Les dictionnaires de l'Académie française [1994, rptd. 1995, 1996, 2008]
Abstract
The eight editions of the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française (five before 1800, the ninth in preparation) present a unique trait: they form over three centuries one and the same lexicographical base, never fundamentally revised, in which numerous traces of the original conception of 1694 are to be found. I shall give examples of this, and mention features worthy of particular attention and study, should the dictionaries be computerized: ¤ Headwords in the first edition presented by families, according to etymological knowledge of the time; numerous etymological errors that have had a considerable influence on spelling (ordering by word families); ¤ Multiple presence of archaisms; ¤ Numerous proverbs (folk archive); ¤ Indication of 'good usage' and language registers, remarks on old pronunciation; ¤ Gradual introduction of feminines of nouns and adjectives, feminine, plural and part-of-speech changes (word datings, morphological studies); ¤ Introduction of new words; ¤ Last but most importantly, the role, abundance and significance of the orthographical variants, to be studied synchronically and diachronically.
In many respects the dictionary form and presentation are, still in 1935, those of much older dictionaries (non-systematic indication of part of speech, divergent categorial notations, feminines given within articles, etc.).
A characteristic aggravated by what the first edition itself represented, a veritable lexicological monster, needing a separate study of its own: the work of several hands, revised by several generations of Academicians, begun in 1635, completed sixty years later, teeming with contradictions, repetitions, forgotten words, errors, etc.
These traits can also be considered riches to be exploited. To illustrate this I shall examine from a diachronic perspective the structures of a few sample articles.
In many respects the dictionary form and presentation are, still in 1935, those of much older dictionaries (non-systematic indication of part of speech, divergent categorial notations, feminines given within articles, etc.).
A characteristic aggravated by what the first edition itself represented, a veritable lexicological monster, needing a separate study of its own: the work of several hands, revised by several generations of Academicians, begun in 1635, completed sixty years later, teeming with contradictions, repetitions, forgotten words, errors, etc.
These traits can also be considered riches to be exploited. To illustrate this I shall examine from a diachronic perspective the structures of a few sample articles.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.