The diachronic dimension in terminology: State of the art and perspectives

Université Lumière Lyon 2

30 November-01er December 2023

Conference email: DiachroLyon23@gmail.com

A first conference on diachronic terminology was held on 25 and 26 March 1988 at the Institut libre Marie Haps in Brussels (now part of the Université Saint-Louis de Bruxelles), under the auspices of the Conseil international de la langue française. It was organised by Caroline de Schaetzen around three themes: History of the science of terms, history of vocabularies, diachronic terminology and society. This conference offered a first reflection on the diachronic dimension in terminology and adressed a number of research questions, including the observation of scientific vocabularies, the comparison of two states of terminology in time and the formation of scientific terminologies, for example.

However, as many authors have since pointed out (see for example Candel and Gaudin, 2006, or Dury and Picton, 2009), the diachronic dimension has long remained an underexplored topic in terminology, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. In 2009, John Humbley wrote in the introduction of a special issue of the Revue française de linguistique appliquée devoted to terminology that:

 " […] We know that the theory of terminology, as developed by Wüster, was exclusively synchronic in orientation, and that the terminological practice of the last fifty years has not contradicted this position. However, it turns out that this position becomes untenable from a theoretical point of view, as soon as one tries to account for the evolution of terminology (and we know that terminologies are constantly evolving), and that it has harmful consequences at the level of practice" (2009: 7).

Since then, many studies on different aspects of the diachronic dimension have been published (to name but a few, Picton, 2018; Dury 2022), and a body of doctrine and practice is beginning to emerge, particularly with regard to the methodology and exploitation of specialised diachronic corpora.

At the same time, however, research in the history of language have developed, often with historians of science, particularly on problems related to the constitution of scientific and technical vocabularies, direct ancestors of our modern terminologies. This is the case, for example, of the works published in 2011 by Ducos and Salvador on the Middle Ages, by Selosse on pre-classical French in 2016, or by Zanola in 2014 on the eighteenth century, focusing on different themes: medicine, botany, crafts and many others. What are the similarities and differences between these two communities of researchers: is cross-fertilisation still possible?

Indeed, projects focusing partly or totally on the diachronic dimension in terminology are still scattered and there is currently no rallying point for diachronicists to share their work.

We therefore propose, 35 years after Brussels, to meet in Lyon for a second conference on diachronic terminology, which will allow us to take stock of the progress made in this field and to discuss future perspectives.

Proposals for papers may be submitted in one or more of the following areas:

1: State of the art

- History of terminological diachrony,

- Can we see the emergence of a diachronic movement, a typology of studies?

- How far have we come since Wüster’s work on the theory and practice of the diachronic dimension?

- Which research questions have been the subject of diachronic studies?

- The place of studies on historical terminologies.

2: The diachronic perspective and terminological theory

- Does the diachronic dimension shed a different light on the theory of terminology, and in particular on the notion of term, domain, variation, etc.?

- What can we learn from specialised terms and their environment in a diachronic perspective?

- What are the limits of diachronic analysis in terminology?

3: The diachronic perspective to show what?

- Can we study anything other than neology from a diachronic perspective?

- What type(s) of terminological phenomena does the diachronic perspective highlight?

- What do we learn about the evolution of specialised fields when observed diachronically?

4: What methods can be used to study the diachronic perspective?

- How can specialised terminologies be analysed from a diachronic perspective?

- Are there any specific methodology to study diachrony?

- What tools can be used to study the diachronic perspective in corpora?

- Non-contemporary corpora.

5: Diachrony and temporality

- What role does temporality play in diachronic terminology?

- Is there a long or historical diachrony and a short or contemporary diachrony?

- What is the relationship between historical terminology studies, which focus on a given period, and those which conceive of diachrony as a process, a documented evolution?

6: Diachronic terminology and other disciplines

- What are the links with other branches of diachronic/historical/retrospective linguistics? 

- What is the relationship between diachronic terminology and specialised historical metalexicography?

- What are the links between diachronic terminology and the history of science and ideas?

7: What applications for diachronic terminology?

- What are or could be the practical applications of diachronic terminology, in teaching, for business, for language users?

Abstract submission and deadline

Proposals may address these and other research questions related to diachrony, but must be written in the context of terminology.

The languages of the conference are French and English, but papers may describe a contrastive perspective between other languages.

Proposals should be one page in length (excluding references) and should include a title and keywords. They will be evaluated in double blind by the members of the scientific committee.

Deadline for submission: 15 May 2023

Notification of acceptance: end of June 2023

Proposals should be sent to DiachroLyon23@gmail.com

 References

Candel, D. et Gaudin, F. (dir.). 2016. Aspects diachroniques du vocabulaire. Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.

 Ducos, J. et Salvador X.-L. 2011. « Pour un dictionnaire de français scientifique médiéval : le projet Crealscience », Langages, 183/3 : 63-74.

 Dury, P. 2022. « Diachronic Variation ». Dans Faber P. et L’Homme M.C. Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Exploring terms, concepts and specialized knowledge. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 421-434.

 Dury, P. et Picton A. 2009.« Terminologie et diachronie : vers une réconciliation théorique et méthodologique ? ». Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, numéro spécial ; Terminologie : orientations nouvelles, vol. XIV (2009-2) : 31-41.

 Grimaldi, C. 2017. Discours et terminologie dans la presse scientifique française (1699-1740). La construction des lexiques de la botanique et de la chimie. Oxford : Peter Lang.

 Grimaldi, C. et Humbley J. 2021. « How metaphor shaped eighteenth century botanical terminology in French ». Dans Rizzato I., Strik Lievers F. et Zurru E. (eds.). Variations on Metaphor. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 128-142.

 Humbley, J. 2009. « Présentation ». Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, numéro spécial ; Terminologie : orientations nouvelles, vol. XIV (2009-2) : 5-8.

 Picton, A. 2018. « Terminologie outillée et diachronie : éléments de réflexion autour d’une réconciliation », ASp, 74 : 27-52.

 Selosse, P. 2016.  « La nomenclature des plantes à la Renaissance », dans Forner et Thörle (dir), Manuel des langues de spécialité, Berlin, De Gruyter : 413-430.

 Zanola, M.T. 2014. Arts et métiers au XVIIIème siècle, études de terminologie diachronique. Paris : L’Harmattan.

 Zanola, M.T. (éd). 2021 Cahiers de Lexicologie, numéro 118 Terminologie diachronique : méthodologies et études de cas.

 Zollo S.D. 2020. Origine et histoire du vocabulaire des arts de la table. Analyse lexicale et exploitation de corpus textuels. Berne : Peter Lang.