4.

The Concept of Neologism and the Evolution of

Terminologies in Individual Languages
The index of the book edited by Andr Martinet, under the title La Linguistique
(1964), contains a single reference to the term 'neologism'. But this entry does
not refer to the chapter dealing with the lexicon; it refers to the study of lan
guage pathology and states that in some mental disturbances the language forms
produced are sometimes "inadequate for the meaning of the utterance and inco
herent from the language point of view", and can therefore constitute "a neolo
gism alien to the code" (Martinet 1964). Equally, in Webster's Dictionary (3rd
ed.) we read that a neologism is "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic".
If we further note that the term is absent from the index of such reference
books on general linguistics as Bloomfield (1933), Harris (1951), Gleason
(1961), John Lyons (1977), from Eric Hamp's (1957) Glossary of American
technical linguistic usage (1925-1950) and from the Dictionnaire des sciences
du langage by Ducrot and Todorov (1972), but that, on the other hand, the in
nocent lexicographer has to classify thousands of linguistic forms as neologisms,
there is strong reason for concern. Luckily, books oriented towards lexicography
and the friendlier dictionaries of linguistics give non-psychotic speakers and
writers the right to use neologisms. But the definitions in these dictionaries also
present serious problems. Without wishing to comment on the naivety of the dic
tionary editor who writes: "In contrast to archaisms, a neologism designates an
expression which has not always existed in the language, but which is of recent
usage", we must note the recurrence of the adjectives "recent" or "new" in these
definitions as well as a certain hesitation regarding the nature of neologisms. For
the Larousse Dictionary of Linguistics a neologism is a "word", "of recent crea
tion" or "recently borrowed", or even "a new meaning of an old word". At the
same time neology is defined as "the process of forming new lexical units"; this
definition, while including units larger than the word, seems to differentiate

64

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

between neology and borrowing. In La lexicologie, lectures (Rey 1970) I have

defined a neologism as: "a lexical unit perceived as recent by language users",
which reduces the idea of novelty to a psychological and social factor which is
therefore no longer objective and chronological.
Let us provisionally accept a problematic definition, which eschews defining
the linguistic nature and the chronological character of neologisms. For all im
mediate and practical purposes, neologisms can be considered as new units in a
specific linguistic code. This apparently clear and coherent concept faces us
with three questions:
What sort of linguistic unit is involved?
What sort of novelty?
Which definition of the code or system is the most relevant
and which are the relationships between neological units
and the system in which they appear?
The first part of this essay is concerned with these three questions. The sec
ond part tries to indicate their practical consequences.

4.1 The nature of neology

4.1.1 The linguistic nature of neologisms

In order to delimit a concept, it is sometimes useful to show or to construct an
adjacent and clearly differentiated domain. Admitting that neologisms are some
how new linguistic units, we immediately note that the unit called 'sentence' is
the most frequent new unit in communication. Since Humboldt, and more explic
itly since Chomsky, we know that language is to be seen as having an unlimited
creativity, capable of generating an infinite number of sentences with a finite
number of elements. However, anew sentence, one that has never before been
produced, is never considered to be a neologism whatever linguistic theory one
subscribes to.
Let us, at the other end on the scale, consider the appearance of a new ele
ment in what Martinet calls the 'second articulation', i.e. a new element realised

NEOLOGISMS

65

by means of the phonological system of a language. A new phoneme, whether it

appears by natural evolution or by borrowing, does not qualify as neologism ei
ther. In the words 'neology' and 'neologism' we find logos, i.e. simultaneously
language and rational thought. This concept therefore excludes purely formal
combinations of phonemes, just as, for quite different reasons, we must exclude
the creativity of speakers in discourse.
The concept of neologism can, therefore, only be applied to combined
structures lying between the morpheme and the phrase. Between these two welldefined functional units, the morpheme and the phrase, lies the specific domain
of lexicology. This domain is occupied by the word, a term which is repugnant
to many theoretical linguists, but which cannot be avoided by a comprehensive
theory of language, nor by naive or scientific empiricism.
The difficulties encountered with the definitions of 'word' and 'lexicon' reap
pear when one tries to analyse 'neologism' (Rey 1973 a). If we acknowledge 'lexi
cal unit' simultaneously as a semantic concept a unit whose form is linked to
a unit of content substance and as an information concept a unit to be
stored in memory as a code element we see immediately that the concept of
neologism does not directly coincide either.
While I would propose to exclude new morphemes, e.g. 'mini- and 'euro-',
from the definition of neologisms, such creations as minijupe [miniskirt], euro
crate [eurocrat] cannot be excluded from consideration as neologisms. We must
therefore examine specifically which units can be called 'neologisms'.
Lexical units consist of morpheme-words, complex words, and certain 'lexicalised' phrasal units. Among morpheme-words we find also the 'grammatical'
words which, according to different theories are considered part of or excluded
from the lexicon. They are few in number and have stable paradigms; they are
essential for the syntactic functions of a language, and even characterise the
structure of the language system. They are unaffected by neology, at least in the
short term. The so-called 'lexical' words, on the other hand, are very numerous
and belong to open sets; those which consist of a single morpheme are less af
fected by 'novelty'. Simple neologisms are usually borrowed words, old proper
names, abbreviations or 'sense neologisms'. We only have to look at books on
the evolution of vocabularies, dictionary supplements or dictionaries of new
words to see that the overwhelming majority of new forms (i.e. excluding sense
neologisms) are complex words. The core area of neology, and quantitatively
the most important, is split into two groups:

