Comparing Theoretical Approaches to Neology Are All New Words Neologisms, and Are All Neologisms New Words?

Neology, as a theoretical construct, raises a central question: are all new words neologisms, and are all neologisms new words? Far from being a naturally occurring linguistic phenomenon, neology is theory-dependent: its very definition varies according to the framework that determines what counts as “new.” As Rey (1976) provocatively suggested, “neologism” may even be a pseudo-concept, since its defining criteria remain unstable across linguistic traditions.

All existing classifications of neologisms intended for applied purposes might be considered imperfect for two reasons. First, the dynamic nature of neologisms often produces transgressive or hybrid forms that escape established taxonomies. Second, the emergence of new lexical items typically involves multiple overlapping phenomena, whereas most classifications are deliberately one-dimensional to preserve their practical usefulness (a limitation that does not affect those designed for analytical purposes).

This article compares major theoretical approaches to neology, identifying their conceptual foundations, points of convergence, and implications for lexicographic representation. The discussion draws on the French, Anglo-German, and Catalan traditions, as well as more recent hybrid perspectives, to illustrate how definitions of lexical innovation, neology and neologisms vary. Ultimately, the goal is to establish a basis for the systematic lexicographic representation of these theories, an endeavor central to current projects such as ENEOLI’s NeoVoc.