We present an innovative strategy for the study and modelling of core scientific terminologies. Our approach is non-taxonomic and relies on semantic embedding of Terms in lexicographic definitions 'defined_by' rather than 'is_a' relations - to identify the underlying terminological systems of sciences. It is demonstrated on the core terminology of (general) chemistry as modelled in Lexical Systems where terminologies are fully embedded within a model of the corresponding general language.
Things over relations between actual Things themselves [
The taxonomic approach has for a long time been applied to lexical units of natural languages
through the recourse to hyperonymic / superordinate relations [9, sec. 1.5.2]. In contemporary
lexical research, the most well-known instance of the approach is, for the English language, the
Princeton WordNet [
In our opinion, the main problems posed by the taxonomic / hyperonymic structuring of lexical units in general, and Terms in particular, are the following.
1. Hyperonymy applies mainly to nominal lexical units – cf. the separate structuring
principles used in WordNet for Nouns vs. Verbs, Adjectives and Adverbs [
Lexical Systems are designed to be compatible with fully relational models of the Mental Lexicon as postulated from both psycholinguistic and lexicological perspectives [17, 18, 19]. They are lexicographically built according to theoretical and descriptive principles of Explanatory Combinatorial Lexicology / Lexicography [20], except for the fact that they are lexical network models rather than “textual” dictionaries, such as [21, 22]. Formally, they are small-world networks (see 1.1). Their nodes are mainly lexical units of the language; their arcs are lexical relations of various types, listed below by order of importance to the small-world network structuring of Lexical Systems: • paradigmatic (semantic) and syntagmatic (combinatorial) relations corresponding to so-called Meaning-Text lexical functions [23]; • copolysemy relations (extension, metonymy, metaphor, ...) holding between senses of polysemous vocables [24]; • ‘defined_by’ relations that connect each given lexical unit L1 to other lexical units L2, L3 ... Ln whose meaning is embedded in the meaning of L1 – see details in section 2 below; • formal inclusion relations – e.g., the lexico-syntactic structure [25] of the idiom ⌜push buttons⌝ ‘irritate someone’ is formally built with the lexemes push and button.
Though Meaning-Text paradigmatic and syntagmatic lexical functions are the leading principle for the structuring of Lexical Systems, ‘defined_by’ relations proved to be essential in the organization of terminologies, especially from a pedagogical perspective.1
A ‘defined_by’ relation holds between two lexical units L 1 and L2 if L1 is lexicographically defined in terms of L 2 – i.e., if L2 appears in the lexicographic definition of L1. Such relation is noted L →1− − Def L2.
Let us illustrate the notion of ‘defined_by’ relation with data in Table 1: the lexicographic definition of the chemistry Term element III.3a proposed in [27] – see section 3 below for more details.2 Note that such lexicographic definition follows the format and structuring principles of Explanatory Combinatorial Lexicology detailed in [28].
In Table 1, terminological ‘defined_by’ relations are signalled by underlying the Terms that (i) participate in the lexicographic definition of element III.3a and (ii) are themselves accounted for in the Lexical System of English: i.e., element III.3 →a− − Def {atom I.2, proton, nucleus I.2}. Two types of ‘defined_by’ relations need to be distinguished in natural language lexicons. 1For instance, the set of lexicological notions introduced in the manual [26] is entirely structured according to this principle and it determines the flow of notions making up the teaching program implemented by the manual. 2The lexicographic numbering used in the paper has been established in [27] and takes into consideration the polysemy of the corresponding vocables both for general and specialised senses – see [27, Chap. 6]. Generic ‘defined_by’ relations. A generic L →1− − Def L2 relation is such that L2 is the central component [28, Sec. 2.4] of L1’s definition. Such is the case of atom I.2 in Table 1, though the definition stipulates that chemical elements are not atoms per se, but types of atoms, and therefore belong to a more abstract level of conceptualization of chemical entities. Generic ‘defined_by’ relations between Terms are, by definition, closely related to ‘is_a’ taxonomic relations between Concepts.
Specific ‘defined_by’ relations. A specific L →1− − Def L2 relation is such that L2 belongs to a peripheral (= non-central) component of L1’s definition. Such is the case of proton and nucleus I.2 in the definition of element III.3a.