66

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

a. the area of borrowings and other forms, unmotivated for

the majority of speakers, which are unpredictable and
alien to the grammar of the language;
b. the area of morphology, which, by its semantic structure,
reflects a deeper syntactic structure.
This division has major practical implications. Morphological novelties, i.e.
words formed by a base and a suffix, a prefix and a base, or two bases, and parasynthetically more complex words, can enter the lexicon by forming a conceptual
or communicative unit, thus becoming part of the lexicon. While practically all
possible combinations authorised by the grammar are acceptable to the lexicon,
the final admission is largely determined by socio-cultural restrictions. For ex
ample, maisonette has become a French word but, *usinette has not. When the
latter is encountered in a conversation or in a text the possibility is quite easy
to imagine: "vous appeliez 'usine' ce petit atelier?, peine une usinettel" it is
a neologism. This means that the move from the potential (morphology) to the
real (lexicon, neologism) is a psychological and sociological matter and not sim
ply a linguistic one.
But the psychological and sociological factors are as restricting as the lin
guistic system; they determine the lexical norm and guarantee the efficacy of
communication. They are, however, not much studied, whereas grammar, espe
cially morphosyntax, is well documented. There is also a strong temptation sim
ply to assimilate neology into the general creativity of a system. The
psycho-social restrictions here mentioned, and especially historical circum
stances, render the lexicon studied at a particular moment partially regular and
partially irregular a phenomenon which has been studied ever since the Latin
grammarian Varro drew attention to it.1
Morphological neology is a means by which a language can regularise its
lexicon, whereas the processes of borrowing and abbreviation tend to introduce
irregularities. Though I disagree with Louis Guilbert (1975) on the factor of
regularity in the lexicon, I concur with him on the relationships between
morphosyntactic creativity and neology. In his words: "The creation of a
neologism cannot be dissociated from individual creators who are integrated into
a community and use it in discourse for expressing themselves in a particular
situation". This applies particularly to affixation, whose rules are semantically
stable.

NEOLOGISMS

67

The concept of neologism is, in fact, the only feature which permits the dis
tinction between morphology and lexicon, two inseparable but quite distinct
concepts. A unit of discourse, as opposed to the unit of language, is an individ
ual or dialectal neologism; if it functions at the scale of the whole language, it
belongs to lexicology and lexicography. This explains the hybrid nature of those
books devoted to neologisms which are collected without intuitive or statistical
attention to their areas of usage. These literary collections, such as the Diction
naire des mots sauvages by Maurice Rheims (1969), record the products of a
creativity that has not been adopted by the whole linguistic community. I accept
them as neologisms but not as items of the lexicon. By contrast, Gilbert's Dietionnaire des mots nouveaux (1971), which rejects the frequently single literary
reference in favour of words attested by several journalistic sources, deals with
items of the lexicon, and thus accounts for a much more solid model of
communication.
Beside the fully fused units called words, the lexicon consists of complex
units. Here too, the social norm decides on the status of a unit and its inclusion
in the lexicon according to the criteria of functional integration, semantic coher
ence and formal stability. This is an essential problem for technical and scientific
neology, because a large number of terminological needs are satisfied by 'groups
of words'. We may find them under a simple headword in general dictionaries,
but they may also have a specific entry in technical dictionaries, which list termi
nological rather than lexical units. Even adopting a terminological point of view,
the borderlines are not clearly drawn. We may hesitate to call a group stable and
hence admit it as a neologism, which scientists consider unsplittable because it
constitutes a designatory unit. Bacille de Koch [Koch's bacillus], Bacille de
Calmette-Gurin [BCG, Bacillus Calmette-Gurin], unit d'angle [angle unit],
unit d'arc [arc unit], etc. are conceptually stable; but, because, by applying
purely formal criteria, they can be part of many analogue combinations, and be
cause their constituent elements preserve the meaning of their use in isolation,
lexicologists do not admit them as units (cf. Phal 1964).
Any terminological collection contains many groups of words, and lexicolo
gists specialising in neology, like terminologists, transgress the conventions of
classical lexicography. Here too, we observe that the study of neologisms ex
ceeds that of the narrow perception of lexicology. The conceptual segmentation
employed in terminology uses perfectly regular morphosyntactic means. Unless
there is evidence of an irregularity, especially if of a semantic nature, the

