2.1. Core Terminology of Chemistry
Chemistry, a typical “hard science,” is an established discipline with an apparently well-defined theoretical background. In theory, the organized nature of chemistry should allow for a straightforward approach to the treatment of its terminology.
Mikhel (
2022) presents multilingual research on the formal modeling of chemistry terminology across three natural languages—English, French and Russian—within the three corresponding Lexical Systems—
en-LN,
fr-LN and
ru-LN. One of the research objectives consists of identifying the notional core of the discipline via the methodical study and modeling of its corresponding Terms. In
Mikhel (
2022, p. 14), the
core terminology of chemistry is characterized as consisting of Terms that possess two characteristics:
Specialized corpora on chemistry were utilized in order to extract highly recurrent Terms and establish the nomenclature of core chemistry Terms. The project benefited from a specialized corpus of chemistry journals—e.g., the
Journal of the American Chemical Society—compiled in the framework of the STRÉTCH project (
Ingrosso and Polguère 2015). Additionally, a set of multilingual corpora were built from textbooks on general chemistry, research papers, reports and instructional texts in the three languages. In the case of English, twenty basic chemistry Terms were extracted from the available corpora based on their frequencies and under the supervision of the chemist involved in the research. It was hypothesized that the most frequently occurring Terms determine the notional foundation of the discipline: i.e., Notions—such as the
atom, (chemical)
bond,
molecule, etc.—from which the bulk of the notional system of general chemistry is derived. In the course of lexicographic description of such Terms, the nomenclature was further expanded up to a hundred plus units in each of the three languages considered (English, French and Russian)—for terminological gaps between these languages, see
Mikhel (
2022, chap. 7, section 7.1.2). The expansion mostly accounted for lexical connections established between Terms. While the final core chemistry nomenclature includes mostly chemistry Terms, it also features Terms from the domain of physics (e.g.,
matter I.a) and a few general language lexical units (e.g.,
microscopic I).
Table 2 gives the number of Terms and corresponding Notions for the resulting English, French and Russian core nomenclatures.
The discrepancy between the number of core Terms and the number of core Notions, for each language, is explained by the fact that a core Term T can have one or more semantic derivatives T′, T″, ... with a unique corresponding core Notion. For instance, all six core Terms,
ion,
ionic 1,
ionization 1,
ionize a (non-causative),
ionize b (causative) and
ionized(Adj), are connected by semantic (and morphological) derivations, and they have one unique corresponding core chemical Notion: the ion (see also explanations at the beginning of
Section 1.1).
All Terms of the above nomenclatures have been lexicographically modeled in the en-LN, fr-LN and ru-LN, which resulted in the structuring of the corresponding sets of chemical Notions by ‘defined_by’ relations. This is the topic of the next section.
2.2. Lexicographical Structuring of the System of Core Chemistry Notions
As mentioned at the beginning of the Introduction, the theoretical and descriptive foundation of the present research is Explanatory Combinatorial Lexicology, the lexicological component of Meaning–Text linguistics. In this respect, it relates to previous terminological work anchored in the same linguistic framework, such as the
DiCoEnviro project presented in
L’Homme (
2012b). A distinctive feature, however, is the fact that the core terminology of chemistry has been modeled in the context of the lexicography of Lexical Systems (
Section 1.3) where Terms are integrated in the small-world network of the general language. Another difference lies in the importance we place on lexicographic definitions, which are the core of the description of each Term. In contrast, the lexicographic resource on the environment
DiCoEnviro mentioned above does not include definitions but proposes semantic descriptions for Terms inspired by
frame semantics instead (
Fillmore 1982).
To demonstrate the interconnection of core chemistry Notions with the definitions of their corresponding Terms, we will now refer back to the definition of
element III.3a —see
Table 1,
Section 1.4, p. 4. As we indicated, this definition embeds three ‘defined_by’ relations, which are repeated below for the sake of convenience:
element III.3a atom I.2;
element III.3a proton;
element III.3a nucleus I.2.
We take recursively into consideration three additional ‘defined_by’ relations that the “defining” Terms
proton and
proton and
nucleus I.2 feature in their own lexicographic definition—given, respectively, in
Table 3 and
Table 4 below:
proton atom I.2;
nucleus I.2 atom I.2;
nucleus I.2 proton.