It is essential to note that generic and specific ‘defined_by’ relations are equally important from the point of view of notion acquisition. Because notions are Term ↔ Concept associations (cf. terminological remark in section 1.1), the definition in Table 1 tells us that the mastering / understanding of the notion of chemical element necessitates the mastering / understanding of not only the notion of atom, but also the notions of atom’s nucleus and of proton.
We advocate a descriptive approach where terminological models are organized by a system of (generic and specific) ‘defined_by’ connections that aims at accounting for a notion-building perspective on terminologies. Simultaneously, however, the terminographic description of each individual Term should be embedded into the Lexical System of the corresponding natural language – for a justification of such integrated approach, see [29] and section 4 below.
We illustrate below our descriptive strategy with work done on the core terminology of chemistry [27].
In [27], the core terminology of chemistry is characterized as constituted of Terms that (i) are taught in core courses in general chemistry and (ii) are “shared by most subdomains of chemistry” without belonging to a given subdomain [27, p. 14]. We can add that those terms determine the notional foundation of the discipline: i.e., notions – such as atom, (chemical) bond, molecule, etc. – from which the bulk of the notional system of general chemistry is derived. The study, performed in a multilingual perspective, led to the definition of over a hundred core chemistry Terms for each of the three languages considered: English, French and Russian.3
As mentioned earlier, the theoretical and description foundation of the work is Explanatory Combinatorial Lexicology, the lexicological component of Meaning-Text linguistics. In this respect, it relates to previous terminological work anchored in the same linguistic framework, see [30]. A distinctive feature, however, is the fact that the core terminology of chemistry has been modelled in the context of the lexicography of Lexical Systems (section 1.2) where Terms are integrated in the small-world network of the general language. The core of the description of each Term is, of course, its lexicographic definition, of which one example is given above (Table 1, section 2): the definition of element III.3a. From the three ‘deifned_by’ relations embedded in this definition and elicited earlier – element III.3 →a− − Def {atom I.2, proton, nucleus I.2} –, one can infer the bottom-up notion building organization shown in the right-hand side graph, where an N1 → N2 link indicates that the acquisition of notion N1 is required for the acquisition of notion N2. Note that this graph takes only into consideration the acquisition of the notion of element and of the three other notions it is directly related to: atom, proton and nucleus. These notions, in their turn, presuppose other notions, via the lexicographic definition of their corresponding Term. Proton, for instance, presupposes the additional notions of subatomic particle, interaction and charge, via the lexicographic definition of the Term proton, given in Table 2.
At the level of the complete core terminology of chemistry, the whole set of Term definitions determine a hierarchical ‘defined_by’ induced organization of corresponding core notions that function as a roadmap for the teaching / acquisition of chemistry, as a scientific discipline. An extract of this roadmap for English chemical notions is given in Appendix A.
In [27], core chemical terminologies have been modelled for each of the three languages considered. The respective numbers of Terms vs. notions are as follows: • English: 107 defined core Terms • French: 103 defined core Terms • Russian: 102 defined core Terms → 53 corresponding core notions; → 53 corresponding core notions; → 52 corresponding core notions.
The discrepancy between the number of core Terms and the number of core notions, for each language, is explained by the fact that a core Term T can have one or more semantic derivatives T′, T′′, ... with a unique corresponding core notion. For instance, all six core Terms ion, ionic, ionization, ionizenon-causative, ionizecausative and ionized are connected by semantic (and morphological) derivations, and they have one unique corresponding core chemical notion: ion.
We are in the process of implementing our core chemistry terminology – structured by the ‘defined_by’ relation – as an online resource for chemistry teachers and students. Hopefully, this will ultimately validate the pedagogical relevance of our approach.
To conclude, we use the case of the noun carbon to briefly justify the importance of adopting an integrated approach to terminological modelling, one where Terms cohabitate with general language lexical units within a unique Lexical System [29].