68

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

linguist-lexicologist will refuse to consider such a group as belonging to the lexi

con. For example, conceptually paralysie gnrale [general paralysis] and re
cherche par graphe d'tats [state graph search] are on the same level; but, in the
first term, paralysie no longer has the meaning of its form in isolation; in the
second case recherche has kept it. For the linguist constructing a model of the
language, the first term figures in the lexicon but not the second. For the terminologist this point of view is unsatisfactory. Besides already lexicalised groups,
we must therefore admit terminological groups by the sole criterion of formal
and conceptual stability, both being types of neologisms.
The complex elements of the lexicon such as phrasal verbs, adverbials etc.
have to be accounted for in neology. New noun or verb phrases, labelled idioms,
do not present any problems from this particular viewpoint, though they may be
difficult to describe.
A neologism can therefore be a simple (morpheme-word) or a complex
form (noun or verb phrase); these latter forms are (i) are accepted by usage, or
(ii) conform to grammatical rules. It is always a sign, not a phoneme, or a figure,
as Hjelmslev would say; it cannot be a morpheme as such and certainly not a
grammatical word; one may provisionally admit that it is a phrase, however
complex, but certainly not a proposition or a sentence.
4.1.2 The novelty in neologisms

4.1.2.1 Types of neology

Before describing the novelty of neologisms, it is necessary to distinguish be
tween types of neology which can be (a) formal, (b) semantic, or (c) pragmatic.
a. Formal neology
This can be the result of the application of grammatical rules to the morpheme
store of the language. This is the case of potential neologisms of the system
which thereby manifests the scope and regularity of its rules (suffixation, prefixation, composition); e.g. in French: enseigneur, essayeur, envisageable, endurcis
sement, euphorisation, eurocrate, eurovision, rotologie, etc. The presence of
proper nouns among the available bases gives the system an indeterminate
scope; e.g. (anti)maoiste, (pro)giscardien, etc., were unforeseeable formations.

NEOLOGISMS

69

An interesting procedure, though more distant from grammar, has to be

added to morphology: the integration or syllabification of the letters constituting
abbreviations; e.g. CNRS, pronounced [se-enar'es], CAPES, pronounced
[kap'es], in the French of France, or WHO, EMU in English; or the integration
of syllables in the acronyms, e.g. OTAN [NATO], ecu pronounced [ek] in
French and [ikju] in English.
This process provides new bases which morphology can use and build upon,
e.g. French: Smigard, cgtiste, narque, pquiste, English: Labourite, Paisleyite, Freudian, Marxist. But by itself the process involves pronouncing the sound
corresponding to the letters, or the names of the letters, or even the syllables
formed by the more complex abbreviations, e.g. Unesco. Frequently discussed
but theoretically unexplored, acronymy and abbreviation use the formal combi
natory power of phonemes. If a sequence of names of initial letters conforms to
the rules accepted in the language (e.g. consonant-vowel-consonant in French)
the neological abbreviation can quickly enter general usage. If this is not the
case, the initials whose names can be spelt phonetically, though perhaps not very
elegantly, e.g. French: Him; English: AUT; or the syllables are interconnected.
These are above all 'logical proper names' or scientific and technical neologisms,
e.g. French: ADN, BCG, LSD; English: DNA, BMW, VW, LSD.
The formal novelty is in some way more intimate than in morphology, but it
arises from discourse, from the active language, through the complex expression
which lies at its basis.
It is possible to imagine an absolute formal innovation some examples
exist resulting in a completely arbitrary combination. This direct move to the
second level of articulation advocated by some linguists (Sauvageot 1964) with
out the normal linguistic creativity recognised by the community, belongs to the
area of illusions and arbitrariness. Combinations like 'Kodak' may succeed, but
their ad hoc creation by computer according to terminological needs defies the
social dimension of language, which is sufficient reason to make it generally in
operative. We can just cite as examples of formal innovation by phonetic combi
nation the onomatopoeia of comic strips, which are, however either too free
(being part of discourse) to become lexicalised, or else frequently borrowings.
Formal innovation can exist only in and in relation to the linguistic system.
Borrowing does not involve grammatical, i.e. morphological, creativity, but lexi
cal transfer of a fully formed element. It can be made from a living foreign lan
guage (external borrowing) or from a variety of the same system (internal