One can infer the bottom-up
Notion building organization shown by the graph of
Figure 1, where a bottom-to-top
N1 →
N2 link indicates that the acquisition of Notion
N1 is required for the acquisition of Notion
N2.
As illustrated in
Figure 2, a bottom-to-top
N1 →
N2 acquisition link is the direct product of a
converse ‘defined_by’ relation between the corresponding Terms:
.
At the level of the complete core terminology of chemistry, the whole set of Term definitions determines a hierarchical organization of corresponding core Notions induced from ‘defined_by’ relations. Such hierarchical organization of Notions functions as a Notion building road map for the teaching/acquisition of chemistry as a scientific discipline, based on the following general principle:
One can fully master a chemistry Notion (and Term) only if the Notions (and Terms) that define it are themselves fully mastered.
Traditional teaching techniques, however, often neglect the proper order of introducing the chemistry Terms in class, as the students’ understanding of the most basic Notions is taken for granted. For instance, the introduction of the English Term
atom, which is usually taught at the first lessons, should be preceded by simpler Terms, e.g.,
interact,
particle, etc. Thus, the Notion building road map proposes a specific order in which chemistry Terms should be introduced in class. This road map is illustrated in
Figure 3 below, which gives a broader perspective than
Figure 1 by presenting a sample of the complete system of core English chemical Notions derived from ‘defined_by’ relations connecting the corresponding Terms in the
en-LN. Like
Figure 1, it has to be consulted from bottom to top: from the most “primary” Notions to those directly or indirectly built on them via lexicographic definition of the corresponding Terms. For the sake of precision, each Notion is identified in the graph by the name of the Term (terminological lexical unit) whose lexicographic definition has been used to establish the road map. The pink color signals Notions that correspond to chemical
entities; amber signals Notions that correspond to chemical
facts (properties, interactions, etc.). The complete Notion building road maps for English, French and Russian can be found in
Appendix A,
Appendix B and
Appendix C.
To conclude on Notion building road maps for chemistry, note that—in the case of English—the two Notions matter and interact are situated at the very bottom of the road map and function as notional “beginners”. This reflects the fact that the corresponding Terms—the noun matter I.a and the verb interact i—have emerged through the definition process as terminological semantic primes: it is impossible to analyze their meaning in terms of simpler specialized meanings. The next (upper) level of Notions, as well as the rest of the system, is built on top of these two Notions.
2.3. Case Study: Carbon, at the Interface of Chemistry and Environmental Science Terminologies
The work presented in the previous section on the core terminology of chemistry was the first large-scale application of the lexicography of Lexical Systems to a terminological domain. As it proved successful in structuring a Notion building road map for this discipline (more on our results in
Section 3), we anticipate that this approach can be applied to terminologies across various domains. However, this may not be suitable for
any discipline. Specifically, while working on the domain of the environment (
Gotkova 2023), we found it challenging to identify a core terminology of environmental science following the strategy devised for chemistry.
Unlike chemistry, which is an institutionalized discipline, environmental science is a highly multidisciplinary field with often blurred boundaries. As asserted in
Miller and Spoolman (
2014, p. 7), environmental science draws on at least twelve fields, including biology, ecology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. Consequently, environmental terminology encompasses a cluster of sub-terminologies with Terms borrowed from these fields—e.g.,
carbon (chemistry),
bioremediation (biology),
erosion (geology), etc. Such heterogeneity defies global ‘defined_by’ systematization, as semantic decomposition of environment-related Terms would inevitably generate branches of Terms specific to only one related field. For instance, to define
biodiversity properly, we would need to “descend” to the Term
metabolism, which belongs to biology and is only marginally relevant to the environment. Furthermore, it appears impossible to establish the notional foundation of environmental science because of its context-dependent applications and the absence of established academic curricula to serve as a universal reference.
The above-mentioned points imply that the identification of a core terminology implemented in the field of chemistry is not suitable for environmental science. Nevertheless,
Gotkova (
2023, Chap. 3) proposes and puts into practice an approach to the identification of a
terminology of current and emerging environmental issues based on four criteria; Terms belonging to this terminology have the following properties:
they shape the current environmental agenda;
they correspond to overarching Notions pertinent to various environment-related topics;
they belong to semantic clusters of environment-related Terms—e.g., the Term carbon, on which we focus below, is closely related to greenhouse gas, emission, methane, etc.;
they function at the interface of specialized and general language discourse, which emphasizes their indispensability.
