up higher than the second omicron . The univerbation is frequent in modern French: a long time is still written long time at Louise Labé and today comes well from the expression at the day of today (where “today”, of Latin hodie , aujourd'hui" means;).

Expressions more complex than the noun phrase can thus be lexiconized. The fact that they acquire a single class constitutes a criterion of test there too: for example, the verb phrase I do not know besides what became a Substantif which can be written certain something . a certain something is now a true lemma meaning “a not easily definable quality”, which one can use even when the speaker is the first nobody Singulier: “he thought that this young man had a certain something of charming” is perfectly correct. The Latin , of the remainder, uses nescio quid same manner with the same direction. A syntagm as I do not see what , which does not have a single class, is however not lexiconized, which proves an incorrect statement as *elle had one I do not see what of ladle . There remains a syntagm having to obey the usual rules of use.

Related articles

Random links:God Wounds | Heather Kozar | Guillaume of the Small tower | Castle of Lutzelbourg | Angie Elisabeth Brooks | Relativisme_moral