70

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

borrowing). Assimilation and similarity of forms and morphologies may mask

the origin and the nature of genuine borrowings. On the other hand, some forms
which look foreign, for example English forms in French, are only pseudoborrowings. Around 1900 in France the neologism Wattman was created as the
designation for a tramdriver on the basis of the proper name 'Watt', taken from
the electric unit, and the element 'man'.
b. Semantic neology
This feature is found in all neologisms without exception. For formally new ne
ologisms, semantic novelty can be total in the system (the case of borrowings),
partial (creations by affixation, composition, agglutination into complex words,
or syntagmatic formations into word groups) or very weak (the case of acro
nyms and abbreviations, because they only express the meanings of the form
they abridge, but by shortening they change the connotations, e.g. AIDS,
French: SIDA). To these we have to add cases of internal derivation, i.e. func
tional transfer, and sense neologisms, i.e. the transfer of semantic content which
may be internal or borrowed, e.g. French: raliser in the English sense of'to re
alize'. The rules of this transfer have been studied in great detail in lexical seman
tics, e.g. by Stern (1931), Ullman (1957).
The addition of sense neologisms permits the refinement of the proposed
definition. 'New unit' must be understood as 'linguistic unit expressing a new
naming relation, regardless whether the designated concept is innovative or not,
i.e. whether it is a neologism referring to a concept already named before'.
Pragmatic neology
This form of neologism is identified in relation to communication. It is impossi
ble to consider a neologism abstractly, i.e. as a new element in the system, inde
pendent of the concrete processes of language. A functional form, an old lexical
sign, but limited to one subsystem, such as a dialect, sociolect, usage or objec
tive norm, may move to another subsystem, where it is perceived as a neolo
gism. Psycholinguistically, the learning of lexical items is a sequence of steps by
which subjective neologisms are integrated and in which individual creativity
plays a role. Here one finds the pathological meaning of neologism as 'abnormal',
i.e. words created by children on an audio-phonological basis or by ignorance of
the restrictions and an over-general application of rules.

NEOLOGISMS

71

This aspect, which does not concern terminology, is nevertheless very im

portant because its study can provide the criteria for the acceptability of neolo
gisms in a community. Every formal and semantic novelty sets off and
presupposes a pragmatic novelty.
The three aspects presented above are required for defining what is 'new' in
neologisms.
4.1.2.2 Towards a definition of lexical neology
4. L 2.2.1 Objective neology
Objective novelty is by nature chronological; it is reflected in lexicographical
datings and documentation of first occurrences. Jean Dubois (1971) stated that
the notation as 'neologism' in dictionaries often superimposes an implicit judge
ment on the observation of an objective fact. There is a fundamental difference
between the dating of "1950 to 2000" in a dictionary published in these years
and the labelling of an entry as "neologism". The first information is neutral; the
second presupposes two subsets in the lexicon: one formed by fully accepted and
admitted units, the other formed by units in the process of being accepted, a kind
of lexical purgatory. For this reason, more recently published dictionaries, at
least in France, have abandoned this label altogether. The first dating of a lexical
unit is usually that of a noteworthy use or of a lexicographic entry. Outside sci
entific discoveries or technical inventions we rarely know precisely the first oc
currence of a lexical unit.
Supposing the history of the lexicon were better known which is slowly
becoming a reality the concept of neologism would then be identified with
that of lexical mobility in general. No lexical unit is exempt from chronological
identification. By dating a word in Beowulf for English or in La vie de Saint
Alexis for French we artificially conjure up a partial lexicon, thereby generalising
neology without considering that at every historical stage of a system there is a
complete functional set supporting these isolated historic or literary documents,
even though we are unable to reconstruct them.2
In this temporally abstract framework, the concept of neologism depends
exclusively on the functional set one has in mind. This type of neologism, as
Guilbert (1975) has observed, can only be defined synchronically, because
diachronically every unit is at one time a neologism, thus invalidating the

72

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

concept. The concept of 'synchrony' is, however, a methodological abstraction,

an entirely artificial construct. From this point of view it is always possible to
consider a brief functional state, considered to be stable, between two changes
of the lexicon. One could in this way completely eliminate the concept of neolo
gism and arbitrarily define a stable system.
The acceptance of a relatively wide synchrony, which tolerates change and
the emergence of new units, weakens the concept of structure. It is, however,
necessary to face up to this problem, because instantaneous synchrony is a theo
retical notion, just like the philosophical concept of 'the present'. Structuralism
teaches us that the introduction of a new unit in a system modifies its very na
ture. But in matters of the lexicon the situation is more complex than in a game
of chess, a metaphor already used by Saussure. Adding a pawn at the start of
play would not profoundly alter the course of the game. But, adding or remov
ing a pawn, a bishop or a queen in the middle of play would seriously unbalance
the match. Equally, the introduction of a grammatical unit or a frequent term will
have a distinctive impact on the lexicon, whereas the modification of a special
terminology will only affect a limited part of the lexicon, at a level subordinated
to functionally more general ones.
The lexicon can be substantially altered without changing the deeper level of
grammar. This happened to English when it was invaded by Norman French at
the end of the Middle Ages. The kernel of a linguistic system is constituted by its
phonology and its morphosyntax. As long as the lexicon is structured by morphosyntax and phonology, which set the outer limits, especially by semantic
structures, it can have a latent variability and irregularity. These depend on:
a.

b.

intralinguistic factors outside the deep schema/structure of the

language; they can be studied through usage, i.e. through the
objective norm;
interlinguistic factors like contacts and borrowing;
extralinguistic, i.e. socio-cultural, economic and political factors.

