Renáta Panocová

Mots de provenance fran aise, les gallicismes repr sentent 4 % du lexique en langue slovaque contemporaine. Recens s et regroup s au sein dʼun corpus bien ferme et multiparam tr , leur tude demande aujourdʼhui une nouvelle tape qui vise mettre en rapport les aspects flexionnels et les aspects constructionnels de leur adaptation dans un milieu linguistique bien distinct de celui de leur origine, tant g n tiquement que typologiquement. Cet ouvrage se concentre sur trois axes principaux de lʼ tude des gallicismes slovaques. Premi rement, il explique et r explique les possibilit s et les modalit s adaptationnelles pour voir de tout pr s comment les l ments dʼune langue majoritairement analytique impr gnent le sol dʼun syst me grammatical exclusivement synth tique. Deuxi mement, la domestication flexionnelle repr sente un pr alable lʼ tude des aspects constructionnels, trait s et pr sent s ici via une m thodologie slovaque bien tablie, celle de la th orie de la motivation lexicale. Une troisi me piste, bien que peu th oris e jusquʼici et non la moindre, se lit dans la polyfonctionnalit des morph mes d rivationnels et constructionnels des gallicismes, menant les recherches souvent jusquʼaux origines latines de la langue donneuse (le fran ais), mais pas seulement elle. Les r sultats des recherches men es dans le cadre de cette tude complexe (mais loin dʼ tre compl te) font voir la bonne int gration des l ments de la langue de Moli re au sein du slovaque, tout en signalant la n cessit de canaliser les recherches futures vers les emprunts n ologiques.

Ten Hacken and Panocova present a systematic overview of how different current morphological theories account for the naming function of word formation. Naming is an essential preliminary step for the effective use of language. In most linguistic theories, word formation is covered as a part of morphology. However, morphological theories, especially those in generative linguistics, tend to focus on the form and structure of words, rather than on their naming function. As a result, it is often not made explicit how naming is accounted for. In this book, the authors cover new ground in describing and comparing theories from this perspective. They highlight the relevance of the naming perspective in both generative and functionalist approaches and in doing so challenge the way morphological theories are received and developed. The authors develop a framework for identifying which aspects of naming have been or can be covered in each theory and evaluate the success of the resulting account. The results of this comparison can be used for the selection of theories in research and teaching.

The question of characterizing academic vocabulary has often been framed in a context that is purely determined by questions of language teaching. The aim in such approaches is to come up with a list of words for learners of English for Special Purposes. This book approaches this question from a more general, empirical perspective, focusing on medical vocabulary. Its main contention is that the characterization of medical vocabulary is much more complex than is suggested by a simple list. In a list, a threshold determines the borderline on a one-dimensional scale between what counts as medical vocabulary and what fails to qualify as such. In analysing how such lists have been produced and how the cut-off point has been determined, the book shows a number of factors that have to be taken into account. It uses a comparison of two corpora to demonstrate the extent to which text type determines the outcome of frequency calculations. On the basis of such observations, it argues for a new methodology for the calculation of the degree of "medicalness" of lexemes.