The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography

Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351599641
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography provides a comprehensive overview of the major approaches to lexicography and their applications within the field. This Handbook features key case studies and cutting-edge contributions from an international range of practitioners, teachers, and researchers. Analysing the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries within the digital era, the 47 chapters address the core issues of:

• 
  
  

• The foundations of lexicography, and its interactions with other disciplines including Corpus Linguistics and Information Science;

• 
  
  

• Types of dictionaries, for purposes such as translation and teaching;

• 
  
  

• Innovative specialised dictionaries such as the Oenolex wine dictionary and the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language;

• 
  
  

• Lexicography and world languages, including Arabic, Hindi, Russian, Chinese, and Indonesian;

• 
  
  

• The future of lexicography, including the use of the Internet, user participation, and dictionary portals.

The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography is essential reading for researchers and students working in this area.

Part I

Foundations of lexicography

1

Lexicography as an independent science

Sven Tarp

1.1 Introduction

Lexicography is the discipline that deals with dictionaries and other reference works designed to be consulted in order to retrieve information. Although there is general agreement in the community about this short definition, much more controversial is the disciplinary status of lexicography. This is not surprising in a discipline based on a millenary cultural practice which has created works of very different types and covering almost all spheres of human activity and thinking. Hence, if we take the two words included in the title of this contribution (i.e. independent and science), the different opinions on whether or not lexicography can be regarded as independent (in relation to other disciplines) and a science can, roughly speaking, be divided into four big groups with no sharp dividing lines and much overlapping.

Lexicographers belonging to the first group simply consider their discipline to be “art and craft” (Landau 2001). They do not only deny that lexicography can be regarded as a science, they even reject the existence and possibility of lexicographical theories (Béjoint 2010). The only theories accepted are “an enormous body of linguistic theory which has the potential to help lexicographers to do their jobs more effectively” (Atkins and Rundell 2008: 4). In this understanding, the discipline is not independent but an “instance of applied linguistics” (Meier 2003: 307). At the outmost it can be considered a “scientific activity” if linguistics is “taken as a background” (Ten Hacken 2009: 399). This vision of lexicography is especially strong in the Anglo-Saxon community.

The second group characterizes lexicography as a science. Kempcke (1984: 733), for instance, defines it as “the science of the arrangement and explanation of the vocabulary in dictionaries and lexica”. Similarly, Kudashev (2007: 159) regards it as “a branch of science which deals with presentation and description of lexical units of natural languages in the dictionaries”. In this vision, the science of lexicography is understood, on the one hand, as a “special branch of linguistic science” (i.e. subordinated to linguistics) and, on the other hand, as “an independent discipline with its own theory, own tasks and own methods for their solution” (Sorokoletov 1982: 79). Scerba (1940) is the most renowned supporter of this vision of lexicography which has its roots in Eastern Europe and part of Asia.

The third group deems lexicography to be an independent discipline which is neither “applied linguistics” nor “a sub-discipline of linguistics” (Wiegand 2013: 29). The main figure in this group is the German researcher H. E. Wiegand who, like many other scholars, distinguishes between lexicography and metalexicography. In his view, lexicography may take the form of a “scientific practice”, whereas metalexicography may be treated as a “scientific research area” which, however, does not yet fulfil all requirements, allowing it to be considered a science (Wiegand 1984, 1989, 1998). Given the many interdisciplinary relations, the scholars belonging to this group have recently started classifying “systematic metalexicography … as part of information science” (Wiegand 2013: 14).

The fourth group, which is mainly composed of supporters of the function theory, regards lexicography as a science with its own independent core and a big interdisciplinary vocation (Tarp 2008). This group has many characteristics common with the other groups. It shares both the view that dictionary making is “art and craft” and the view that this lexicographical practice can be transformed into a “scientific activity” when it is guided by an advanced theory (provided this theory is lexicographical). It endorses the statement that lexicography is a science and should be treated as “an independent discipline with its own theory, own tasks and own methods”. In addition, and although it does not regard lexicography as a “special branch of linguistic science”, it fully agrees with the idea that it “has a lot in common with information science” (Fuertes-Olivera and Tarp 2014: 30). This position is defended here.