While neologisms created by morphological means are part of the system of lan
guage, they escape from it by many aspects expressed by History, in the broad
est sense of the term. Chronology is only a convenient reference point; it is an
alien element to the use of the word, just like etymology is. 'Neologisms' must

NEOLOGISMS

73

therefore, I think, be accepted as functional and pragmatic lexical novelties and

the concept can only depend on a collective judgment.
4.1.2.2.2 Functional novelty and criteria of novelty
Functional novelty is defined in relation to a model of communication. A mor
phologically potential unit, or a borrowing can be realised, but if it functions in a
highly restricted model it will not have the slightest impact on the language.
There are legions of neological phantasms, many of which have been produced
systematically. An extreme case in French of the mid-nineteenth century is that
of Richard de Radonvilliers who systematically produced new French words3; a
more recent case for English is Henry G. Burger's Wordtree (1984) in which he
creates morphological neologisms by derivation, filling a whole dictionary with
verbs ending in '-ize'. Accounts of travels also frequently contain picturesque
borrowings which, however, remain hapax. These neologisms may, in other cir
cumstances, acquire a genuine functional significance. Unless datings in diction
aries provide supplementary information about the extent of usage of a word
(e.g. extended use in such and such a period or domain), they are only of philol
ogical interest and socially irrelevant.
Novelty should therefore be located in a model registering exchange or
change. Cases of technical usages of words, limited to a single terminology or a
socio-professional group are particularly interesting when they are later ex
tended to general usage. An old technical term can justifiably be considered a ne
ologism at another level of usage when a larger user group becomes acquainted
with it. We must not confuse novelty among a user group with novelty in a com
municative situation, but in practice, and especially with technical vocabulary
these two types frequently coincide. For example, a word from the vocabulary of
metallurgical technicians tends to be used in a specific type of professional
communication.
To sum up, a chronological view of neology, presupposing abstractly a sin
gle act of communication, as in a single text, or the recording of un-analysed
communicative acts, as in a dictionary, is an insufficient criterion for declaring
the existence of a neologism. Instead we can introduce two alternative concepts:
a. Functional novelty which, in addition to chronological
information, presupposes the definition of a pragmatic and a
sociological domain;

74

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

b.

The impression of the existence of a neologism, which is added

to linguistic identification as a new form of sociolinguistic
concern.

In order to be taken into account, this neological impression must be a collective

reaction shared by the majority of speakers. Otherwise, the great variations
which exist in lexical competence would identify every instance of lexical acqui
sition as a neologism. If on a visit to a factory I learn terms which I did not pre
viously know, they are for me neologisms until I have learnt them. This example
shows that in psycholinguistics, as in diachronic linguistics, the concept of neol
ogy is irrelevant.
On the contrary, socioculturally only a collective impression can decide
what is a neologism and account for the usage of neologisms. It is easy to note
the presence of old terms among words identified as neologisms by the great
French dictionaries of the nineteenth century. The linguistic conscience of the
purists disproportionately widened the definition of neologism by largely subjec
tive value judgements.
This is the same problem as the impression of borrowings, of anglicisms,
etc. I have been able to verify that French speakers categorise the word 'stock
fish', borrowed from Dutch in the 14th century, as a neologism and anglicism in
the same way as the recent 'stockcar'. Even though they are felt to be new, such
words which have existed in the lexicon for a long time, cannot be included
among neologisms; the collective impression of novelty frequently arises when
there is, in fact, only a functional novelty: nevertheless this has to be taken into
account without including it in our definition of neology.
4.1.2.3 The classification of neology as a linguistic phenomenon
We have now to examine in which system or in which linguistic code neologisms
manifest themselves. This question is closely related to the previous one since (i)
code and communicative situation cannot be described separately; and (ii) the
nature of the system can only be defined by an arbitrary synchronic cross
section.
If the system is a language, this abstract concept does not comprise that of
'code'. The French spoken in the Orleans region in the eighteenth century and the
French spoken today in Quebec, the English spoken in London around 1830 and

