1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-9971
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9994
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article studies a family of semantic relationships that is often ignored in terminological descriptions, i.e. opposite relationships that include, but are not limited to, antonymy. We analyze English and French terms classified in an environmental database as opposites (Eng. ; , ; ; Fr. ; , ; ) and revise this first classification based on typologies and criteria supplied by literature on lexical semantics, psycholinguistics and corpus linguistics. Our revised classification shows that diversified opposite relationships can be observed between terms. They also appear to display the same complexity as in general language. Finally, in some cases, the nature of concepts in the specific subject field must be taken into consideration.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/term.22.1.02gag
2016-05-19
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amsili, Pascal
    2003 “L’antonymie en terminologie: quelques remarques.” InTerminologie et Intelligence Artificielle (TIA), 31–40, Strasbourg, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkins, BT Sue , and Michael Rundell
    2008The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruse, D. Alan
    1986Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cruse, D Alan
    2001 “Paradigmatic Relations of Exclusion and Opposition II: Reversivity.” InLexicology: An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabulariesed. by Alan D. Cruse , Franz Hundsnurscher , Michael Job and Peter Rolf Lutzeier . 507–510. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cruse, D. Alan
    2011Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DiCoEnviro. Dictionnaire fondamental de l’environnement (olst.ling.umontreal.ca/cgi-bin/dicoenviro/search_enviro.cgi). Accessed5 January 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fellbaum, Christiane
    1995 “Co-occurrence and Antonymy.” International Journal of Lexicography8 (4): 281–303. doi: 10.1093/ijl/8.4.281
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/8.4.281 [Google Scholar]
  8. Jones, Steven
    2002Antonymy: A Corpus-based Perspective. London; New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kocourek. R
    1991La langue française de la technique et de la science. Vers une linguistique de la langue savante. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lehrer, Adrienne , and Keith Lehrer
    1982 “Antonymy.” Linguistics and Philosophy5 (4): 483–501. doi: 10.1007/BF00355584
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355584 [Google Scholar]
  11. León Araúz, Pilar , Ariane Reimerink , and Pamela Faber
    2009 “Knowledge Extraction on Multidimensional Concepts: Corpus Pattern Analysis (CPA) and Concordances.” In 8ème conférence internationale Terminologie et Intelligence Artificielle . Toulouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. L’Homme, Marie-Claude
    2004La terminologie: principes et techniques. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lyons, John
    1995Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
  14. Marshman, Elizabeth , Marie-Claude L’Homme , and Victoria Surtees
    2008 “Portability of Cause-Effect Relation Markers across Specialized Domains and Text Genres: A Comparative Evaluation.” Corpora3(2): 141–172 doi: 10.3366/E1749503208000130
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000130 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mel’čuk, Igor , André Clas , and Alain Polguère
    1995Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique): Duculot / Aupelf - UREF.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Muehleisen, Victoria Lynn
    1997 Antonymy and Semantic Range in English. Dissertation. Northwestern University. (www.f.waseda.jp/vicky/dissertation/). Accessed15 December 2014.
  17. Murphy, M Lynne
    2003Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486494
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486494 [Google Scholar]
  18. Polguère, Alain
    2003Lexicologie et sémantique lexicale: notions fondamentales. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SAAQ
    2014 “Définition de véhicule lourd.” InVéhicule lourd. (www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/lourds/definition_lourd/index.php) Accessed4 January 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sager, Juan C
    1990A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.44 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sager, Juan C. , and Kyo Kageura
    1994 “Concept Classes and Conceptual Structures: Their Role and Necessity in Terminology.” ALFA: Terminology and Special Linguistics7(8): 191–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WordNet. A Lexical Database for English (https://wordnet.princeton.edu/). Accessed1st June 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/term.22.1.02gag
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): antonymy , environment , opposite , semantic relationship , term and terminological database
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error