Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 30:2 (2024) ► pp.216–249

Managing polysemy in terminological resources

ORCID logo | Université de Montréal
Polysemy, even when it is considered within specialized domains, is a recurrent phenomenon and the topic is debated from time to time in terminology literature. Part of this literature still advocates ways to prevent polysemy. Another portion recognizes the prevalence of polysemy, especially in specialized corpora, but considers it from the perspective of other phenomena, such as ambiguity, indeterminacy, categorization or variation. Although the number of perspectives on meaning have increased over the years, the treatment of polysemy in terminological resources is still unsatisfactory. This article first shows that polysemy is an integral part of specialized communication and that there are different kinds of domain-specific polysemy. Then, it reviews selected perspectives that have been taken on polysemy in terminology literature. The treatment of 45 polysemous lexical items in four specialized resources is then analysed. Finally, different methods based on lexical semantics are proposed to account for polysemy in terminological resources.
Keywords: terminology, polysemy, predicative units, alternation, terminological resource, semantic frame, semantic relations, microsense
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polysemy in specialized domains
    • 2.1Regular polysemy
    • 2.2Alternations
    • 2.3Microsenses
  • 3.Different views on polysemy in terminology
    • 3.1Mutually exclusive concepts
    • 3.2Polysemy and related phenomena
    • 3.3Domain-specific meanings and common or general meanings
    • 3.4Polysemy in domain-specific resources
    • 3.5Treatment of polysemous lexical items in four domain-specific resources
      • 3.5.1A focus on knowledge structures
      • 3.5.2Nouns and multiword terms
      • 3.5.3Imprecise or missing meaning distinctions
  • 4.Polysemy in terminological resources
    • 4.1Lexical relations
    • 4.2Labelling of arguments
    • 4.3Situating meanings in broader conceptual situations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.22017.lho
References (52)
References
Aldestein, A., and M. T. Cabré. 2002. “The Specificity of Units with Specialized Meaning: Polysemy as an Explanatory Factor.” D.E.L.T.A., 18x)1: 1–25.Google Scholar
Andersen, Ø. 2007. “Indeterminacy, Context, Economy and Well-formedness in Specialist Communication.” In Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP, ed. by B. E. Antia, 3–14. Amsterdam/Philadelpha: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, J. 1974. “Regular Polysemy.” Linguistics, 12(142): 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barque, L. 2008. Description et formalisation de la polysémique régulière du français, Thèse présentée à l’Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Béjoint, H., and P. Thoiron. 2000. Le sens en terminologie. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Bouveret, M. 1998. “Approche de la dénomination en langue spécialisée.” Meta 43x)(3): 393–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, L. 1993. “Multidimensional Classification of Concepts for Terminological Purposes.” In 4th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, 36–56. Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
2022. “Multidimensionality.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining Terms, Concepts and Specialized Knowledge, ed. by P. Faber, and M. C. L’Homme, 127–147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, A., and J. Rebeyrolles. 1996. Point de vue en langue spécialisée. Meta 42x)(1): 174–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M. 2005. “A Mathematical Model of Historical Semantics and the Grouping of Word Meanings into Concepts.” Computational Linguistics 32x)(2): 227–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., and D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1995. “Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistics Viewpoint.” In Computational Lexical Semantics, ed. by P. Saint-Dizier, and E. Viegas, 33–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiCoEnviro. Dictionnaire fondamental de l’environnement. 2020. [URL]. Accessed 9 November 2021.
Diki-Kidiri, M. 2022. Cultural Terminology. An Introduction fo Theory and Method, In P. Faber & M. C. L’Homme, Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining Terms, Concepts and Specialized Knowledge, 197–216. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EcoLexicon. [URL]. Accessed 9 September 2021.
European Union Terminology (IATE). [URL]. Accessed 7 April 2020.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Term Portal ([URL]). Accessed May 15 2021.
Felber, H. 1987. Manuel de terminologie, Unesco: Infoterm.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. F. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Framed DicoEnviro. [URL]. Accessed 18 January 2022.