NEOLOGISMS

75

the English currently used in Sydney, can be considered as belonging to a system

(in a global opposition of English and French, for example), but not as variants
of the same functional code. This contrast between structure and fonctions is a
quite widespread phenomenon in the human sciences; in linguistics this contrast
is realised as the tension between the system and usage. In the abstract system of
a language the structure cannot be defined without restrictions: if eighteenthcentury French or nineteenth-century English are simply variants of an abstract
structure, this structure is impoverished to the extent of no longer having the
characteristics of a distinct grammar. Romanic, Old French, and Modern French,
just like Old English and Modern English are different structures. If we pass
from the abstract structure to the concept of communication code, these distinc
tions become even more marked. In order to define a lexicon or terminologies,
including neologisms of a language, we must see this language as a functional
code with its variants established by norms. We must therefore establish its limits
in the chronological, spatial, communicative and social dimensions.
4.1.2.3. J Definition of a synchronic dimension
This dimension is primarily relevant in establishing the relationship between the
lexicon and neologisms. The lexicon, as a theoretical set and one component of
language, is functionally materialised by vocabularies which are detectable in dis
course. The lexicon feeds the terminologies and partially also the nomenclatures.
Being less structured than morphosyntax and phonology, the lexicon tolerates
many changes of detail, the most important of which are caused by neology.
Morphological neology only affects the restrictions imposed on the system by
the norm; it therefore does not alter the structure but aims at its fuller realisa
tion. Borrowed neologisms, on the other hand, represent a basic disturbance of
the lexicon. Both forms of neology are constantly at work; diachronically words
change all the time. Only in the synchronic dimension can we study lexical struc
tures and capture their modifications. It would be interesting to study neolo
gisms in a synchronic perspective defined in terms of the objectives of the
analysis. In the case of the historical study of French, one would define large
segments, according to major trends, e.g. the restrictive conservatism of the sev
enteenth century, the first wave of anglicisms and organised neologisms in the
second half of the eighteenth century, etc. For the definition of a policy of neol
ogy it would be useful to subordinate the limits of synchrony to the objective of
the analysis. For example, for studying French borrowings of English, the

76

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

complete assimilation of the more common words within a certain time span of
usage, prevents us from considering as neologisms borrowings which are more
than between 10 to 20 years old at the time of study. This is a matter of method
ology and strategy rather than theory.
4.1.2.3.2 Geographical aspects
Every language which extends over a large geographical area develops local dif
ferences of usage. This, for example, is clearly observable for English, French
and Spanish. A collaborative study of neologisms carried out in France and in
French Quebec illustrates this fact and the associated problems. The existence of
a vast common lexical stock permits concentration on the terminological differ
ences of specific subsets. In some cases there will be:
a.
b.

d.

a common set of functional terms;

units which belong to only one of the two systems;
common neologisms;
specific neologisms.

The purpose is not only to harmonise neologisms but to harmonise with a

view to reduce divergences. So, if in Quebec there is the anglicism canceller un
appel [cancel a call] or disconnecter [disconnect], it may be convenient to rec
ommend their replacement by the French usage for these actions, i.e. annuler or
dbrancher. But appel charges renverses [reverse charge call] in Quebec
French is in France appel en P.C.V. (payable contre vrification), it is difficult
to change so widely different neological habits, especially when they are institu
tionalised (in this case by the respective telecommunication administrations). In
the first case we are dealing with a phrase, in the second with an abbreviation
which is probably no longer motivated. There is a constant need for comparison
between variants of the same language and a policy of neology must adapt itself
to the circumstances in the direction of reducing divergences.
4.1.2.3.3 Social and communicative aspects
Vocabularies function in a social environment and according to specific commu
nicative situations. The same neologism will have a different impact and weight
according to whether it belongs to one group of speakers or to all, whether it is
specific to a factory or office or whether it is used at home and in the streets. In

NEOLOGISMS

77

French, German or Spanish, anglicisms or classical Greco-Latin formations are

frequently confined to the domains in which they were coined. The case of bor
rowings and morphological creations in the areas of generalised technical activi
ties, such as the use of domestic appliances, aircraft and motorcars, is different.
In this case the model of distribution depends entirely on economic, technologi
cal, and other extra-linguistic factors.
In this way neologisms are a unit of the lexicon, a word, a word element or
a phrase, whose meaning, or whose signifier-signified relationship, presupposing
an effective function in a specific model of communication, was not previously
materialised as a linguistic form in the immediately preceding stage of the lexi
con of the language. This novelty, which is observed in relation to a precise and
empirical definition of the lexicon, corresponds normally to a specific feeling in
speakers. According to the model of the lexicon chosen, the neologism will be
perceived as belonging to the language in general or only to one of its special us
ages; or as belonging to a subject-specific usage which may be specialised or
general.
The defining elements stress the relative nature of this concept. There is ob
viously no such thing as a neologism in the abstract, but only in relation to a set
of arbitrarily defined usages.

4.2 Practical aspects

A simple list of the difficulties in the way of defining 'neologism' will expose the
real problems of observation, evaluation of neologisms and those associated with
intervention in neological creation. Before we do this, it is useful to discuss the
general question of needs in relation to the resources of the language.
4.2.1 Lexical needs and language trends
The needs of a language for naming, designation and lexical materialisation are a
matter of onomasiology. As always in semantics, we have to distinguish the extensional or referential aspect (the relation of object to sign) and the intensional
aspect (the relation of concept to sign). In discourse, the processes of designa
tion relate to the extension, regardless of whether we are dealing with material
objects, processes or individually realised abstractions. This essential theoretical