Carbon is omnipresent in today’s media and political discourse, daily conversation, even
printed on goods’ labels and travel tickets. With the evidence of an ongoing environmental
crisis, it has also become a buzzword with sometimes fluctuating and fuzzy semantic boundaries,
as shown by a recent study of the use of carbon on social medias [
I.1 spec4 ‘element III.3a with atomic number 6’ I.2 [Extension of I.1] quasi-spec ‘substance I.1a which is the materialization of carbon I.1’ [Ex.:
Carbon is a solid, with a color of blackish brownish resembling charcoal.] II.1 [Metonymy of I.1] (spec) ‘type of gas containing carbon I.1’ = CO2 [Ex.: Coal-fired power plants, which produce the majority of Georgia’s electricity and emit the most carbon, would pay the most.] II.2 [Metaphor of II.1] quasi-spec ‘symbolic polluting substance as if it were carbon II.1’ [Ex.: Most people emit carbon every day simply by using a non-renewable resource, such as coal, natural gas, or oil.] III.1 [Metonymic metaphor of I.2] = ⌜carbon paper⌝ III.2 [Metonymy of III.1] = ⌜carbon copy⌝
Though carbon is clearly a “terminological vocable” intimately associated to the field of
chemistry via its basic lexical unit – cf. the spec(ialized) sense I.1 –, it contains both terminological
and non-terminological senses. This polysemy is particularly tricky to handle from a terminology
viewpoint due to the fact the “hardcore” terminological sense I.1 cohabitates in the vocable
and frequently interacts in the Speaker’s mind with senses that possess a terminological flavor
without being associated to a well-structured notional system: those identified by the usage note
quasi-spec(ialized). To top it all, the vocable contains an optionally specialized sense II.1, marked
as (spec): a “runaway” Term [
This work was supported partly by the FRONTERME doctoral project, reference 18_GE4_022, of the Grand Est Region (France) and by the French PIA project “Lorraine Université d’Excellence,” reference ANR-15-IDEX-04-LUE. We wish to express our gratitude to our two MDTT 2023 reviewers for their rich and inspiring comments. [16] A. Polguère, From Writing Dictionaries to Weaving Lexical Networks, International Journal of Lexicography 27 (2014) 396–418. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/27/4/ 396/932994/From-Writing-Dictionaries-to-Weaving-Lexical. [17] J. Aitchison, Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, 4th ed., Wiley
Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2012. [18] W. Szubko-Sitarek, Multilingual Lexical Recognition in the Mental Lexicon of Third Language Users, Second Language Learning and Teaching, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2015. [19] B. Gaume, K. Duvignau, Pour une ergonomie cognitive des dictionnaires électroniques [For a cognitive ergonomic organization of electronic dictionaries], Document numérique 8 (2004) 157–181. [20] I. Mel’čuk, Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary, in: G. Sica (Ed.), Open Problems in
Linguistics and Lexicography, Polimetrica, Monza, 2006, pp. 225–355. [21] I. Mel’čuk, A. Zholkovsky, Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian.
Semantico-syntactic Studies of Russian Vocabulary, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Wien, 1984. [22] Mel’čuk et al., Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain. Recherches lexico-sémantiques. Volumes I–IV [Explanatory combinatorial dictionary of contemporary French. Lexico-semantic studies. Volumes I–IV], Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1999. [23] I. Mel’čuk, Lexical Functions: A Tool for the Description of Lexical Relations in the Lexicon, in: L. Wanner (Ed.), Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing, Language Companion Series 31, John Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 1996, pp. 37–102. [24] A. Polguère, A Lexicographic Approach to the Study of Copolysemy Relations, Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (2018) 788–820. URL: http://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/issue/ view/1142. [25] M.-S. Pausé, Modelling French idioms in a lexical network, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 55 (2017) 137–155. [26] A. Polguère, Lexicologie et sémantique lexicale. Notions fondamentales [Lexicology and Lexical Semantics. Fundamental Notions], Paramètres, 3rd edition ed., Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, 2016. [27] P. Mikhel, Multilingual study of chemistry lexicon at the interface of terminology and general language, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, 2022. [28] I. Mel’čuk, A. Polguère, Theory and Practice of Lexicographic Definition, Journal of Cognitive Science 19 (2018) 417–470. URL: http://jcs.snu.ac.kr/jcs/issue/vol19/no4/01+ Igor+Alain.pdf. [29] F. Ingrosso, A. Polguère, How Terms Meet in Small-World Lexical Networks: The Case of Chemistry Terminology, in: T. Poibeau, P. Faber (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence (TIA 2015), Granada, 2015, pp. 167– 171. URL: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1495/paper_11.pdf. [30] M.-C. L’Homme, Using ECL (Explanatory Combinatorial Lexicology) to discover the lexical structure of specialized subject fields, in: Y. Apresjan, I. Boguslavsky, M.-C. L’Homme, L. Iomdin, J. Milićević, A. Polguère, L. Wanner (Eds.), Meanings, Texts, and Other Exciting