FrameNet. [URL]. Accessed 19 January 2022.
GEMET. [URL]. Accessed 9 November 2021.
Le grand dictionnaire terminologique. 2020. [URL]. Accessed 20 July 2020.
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis. Norms and Exploitations, Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P., and J. Pustejovksy. 2005. “A Pattern Dictionary for Natural Language Processing.” Revue française de linguistique appliquée 10x)(2): 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kocourek, R. 1991. La langue française de la technique et de la science. Vers une linguistique de la langue savante. Niemeyer: Oscar Brandstetter.Google Scholar
L’Homme, M. C. 2020a. “Revisiting Polysemy in Terminology.” In Proceedings of XIX EURALEX Congress: Lexicography for Inclusion, ed. by Gavriilidou, Z., M. Mitsiaki, and A. Fliatouras, Vol. Ix)1. 415–424. Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar
2020b. Lexical Semantics for Terminology, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. “Perspectives sur le sens « terminologique » : absorber et absorption dans le domaine de l’environnement.” In La Théorie Sens-Texte : concepts clés et applications, ed. by Marengo, S. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
L’Homme, M. C., and A. Polguère. 2008. “Mettre en bons termes les dictionnaires spécialisés et les dictionnaires de langue générale.” In Lexicographie et terminologie : histoire de mots. Hommage à Henri Béjoint, ed. by F. Maniez, and P. Dury, 191–206. Lyon: Presses de l’Université de Lyon.Google Scholar
L’Homme, M. C., B. Robichaud and C. Subirats. 2020. “Building Multilingual Specialized Resources Based on FrameNet: Application to the Field of the Environment.” In International FrameNet Workshop 2020. Towards a Global, Multilingual FrameNet. Proceedings, ed. by T. Torrent, C. F. Baker, O. Czulo, K. Ohara, and M. R. L. Petruck. 94–102. Workshop of the Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2020 .
León Araúz, P., and A. Reimerink. 2010. “Knowledge Extraction and Multidimensionality in the Environmental Domain.” In Proceedings of the Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (TKE) Conference. Dublin: Dublin City University. [URL]. Accessed 18 February 2020.
Mel’čuk, I., A. Clas, and A. Polguère. 1995. Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. Duculot: Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. [URL]. Accessed 3 March 2020.
Meyer, I., and K. Macintosh. 2000. “When Terms Move into our Everyday Lives: An Overview of De-terminologization.” Terminology 6x)(1): 111–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, I., V. Zaluski, and K. Mackintosh. 1997. “Metaphorical Internet Terms: A Conceptual and Structural Analysis. Terminology.” 4x)(1): pp. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NeoVisual. 2021. ([URL]). Accessed 9 November 2021.
Office québécois de la langue française. 2020. À vos vélos. ([URL]). Accessed 7 July 2020.
Oxford English Dictionary ([URL]). Accessed 6 September 2022.
Park, C., and M. Allaby. 2017. Oxford Dictionary of the Environment and Conservation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., M. Ellsworth, M. Petruck, C. Johnson, C. Baker, and J. Scheffczyk. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. ([URL]). Accessed 27 January 2017.
Sager, J. C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Martín, A. 2021. “A Flexible Approach to Terminological Definitions: Representing Thematic Variation.” International Journal of Lexicography ( DOI logo). Accessed 8 November 2021.Google Scholar
San Martín, A., and M. C. L’Homme. 2014. “Definition Patterns for Predicative Terms in Specialized Dictionaries.” In Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Sterner, B. 2022. Explaining Ambiguity in Scientific Language. Synthese 200x)(354). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Termium Plus®. 2022. ([URL]). Accessed 19 October 2022.
Van Campenhoudt, M. 2001. “Pour une approche sémantique du terme et de ses équivalents.” International Journal of Lexicography 14x)(3): 181–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdaguer, I. 2020. “Semantic Frames and Semantic Networks in the ‘Health Science Corpus.” Estudios de Lingüística del Español Anejo 1x)1: 117–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WordNet. A Lexical Database of English ([URL]). Accessed 25 November 2021.