78

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

aspect, which immediately comes to mind, is not primary for linguists nor for
terminologists. Their concern is only with the designations of unique objects by
proper names (for example, abbreviations for international institutions).
The essential aspect is that the lexicon incorporates a class of objects or
phenomena with shared features by means of adequate linguistic signs in the
form of words or phrases. These features may be perceived intuitively, in which
case they are pragmatic classes.
We do not name a new object, but a class of objects which the name unites
imprecisely in an open set. This is the case of material objects and everyday phe
nomena. Though linguistically different, the case of adjectives, verbs, etc. is logi
cally analogous. A verb, such as europaniser and its nominalisation
europanisation do not pose different problems. In most cases, the transforma
tional laws of languages permit the reduction of the onomasiological problem to
that of the noun.
At the practical level, the chief distinction we can establish is that between
pragmatic classes of objects and classes which are reciprocally defined in a struc
ture of explicit and pertinent features. The first group covers the general vocabu
lary and that part of the technical vocabulary which belongs to it; the second
group covers science and the scientific part of technology; they are specifically
terminological.
Another division exists between the domain vocabularies of little connotative meaning (science and technology) and the general vocabulary in which ne
ologisms correspond to a particular level of language.
At a particular time and place the needs for designation are defined with re
spect to the relation between the available vocabulary items and the new con
cepts, including those corresponding to classes of material objects. A rich
vocabulary can absorb a new concept by a semantic neologism, as occurred in
the case of motorcars where the vocabulary of traction vehicles and combustion
engines was simply transferred. But any quick evolution of social habits, tech
niques or structures of knowledge represents a terminological challenge, espe
cially when the knowledge and the techniques are not autochthonous to the
culture but have already been developed elsewhere and have already been named
in another language. In this case empirical pressure is added to that of existing
associated linguistic forms.
The identification of needs presupposes the existence of inventories of exist
ing forms.

NEOLOGISMS

79

4.2.2 Identification of neological needs

4.2.2.1 Plan

a.

Inventory of needs according to subject field (thematic

onomasiology)
i. enumeration and classification of affected subject fields (sci
ences, developing technologies, new skills, evolving social
practices and their wider application); e.g.: nuclear physics,
genetics, electronics, computation, new leisure activities.
ii. survey of the domains subject to cultural and linguistic pres
sures coming from sources expressed in one or several other
languages; e.g.: Anglo-American and Russian for space ex
ploration, Anglo-American for computing, French and English
for atomic energy.
This is generally the case of imported science and technology,
of descriptions of foreign cultures and institutions (ranging
from foreign words to borrowings or equivalents). In this re
spect the weight of Anglo-American words over any other
language is crushing, except for the fields of law, philosophy,
some social sciences and cookery.
iii. inventory of the relations between subject fields (types of
transfer by analogy); e.g.: from hunting to animal breeding,
from fruit gathering to agriculture, from fishing to fishbreeding and industrial fisheries.

b. Inventory of semantic needs (componential onomasiology)

i. classification of semanticism to be filled in (named); e.g.: sub
stances, properties, (natural) processes, natural objects, ele
ments and parts, human actions, manufactured objects, etc.;
abstractions, theoretical concepts (sciences).
ii. establishing relations by functional categories (nouns, adjec
tives, verbs, etc.)

80

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

iii. establishing relationships by morphological means (semantic

inventory of prefixes, suffixes, onomasiology of naming
components).
Inventory of translation needs (cf. section 4.1.2.)
i. classification by subject field.
ii. study of the source language: for all languages except English:
lexicon, morphology, similar features with the target lan
guage; for English with respect to Romance languages: com
mon Latin lexical roots with semantic divergences, identical
Greek-Latin elements.
4.2.2.2 Realisation and techniques
The adjustment of these needs to the possibilities of the language can only be
made by a division of processes: morphology, abbreviation and acronymy, bor
rowing, creation of fixed expressions, etc.
Some languages have developed specific techniques but eschew others; for
example, French morphology with respect to German or English, e.g. 'spaceman'
has no morphological equivalent in French. But generally and in principle, every
linguistic system is capable of developing the necessary terminological and con
ceptual tools. Only the history of language use accounts for different
conceptualisations4. The practical problem is of a strategic nature: for any one
lexical system it is a matter of adapting itself to the needs according to its own
structure and trends. When these needs are internal and come from inside the
culture the difficulties are small. When they are instigated by outside pressure,
which may at times be very powerful, the difficulties are considerable, as, for ex
ample, in the case of African languages, and even Arabic or Chinese faced with a
massive transfer of knowledge for which new designations have to be created.
4.2.3. Study and evolution of neology
4.2.3.1 Identification of neologisms
Studies of neologisms are generally inadequate and have no sociolinguistic im
pact. The study of neologisms i.e. the collection of written texts and record
ings, the extraction of neologisms from their context, their classification and

NEOLOGISMS

81

processing depends on the always relative definition of what is a neologism.