Due to the profound social implications of the environmental topic, environmental vocabulary is often incorporated in the general language. Hence, adopting a terminographic approach that integrates Terms with general language lexical units within a unique Lexical System (
Ingrosso and Polguère 2015) proves particularly relevant to environmental terminology. To illustrate this, we use the case of the noun
carbon, which originates from the field of chemistry and is now omnipresent in today’s media/political discourse and daily conversation and is even printed on goods’ labels and travel tickets. With the evidence of an ongoing environmental crisis, it has also become a buzzword with sometimes fluctuating and fuzzy semantic boundaries, as shown by a recent study of the use of
carbon and related idioms on social media (
Gotkova and Chepurnykh 2022). The most recurrent use of
carbon emissions refers to the emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Interestingly, within this conceptualization of
carbon as a gas, two conflicting uses were identified in texts extracted by
Gotkova (
2023) from the two social networks Twitter (now X) and Reddit. Some users of these networks employed
carbon as an overarching Term to refer to both carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO
2) and methane, as in (1). Others explicitly disassociate carbon, i.e., carbon dioxide, and methane, as in (2):
- (1)
You realize when they say carbon emissions that doesn’t just mean CO2 right? Methane is far more problematic.
[Twitter, ID: 1301372101039976448];
- (2)
[Selling less meat] would help reduce carbon and methane emissions a bit.
[Twitter, ID: 1303055296131145735].
The difference in the way the public perceives and uses
carbon may lead to serious issues in communication. Furthermore, many Terms have been coined from
carbon in relation to the environment: (
de-)
carbonize,
carbon(
-iz-)
ation,
carbon footprint,
carbon sequestration, etc. To sort out this plethoric presence of
carbon in modern discourse, one has to start with the English vocable
carbon itself and its rich polysemy, which is detailed in
Table 5, following the principles of
relational polysemy established in
Polguère (
2018).
Table 5 shows that
carbon is clearly a
terminological vocable: a vocable whose basic lexical unit (
carbon I.1) is a Term, as indicated by the usage note
spec(ialized). However, the polysemy of
carbon is particularly tricky to handle from a terminology viewpoint due to the fact that it contains three other senses that display various degrees of specialization.
Gotkova (
2023) studied the environmental lexicon through the prism of the
domestication of Terms, i.e., the migration of specialized vocabulary from technical discourse into the general language. In this regard, she proposed the following typology of (non-)terminological senses based on their semantic properties and their pertinence:
full Terms—marked with the usage note spec;
runaway Terms, which are popularized Terms occurring equally in specialized and non-specialized discourse—marked with the usage note (spec);
quasi-Terms, which are not bona fide Terms but general language lexical units originating from a lay interpretation of Terms—marked with the usage note quasi-spec.
Within the vocable carbon, the full Term carbon I.1 cohabits with the runaway Terms carbon I.2 and carbon II.1, marked as (spec). Note that the use of these runaway Terms tends to be criticized for various reasons. Runaway Terms fully belong to an organized terminology but tend to be used equally in non-specialized discourse by speakers who do not necessarily master the corresponding Notions. For instance, carbon II.1 has its origins in specialized texts on the environment, but it has also migrated into the general language due to the social consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. To top it all, the vocable carbon contains a non-terminological sense—the quasi-spec lexical unit carbon II.2—that possesses a terminological flavor without being associated with a well-structured notional system. Specifically, the general public often conceptualizes carbon (in the II.2 sense) as a by-product of one’s unsustainable lifestyle, as in (3) below. Such perception results from the widespread motivational environmental discourse that encourages individuals to control their emission of pollutants.
- (3)
Most people emit carbon every day simply by using a non-renewable resource, such as coal, natural gas, or oil.
Clearly, carbon literally escaped from the terminology of chemistry to develop into closely related senses. This situation is potentially harmful for the proper acquisition and exploitation of corresponding Notions. This illustrates well why it is necessary to have an integrated approach to the modeling of terminologies, one that takes into consideration the fact that terminologies are fully contained in natural language lexicons.