The lexicographical treatment of compound words in historical French and English dictionaries: an analytical and comparative study

Received: 09/03/2026 - Accepted: 03/06/2026 - Published: 30/06/2026

Abstract

In natural languages, lexical compounding is one of the most fundamental and productive processes for enriching the lexicon. Despite its importance, the treatment of compound words in historical dictionaries has received little attention from a comparative perspective. This article addresses this gap by analyzing the lexicographic treatment of compounds in two major historical dictionaries: the Dictionnaire historique de la langue française (commonly known as Le Robert Historique, or RH) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Based on a targeted corpus of French and English compounds, the study highlights two distinct lexicographic models: a morpho-semantic and derivational approach in the RH, and a predominantly semantic and diachronic approach in the OED.

The RH adopts a model grounded in morphological analysis. Compound entries are systematically broken down into their constituent elements, and the dictionary emphasizes derivational relationships between words. For each compound, the RH provides explicit morphological information, such as the grammatical category of the components, the internal structure (e.g., noun+noun, adjective+noun), and the derivational history linking the compound to related lexical units. This approach reflects a conception of the lexicon as a structured system where morphological rules play a central role. The historical dimension, while present, is integrated into this morphological framework: the evolution of compounds is often described in terms of changes in morphological productivity or structural reorganization over time.

In contrast, the OED adopts a primarily semantic and diachronic approach. The emphasis is placed on the chronological documentation of meanings, with extensive quotations illustrating first attestations, semantic shifts, and obsolescence. Morphological information, while not absent, remains secondary. Compounds are treated as lexical units whose history is best captured through their semantic trajectories across centuries. The OED's organization prioritizes the narrative of linguistic change as reflected in meaning, with less attention given to the internal morphological structure or derivational families. This approach reflects a conception of the lexicon as a historical archive, where each word bears the traces of its usage across time.

The analysis reveals that these differences are not merely technical but stem from divergent lexicographic philosophies. The RH treats the historical dictionary as a tool for understanding the structural organization of the lexicon, where morphology provides a key to synchronic and diachronic regularities. The OED, by contrast, views the historical dictionary primarily as a record of linguistic usage, where semantic change constitutes the core narrative. Consequently, the same compound may be presented differently: the RH highlights its formation rules and derivational relatives, while the OED prioritizes its earliest known use and subsequent semantic evolution. These contrasting models are not mutually exclusive but complementary. The study concludes that future historical lexicography could benefit from integrating both perspectives, offering users a more holistic representation of compounds as units shaped simultaneously by morphological productivity and semantic change