To this list of tasks we have to add finding solutions to such problems as the de
sirability of eliminating older borrowed units in favour of improved neologisms.
This potential task introduces an element of evaluation, which is unavoid
able and indispensable in matters of usage, even at the theoretical level of de
scription (Rey 1972). There are five criteria for evaluating lexical units
considered to be neologisms.
a. System conformity
A form may phonologically and graphically conform to the structure of the lan
guage. A problem arises with the form of absolute creations (onomatopoeia), ab
breviations and acronyms and with borrowings which involve the assimilation of
a different system by little known processes. For example, 'jet' can be assimilated
in French, Italian, etc. whereas 'design' is difficult for French.
Regarding morphological innovation we have to study the form of the new
elements, i.e. whether they can be assimilated depends on their degree of inte
gration, coherent formation (there is the problem of hybrid forms), formal cohe
sion (hiatus), their phonetic and graphic realisation (complexity, length,
acceptability).
b. Semantic potential
Neologisms have varying degrees of semantic capabilities. The degree of arbi
trariness is relevant here. An unmotivated or poorly motivated word is less use
ful than a fully motivated one.
Productivity
The scope for integration of a neologism can be tested. At the paradigmatic
level, a term can be coherent in a system; for example: in logic and semantics
'connotation-denotation'; 'extension - intension'; comprhension - extension.
At the syntagmatic level, a term may lend itself to varied constructions. At
the transformational level it may permit the creation of derivatives or
compounds.
d. Distinctiveness /lack of competition
The neologism may be the only one to assume an onomasiological role, or it may
compete with other terms which may themselves be neologisms. We only have

82

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

to think of the many French alternatives proposed for 'hardware' which have en
sured the survival of this anglicism. But in French the success of 'ordinateur' has
eliminated the competitors calculateur, calculatrice, compteur. We have to re
mind ourselves that the neological possibilities are both lexical and syntagmatic.
Only lexical ones are usually registered in the lexicon. The proposal of long
phrases, as happens all too often, to translate a borrowed foreign term, or one
about to be borrowed, is only a paraphrase and cannot succeed. But it can rep
resent an intermediary stage which is resolved by means of an abbreviation. Such
an abbreviation can then be accepted quite readily because it is demotivated; but
this may lead to competing abbreviations. The English acronym 'aids' has been
adopted in many languages; whereas French has created the acronym sida, be
cause of extralinguistic circumstances, namely the simultaneous discovery of this
condition in the United States and in France.
Lexical units can be:
i.
already existing forms (sense neologisms);
ii. morphological creations (general morphology, learned
morphology: Greco-Latin elements);
iii. borrowings;
iv. abbreviations and acronyms originating from phrases.
e. Acceptability
Finally, and this is not fully understood, it is necessary to assess the sociolinguistic value of the neologism at the appropriate moment and inside the appropriate
model of communication. One can only observe results: frequency, availability of
the word, positive or negative reaction by speakers and writers (fashion words),
its geographical and cultural distribution, its use outside the original subject
field, etc.
Only the compilation of these facts and the characteristics listed under a-d
would allow the construction of a model of the predictable behaviour of neolo
gisms, and even then only with great risks of error, because of unanalysed fac
tors of social pragmatics such as urgency of needs, complex reactions of
different social groups, etc.

NEOLOGISMS

83

4.2 4 Intervention and planning

For the development of policies of intervention, management or planning, it is
necessary to keep in mind a number of theoretical considerations, not only of a
linguistic nature, but also sociological, political, technical and scientific ones.
Needs and lexical situations create a reality which it is futile to oppose. The
maximal exploitation of linguistic means, the analysis of conditions of success of
a neologism, and especially the motivation of speakers are indispensable. It is
obviously also possible to influence users.
It is also necessary that this motivation be based on socio-cultural realities.
When tiemble (1964) denounced Frangais with aesthetic, political and ideo
logical arguments his exaggerations and the contradictions in his pet topics (pov
erty of the language or cultural independence vis--vis the United States)
weakened his case.
It is useful to start with spontaneous trends, like the rejection of snobbism,
etc., and to use them in the desired sense. A French television specialist told me
recently that cadreur, which has been recommended to replace 'cameraman', was
winning ground. This is not because the word had been recommended in the
Journal Officiel, which is generally ignored, but because this neologism seemed
more modern, more "chic" than the time-worn anglicism.5 Another example in
French is baladeur, which was accepted because 'walkman', a pseudo-anglicism
created in Japan, was a trade mark, and hence unavailable for this device when it
is not produced by the firm Sony.
Specifically, the agencies concerned with innovations in the vocabulary, da
tabases, courses for terminologists, databanks for the collection, processing and
distribution of neologisms are more influential than legal or administrative meas
ures. These elements can play an important role, provided:
a. they have a scientific foundation, created by linguistics and
lexicography, terminology, sociology or history;
b. they have reliable and large amounts of information. Such
information already exists in much dispersed form and has been
collected and stored according to quite different methods and for
quite different objectives.

84

ESSAYS ON TERMINOLOGY

For the distribution of knowledge and for the investigation of social needs
coordination is indispensable. We need a continuous evaluation of affective reac
tions, political intentions, offended purisms which impede communication and
mutual understanding. As the proverb says: the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.