Cover not available
Part of
Dynamics and Terminology: An interdisciplinary perspective on monolingual and multilingual culture-bound communication
Edited by Rita Temmerman and Marc Van Campenhoudt
[Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice 16] 2014
► pp. 259–280

12. The dynamics of terms and meaning in the domain of machining terminology in French and English

| KU Leuven

This chapter addresses the dynamics of terms and meaning in specialised communication by means of a semantic investigation into the domain of machining and metalworking terminology. The double quantitative analysis consists of the identification and quantification of specialised vocabulary as well as the quantification of the semantic analysis by means of a monosemy measure. This approach involves a statistical analysis in order to come to linguistic conclusions. Accordingly, the study aims to question the univocity ideal in a quantitative way. It focuses on the methodology and shows that an interdisciplinary approach can yield valuable results. The study is completed by a small analysis on an English test corpus from the same domain in order to explore the semantic differences between (culturally different) corpora.

Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.16.13ber
References
Bianchini, Laure, Micaela Rossi, and Abdelouahed Mabrour
2008 “Les mots de l’eau: entre terminologie spécialisée et analyse interculturelle.” Synergies Italie 4: 123–132.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, Peter, and Franz J. Hausmann
(eds) 2006 Collocations, Corpus, Dictionnaires [Langue française 150]. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
Cabré, Maria Teresa
2000 “Terminologie et linguistique: la théorie des portes.” Terminologies nouvelles 2: 10–15.Google Scholar
Condamines, Anne
(ed.) 2005 Sémantique et corpus. Paris: Hermes-Science.Google Scholar
Condamines, Anne, and Josette Rebeyrolle
1997 “Point de vue en langue spécialisée.” Meta 42 (1): 174–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diki-Kidiri, Marcel
(ed.) 2008 Le vocabulaire scientifique dans les langues africaines. Pour une approche culturelle de la terminologie. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
2007 “Eléments de terminologie culturelle.” Cahiers du Rifal 26: 14–25.Google Scholar
Dunning, Ted
1993 “Accurate Methods for the Statistics of Surprise and Coincidence.” Computational Linguistics 19 (1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Lars
2002 “Die Polysemie in der Allgemeinsprache und in der juristischen Fachsprache. Oder: Zur Terminologie der ‚Sache’ im Deutschen.” Hermes 28: 211–222.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Laura
2002 “Un caso de polisemia en el discurso jurídico?” Terminology 8 (2): 221–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferret, Olivier
2010 “Similarité sémantique et extraction de synonymes à partir de corpus”. Proceedings of TALN 2010 .
Firth, John R
1957 (1951). “Modes of Meaning.” In Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951, ed. by John R. Firth, 190–215. London: Oxford University Press. (first published in 1951)Google Scholar
Gaudin, François
2003 Socioterminologie: une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Bruxelles: Duculot.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1993 “Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries.” Cognitive Linguistics 4 (3): 223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, Francis, and Agnes Tutin
(eds) 2003 Les collocations, analyse et traitement [Travaux et Recherches en linguistique appliquée Série E, 1]. Amsterdam: De Werelt.Google Scholar
Habert, Benoît, Gabriel Illouz, and Helka Folch
2004 “Dégrouper les sens: pourquoi? comment?” Actes de JADT 2004 Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. Vol. 1. 565–576.Google Scholar
2005 “Des décalages de distribution aux divergences d’acception.” In Sémantique et corpus. ed. by Anne Condamines, 277–314. Paris: Hermes-Science.Google Scholar
Lafon, Pierre
1984 Dépouillements et statistiques en lexicométrie. Genève/Paris: Slatkine/ Champion.Google Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, and Kristen Mackintosh
2000 “L’étirement du sens terminologique: aperçu du phénomène de la déterminologisation.” In Le sens en terminologie, ed. by Henri Béjoint, and Philippe Thoiron, 198–217. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Yves, and Dirk Geeraerts
2009 “Predicting Strong Associations on the Basis of Corpus Data”. Proceedings of EACL 2009 . Athens Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 648–656.
Sahlgren, Magnus
2006 The Word-Space Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Stockholm University,Sweden.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike, and Christopher Tribble
2006 Textual Patterns: Keyword and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike
2001 “Mapping Key Words to Problem and Solution.” In Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey, ed. by Mike Scott, and Geoff Thompson, 109–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Rita
2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David
1993 “Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness.” Cognitive Linguistics 4 (3): 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turney, Peter, and Patrick Pantel
2010 “From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics”. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–188.Google Scholar
Veronis, Jean
2003 “Cartographie lexicale pour la recherche d’informations.” In Béatrice Daille (ed.), Actes de TALN 2003 – Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, 265–274. 
Batz-sur-mer (France): ATALA.Google Scholar
Wüster, Eugen
1931 Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik: besonders in der Elektrotechnik. Berlin: VDI–Verlag.Google Scholar
1968 The Machine Tool. London: Technical Press.Google Scholar
1991 Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie. 3. Aufl. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Mikelionienė, Jurgita & Aušra Berkmanienė
2018. Determinologisation of Lithuanian and English Technical Terms: The Case of Apparatus. In Readings in Numanities [Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress, 3], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.