Knowledge Representation in Dictionaries. Keynote address 4th Euralex Congress, September 1994 Amsterdam. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Lexikos, 2010
Bilingual dictionaries play an important role in the standardisation of a language and are often the first dictionary type to be compiled for a given speech community. However, this may never lead to an underestimation of the role and importance of monolingual descriptive dictionaries in the early lexicographic development of a language. In the planning of first descriptive dictionaries the choice of the proper subtype and a consistent application of theoretical principles should be regarded as of extreme importance. Even the compilation of a restricted descriptive dictionary should be done according to similar theoretical principles as those applying to comprehensive dictionaries. This contribution indicates a number of dilemmas confronting the lexicographer during the compilation of restricted monolingual descriptive dictionaries. Attention is given to the role of lexicographic functions and the choice and presentation of lexicographic data, with special reference to the presentation of certain types of polysemous senses which are subjected to frequency of use restrictions. Emphasis is placed on the value of a heterogeneous article structure and a micro-architecture in the articles of restricted dictionaries.
Dictionary definitions: problems and solutions
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2015
The aim of the present article is threefold: to examine certain problems inherent in dictionary defining; to discuss the most important changes that have been implemented as solutions to some of the problems; to evaluate the new problems which have arisen as side effects of the solutions. Finally, the historical precedents of a number of the alternative defining techniques are also considered, in an attempt to put the issue into perspective. * The paper is a written version of the plenary address delivered on 19 April 2012 at the 21 st Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English (PASE) in Kraków. 1 Zgusta (1971:252f) characterises the difference between the logical and the lexicographic definition as follows: whereas the logical definition must unequivocally identify the defined object (the definiendum) in such a way that it is both put in a definite contrast against everything else that is definable and positively and unequivocally characterized as a member of the closest class, the lexicographic definition enumerates only the most important semantic features of the defined lexical unit which suffice to differentiate it from other units. CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 2017
The concept of dictionary vision is frequently used when we speak about lexicography. Since the late 1980s, we have been witnesses to the consolidation of lexicography as an academic discipline, which, fi rstly, has helped in compiling better dictionaries meant to fulfi l the needs of specifi c user groups, and, secondly, has focused its object of study on dictionaries. As always happens in any academic discipline, lexicography has also been subject to different controversies regarding its nature, methods of works, objectives, etc. The different theoretical approaches to dictionaries are usually present in any lexicography conference, symposium, workshop, etc. They are also found in this volume, a collection of papers discussed at the Twelfth International Symposium on Lexicography celebrated at the University of Copenhagen, April 29-May 1, 2004. The volume presents 19 selected papers covering a wide fi eld within lexicography: (i) online lexicography; (ii) dictionary structure; (iii) phraseology in dictionaries; (iv) LSP lexicography; (v) etymology, history and culture in lexicography. In the Preface, Gottlieb and Mogensen indicate that the 19 papers selected, 15 of which are in English, have been anonymously peer-reviewed and selected according to quality, relevance, and variety of approaches and topics. Among them are the three plenary lectures given by Arne Zettersten, founding father of the symposium, Henning Bergenholtz and Sven Tarp, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand, who have laid the foundations for drawing the line between lexicography and other disciplines, particularly linguistics, although maintaining between them deep differences on both theoretical and practical grounds (see Bergenholtz/ Tarp 2003 for an overview). Part 1 contains three chapters concerning Online Lexicography. In Chapter 1, "reliability of online bilingual dictionaries" (3-12), Cristina Gelpí proposes a selection of main features of online bilingual dictionaries, defends that online bilingual dictionaries are specifi c products, different from printed dictionaries, and illustrates her visions with examples from online specialized bilingual English-Spanish dictionaries. She concludes that in addition to coverage, online dictionary quality can be determined by factors such as web page origin, user type, adaptation to lexicographical functions, data-accessing system, lexicographical structures, usability, permanence and updating, degree of digitalization and hypertextuality, and permeability and interaction. Annette Klosa and Carolin Müller-Spitzer deal with grammatical data in "Grammatische Angaben in elexiko und ihre Modellierung" (13-37). The project Hermes-41-11-fuertes-rev.indd 197
Typological Classification of Dictionaries
Theoretical & Applied Science, 2020
ISRA (India) = 4.971 ISI (Dubai, UAE) = 0.829 GIF (Australia) = 0.564 JIF = 1.500 SIS (USA) = 0.912 РИНЦ (Russia) = 0.126 ESJI (KZ) = 8.716 SJIF (Morocco) = 5.667 ICV (Poland) = 6.630 PIF (India) = 1.940 IBI (India) = 4.260 OAJI (USA) =
Towards a Typology of Definitions for LSP Dictionaries
Journal of English Studies, 2011
Definitions are the pivotal parts of dictionaries. Every lexicographer always strives to write definitions which are not only accurate but also comprehensible to dictionary users. Nevertheless, as shown in this paper, the definitions used in the current LSP dictionaries have not been able to suit the needs of their users. Therefore, it is necessary to create a typology of definitions for LSP dictionaries which can be referred to by lexicographers when writing definitions. The typology is created by implementing the lexicographical function theory which focuses on satisfying user needs. The typology takes into account both text production and text reception functions, as well as encyclopaedic and foreign language competences of the users. The proposed typology is expected to serve as a model which can be referred to by lexicographers when deciding on how to write definitions for LSP dictionaries in general, and ESP dictionaries in particular.
Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lexicographic Definitions
1996
These theses are devoted to one of the most important lexicographic issues: that of definitions for lexical units dealt with in different dictionaries. The main problem in our view is to build the relevant and coherent theory of lexicographic definitions. Today we mostly rely on logical theory of definitions. Though it is relevant for our purposes, it meets only partially our particular needs. On the other hand, we have at our disposal many purely linguistic means useful for creating lexicographic defini tions. The author tries to construct the theory based mostly on linguistic foundations. The resulting outline may cover most types of definitions for different kinds of dic tionaries aimed at quite various audiences. 1. Lexicographic definitions vs. logical ones The latter kind means the definitions of things and phenomena in the real world around us, whereas the former (the topic of our discussion) means the definitions in dictionaries, in lexicography. The contradistinction be ...
Multilingualism and Dictionaries
COGNITIVE STUDIES | ÉTUDES COGNITIVES, 2015
The Russian-Bulgarian-Polish dictionary that we (Wojciech Sosnowski, Violetta Koseska-Toszewa and Anna Kisiel) are currently developing has no precedent as far as its theoretical foundations and its structure are concerned. The dictionary offers a unique combination of three Slavic languages that belong to three different groups: a West Slavic language (Polish), a South Slavic language (Bulgarian) and an East Slavic language (Russian). The dictionary describes semantic and syntactic equivalents of words between the languages. When completed, the dictionary will contain around 30,000 entries. The principle we build the dictionary on is that every language should be given equal status. Many of our data come from the Parallel Polish-Bulgarian-Russian corpus developed by us as part of the CLARIN-PL initiative. In the print version, the entries come in the order of the Cyrillic alphabet and they are not numbered (except for homonyms, which are disambiguated with Roman numbers). We selected the lemmas for the dictionary on the basis of their frequency in the corpus. Our dictionary is the first dictionary to include forms of address and most recent neologisms in the three languages. Faithful to the recent developments in contrastive linguistics, we begin with a form from the dictionary’s primary language and we define it in Polish. Subsequently, based on this definition, we try to find an equivalent in the second and the third language. Therefore, the meaning comes first and only then we look for the form (i.e. the equivalent) that corresponds to this meaning. This principle, outlined in Gramatyka konfrontatywna języków polskiego i bułgarskiego (GKBP), allows us to treat data from multiple languages as equal. In the dictionary, we draw attention to the correct choice of equivalents in translation; we also provide categorisers that indicate the meaning of verbal tenses and aspects. The definitions of states, events and their different configurations follow those outlined in the net model of verbal tense and aspect. The transitive vs. intransitive categorisers are vital for the languages in question, since they belong to two different types: synthetic (Bulgarian) and analytic (Polish and Russian). We predict that the equal status of every language in the dictionary will facilitate easier and faster development of an electronic version in the future.
From Lexicography to Terminology: a Cline, not a Dichotomy
2016
In a paper presented at the Euralex 2012 conference, ten Hacken (2012) discusses the OED’s problematic claim to be the “definitive record of the English language”. He argues that what distinguishes the OED from other dictionaries is the information it provides about English words and the range of problems this information can be used to solve. Dictionaries are not descriptions of a language, he claims, but tools with which users of the dictionary solve problems of a particular type. The nature of the dictionary therefore determines which types of problems it can solve. In this paper, I would like to extend the parallel made by ten Hacken between general dictionaries, learners’ dictionaries and historical dictionaries such as the OED to what is traditionally perceived as a dichotomy, namely the distinction between dictionaries and terminological databases. Instead of viewing term bases as a totally distinct type of linguistic product, I would like to argue that they should rather be ...