If the scholarly literature is scrutinized, one will find a wide variety of opinions about the disciplinary status of lexicography. Wiegand (2013: 16–17), for instance, lists 40 different opinions expressed by various scholars, and the picture is not complete. Some of these opinions may fit into one of the four groups mentioned earlier, whereas others will share features with two or more of them. In this respect, it seems that a growing number of scholars tend to accept the distinction between lexicography as the practice of dictionary making and metalexicography as an area concerned with research into dictionaries as well as theory building. At the same time, there is a certain tendency to perceive this area as autonomous in its relation to linguistics.

Lew (2007: 212), for instance, understands metalexicography as the “theoretical foundation to lexicographic practice” and argues that “although undoubtedly new developments in linguistics bear some relevance to dictionary-making, metalexicography is less and less likely for the latter to be seen as just a part of linguistics, as it grows, branches out, and specializes”. The same idea was expressed with other words by Zgusta (1992/93: 137) who wrote that “what is called the theory of lexicography is not something opposed to lexicographic practice, nor is it an endeavor that largely coincides with linguistics (theoretical or otherwise)”.

At first glance, the wide variety of different and partially overlapping opinions observed may seem confusing. They can nonetheless be explained by the authors’ different approaches to the existing empirical reality as well as their use of different concepts of science and theory. These two questions will be discussed in the following sections.

1.2 Core issues and topics

1.2.1 Empirical reality

Al-Kasimi (1977: 1) rightly observes that the “major motives behind the rise of lexicography differ from one culture to another” and that each culture therefore develops “dictionaries appropriate to its characteristic demands”. To this can be added that dictionaries produced within each culture and historical period also vary widely in terms of their type, content and underpinning technology. During the centuries, these works have been produced with different techniques and made available on various platforms of very different natures, most recently on the Internet. They have covered hundreds of languages and most spheres of human activity and knowledge. Dictionaries are compiled with a huge variety of purposes. They transmit knowledge between generations and within each generation. They help people to communicate in their mother tongue and among language communities. They assist their users with advice and instructions in order to perform various types of actions. In this perspective, dictionaries play an important role in our cultural development (see Tarp 2010).

This rich cultural heritage cannot be reduced to some sort of applied linguistics. There are many lexicographical works where knowledge of linguistics has been requisite, but there are also many others where no such knowledge has been needed. The definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of Economics, for instance, are not based on linguistic theories but on expert knowledge of modern economics as explained by Hashimzade, Myles and Myles (2014), two of them authors of this dictionary. Besides, it should not be ignored that a modern e-dictionary project presupposes interdisciplinary teamwork and collaboration between experts with different types of knowledge and skills, above all lexicographical knowledge and skills, domain-specific knowledge, language and programming skills as well as knowledge about databases, Internet design, project management and finance.

Hence, in order to be based on healthy grounds, the discussion on lexicography’s disciplinary status should first of all take its point of departure in the indicated empirical reality in its totality and not in any of its single component parts, for example, specific types of dictionaries or specific activities related to the production, presentation, usage and criticism of these works. If this is done, the existing empirical reality allows for the following three central statements to be formulated:

1. 1 Lexicography is not a sub-discipline of linguistics or an instance of applied linguistics because there are thousands of dictionaries where knowledge of linguistics has not been requisite;
2. 2 Lexicography is not a sub-discipline of any of the other disciplines with which it interacts because none of these disciplines have been relevant to all dictionaries produced;
3. 3 Lexicography is characterized by a big interdisciplinary vocation and collaboration.

The idea that lexicography should be understood as subordinated to linguistics may be explained by a selective and partial approach to the empirical reality. If the concept of dictionary, for instance, is limited to dictionaries where linguistic knowledge is required, and if other types of dictionaries are excluded a priori, then the conclusions will necessarily be biased. It is thus a sine qua non that all types of dictionaries are taken into account in order to reach empirically grounded conclusions of scientific relevance.

The fact that the thousands of works published during the centuries can all be classified as dictionaries indicates that there must be something that unites them in spite of their big differences. This something cannot be any of the many disciplines with which lexicography interacts. If an abstraction is made from the specific content of all the elements and aspects taken from these disciplines, what remains is nothing but pure lexicography. In this perspective, lexicography can be characterized as a discipline in its own right, the core of which comprises the uniting elements and aspects that are common to all lexicographical products and not the ones separating them. The most important of these commonalities are:

1. 1 Dictionaries are utility tools produced in order to satisfy human needs.
2. 2 The category of needs to be satisfied by dictionaries are needs for punctual information.
3. 3 The nature of the information needs depends first of all on the social situation where they occur as well as on the characteristics of the person experiencing them.
4. 4 Dictionaries are designed to be consulted, not to be read from one end to another.
5. 5 Dictionaries do not directly solve information needs, but provide access to carefully prepared data from which their users can retrieve the required information.
6. 6 The retrieved information can then be used to solve the original need in the situation where it occurred.

These six axiomatic statements, based on observation of the empirical reality, express the main commonalities of all lexicographical products and are, at the same time, the fundamental statements underpinning the lexicographical function theory.

1.2.3 Subject matter (preliminary)

Another argument in favour of the independent nature of lexicography is its subject matter which differs completely from that of linguistics. The subject matter of linguistics is language, which is a natural phenomenon rooted in human genes and stimulated by social life, and without which Homo sapiens would not be Homo sapiens. By contrast, the subject matter of lexicography is dictionaries and other lexicographical reference works, that is, cultural products or artefacts produced by human beings in order to resolve specific types of information needs detected in society.

No other discipline shares this same subject matter. However, there is another discipline, information science, which also focuses on information and information systems, and with which lexicography would benefit from a much closer collaboration. This affinity has also been highlighted by a researcher from the field of information science:

It is evident that there are a number of commonalities between information science and lexicography and a number of researchers have pointed this out in the recent past. This could imply that information science can learn from lexicography at the level of theory and practice, and vice versa. Obviously, however, these commonalities are not evident in all sub-disciplines of information science and of lexicography. In both cases, the eventual use of the data by end-users is the reason why the data is organized, in both cases the data are retrieved by end-users and in both cases, especially currently, e-technologies, that is, modern information and communication technologies, play an important role in how the data are organized and how they are retrieved. Both disciplines have used computers since their popularization in the 1980s to organize and retrieve data/information, in both cases moving from originally paper-based systems to digital systems, in both cases using database systems for organizing the data and search algorithms for retrieving the data.

(Bothma 2015: 22)

Against this background, it seems reasonable to categorize lexicography as a discipline in its own right which, simultaneously, constitutes a special branch of information science, a branch that developed independently and produced marvellous works hundreds of years before information science came into the world in the first half of the twentieth century. Even then, the two disciplines “developed along parallel lines but with no or very little formal relation between them” until the first decade of the twenty-first century when a group of researchers from both disciplines started exploring the many similarities (see Bothma and Tarp 2012: 82).

1.2.4 Lexicographical theory

Theory is a central element in all philosophical definitions of science and will therefore briefly be treated in this section. In this respect, the scholarly literature on lexicography is full of references to general and specific theories, of which some are widely known among members of the lexicographical community. Here we will just mention a few: Outline of a General Theory of Lexicography (Scerba 1940); General Theory of Lexicography (Wiegand 1998); Function Theory of Lexicography (Bergenholtz and Tarp 2002, 2003); Theory of Bilingual Lexicography (Duda et al. 1986); Theory of the Lexicographical Example (Hausmann 1985); and Theory of the Dictionary Form (Wiegand and Morán 2009).

Bogaards (2010), the former editor of the International Journal of Lexicography, also confirms that many authors refer to theory in contributions published in this journal. With this in mind, it is surprising that a number of scholars deny not only the existence, but also the possibility, of a theory of lexicography. It is one thing to disagree with other scholars’ theories, but a completely different thing to claim that they do not exist. Disagreements are absolutely normal and even welcome within the framework of a healthy academic discussion culture. It is perfectly legal to say that ‘their the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgments
• List of contributors
• Introduction: lexicography in the Internet era
• Part I Foundations of lexicography
• Part II The interdisciplinary nature of lexicography
• Part III Types of dictionaries
• Part IV Innovative dictionaries
• Part V World languages, lexicography and the Internet
• Part VI Looking to the future: lexicography in the Internet era