English-Latvian Lexicographic Tradition

Laura Karpinska

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9783110394290
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachwissenschaft

Since 1987 when the first English explanatory dictionary fully based on corpus evidence was published, considerable changes related to the choice of lexicographic evidence have affected the field of lexicography. On this background (even though the volume of the lexicographic material is ample) the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition looks rather traditional and even somewhat stagnant. Thus, there is an urgent need for a detailed analytical inventory of English-Latvian dictionaries in order to facilitate new dictionary projects.

This book provides a comprehensive survey of the development of the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition considering the various extra-linguistic factors which have influenced it. It studies the typical features of English-Latvian dictionaries traced throughout the tradition at the levels of their mega-, macro- and microstructure, pinpoints the problematic aspects of English-Latvian lexicography and offers theoretically grounded solutions for improving the quality of future English-Latvian dictionaries.

1 Introduction

The English-Latvian lexicographic tradition started in 1924 with the publication of the first general English-Latvian dictionary compiled by Jēkabs Dravnieks. It was followed by nearly thirty dictionaries1 of various sizes and structural complexity up to 2013, when the latest general English-Latvian dictionary was published.

Under the influence of various unfavourable extralinguistic factors (e.g. WWII, Soviet and Nazi occupation, massive emigration) the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition has developed unevenly. At the present moment English-Latvian lexicography is ruled by a stable and well-established tradition, determining the characteristic mega-, macro- and microstructural features of the English-Latvian dictionaries (ELDs). However, this is also the reason for a certain stagnation resulting in unwillingness to apply the latest developments in contemporary lexicographic practice. Though the number of the ELDs in this tradition is considerable, the dictionaries are often compiled using obsolete methods and outdated lexicographic evidence. Thus, at the beginning of the 21^st century (more than twenty years after Latvia regained independence) this tradition only partly corresponds to the contemporary lexicographic practice.

The general ELDs analysed in this study have been selected according to the following criteria: a bilingual dictionary of two languages (English and Latvian) where the lexical items of the source language are supplied with translation equivalents in the target language; with a general macrostructure and microstructure; with alphabetically arranged headwords; available in printed form. This description of a bilingual dictionary allows excluding specialized dictionaries, explanatory bilingual dictionaries, dictionaries with headword arrangement other than alphabetical and electronic dictionaries.

The aim of this study is to analyse the development of the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition considering the various extralinguistic factors which have influenced it, to single out the typical features of the ELDs traced throughout the tradition at the levels of their mega-, macro- and microstructure, to underscore the merits and pinpoint the problematic aspects of English-Latvian lexicography and to offer theoretically grounded solutions for improving the quality of future ELDs.

The theoretical framework of the study comprises research on the types, functions and users’ needs of bilingual dictionaries (e.g. Ščerba 2003 [1940]; Zgusta 1971; Kromann et al. 1991; Atkins and Rundell 2008; Svensén 2009); the primary and secondary sources of lexicographic evidence in bilingual lexicography (e.g. Hanks 1990, 2002, 2004; Kilgarriff 2002; Meyer 2002; Teubert and Čermáková 2004; Héja 2010); the structural levels of bilingual dictionaries and the lexicographic solutions adopted when building the dictionary on various structural levels (e.g. Atkins 2002 [1996], 2008 [1992/1993]; Bergenholtz and Tarp 1995; Hartmann 2001; Hausmann and Wiegand 2003 [1989]; Adamska-Sałaciak 2006, 2010); Latvian bilingual and multilingual lexicography before the beginning of the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition (e.g. Zemzare 1961; Roze 1982; Veisbergs 2000, 2011).

Since the present study deals with two aspects of dictionary research, namely, dictionary history and structure, it was necessary to select appropriate approaches for the survey of the historical development of the ELDs. Three approaches to the study of dictionary history have been applied in the historical survey of the ELDs: cultural-historical approach which concentrates on the link between the lexicographic practice of a certain period and its overall cultural background which determines the formation of the lexicographic tradition; genre-specific historical approach which deals with the development of a specific type of dictionary over a certain period of time; and genealogical approach which focuses on the succession and mutual relations of dictionaries within a lexicographic tradition (Hartmann 2001: 40–44). The present study applies a combination of these three approaches to the study of dictionary history with a detailed analysis of the main structural levels of the ELDs, thus performing a comprehensive analysis of the lexicographic tradition.

The topicality of this study is determined by the fact that considerable changes related to the choice of lexicographic evidence have affected the field of lexicography since 1987 when the first English explanatory dictionary fully based on corpus evidence (Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary) was published. Gradually the application of corpus evidence in lexicography has become a must rather than a preferable option. However, corpus evidence is not yet applied in the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition, thus revealing it as fairly conservative and even somewhat stagnant. Therefore there is a need for an analytical inventory of the ELDs in order to detect the merits and weaknesses of their structural features and to offer some solutions for improving the quality of future ELDs.

It should also be noted that so far the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition has been studied only fragmentarily by concentrating on the structural levels of a separate dictionary, or on particular elements of some structural level. For instance, the illustrative material in bilingual dictionaries (Grīnblats 1966); the selection of head-words and their polysemy, translation equivalents, illustrative material, dictionary labels, cross-references and outside matter components (Raškevičs 1993); the scope and treatment of make collocations in most general ELDs published between 1924 and 1966 (Guļāne 1973). Another noteworthy study (Bojāte 1968) focuses on the micro-structure of bilingual dictionaries compiled at the publishing house “Liesma” in the 1950s and 1960s, but, unfortunately, none of the editions of the ELD compiled by Belzēja et al. (1957, 1966) is discussed in the study, though the analysis of the entry structures of other bilingual dictionaries reveals evident microstructural similarities between these dictionaries and the ELD. Thus, a comprehensive diachronic and synchronic study of the whole English-Latvian lexicographic tradition with a focus on the analysis of the dictionaries on all structural levels has not been performed so far.

This book consists of the introductory matter, six chapters, conclusions, six appendices and bibliography. Its back matter also contains an alphabetical index and summaries in Latvian and German. An outline of the structure and contents of the chapters, appendices and bibliography is presented below.

The chapter Types of bilingual dictionaries, their functions and users’ needs comprises three subchapters. The first reviews dictionary typologies focusing on bilingual dictionaries. The second subchapter describes the functions of bilingual dictionaries in the context of dictionary users and their needs, the active vs. passive types of bilingual dictionaries and the distinctive features of both functional types of dictionaries. The third presents the structure of analysis for detecting the intended function(s) of the ELDs.

The chapter Primary and secondary sources of evidence in bilingual lexicography consists of two major subchapters with multiple further subdivisions. The first sub-chapter deals with the main source of lexicographic evidence in the pre-corpus era – citation files, discussing their advantages and disadvantages as well as juxtaposing them to text corpora. The second gives a comprehensive account of the major types of corpora used in bilingual lexicography – monolingual reference corpora and parallel corpora. The final part of the second subchapter concentrates on the use of corpus evidence in bilingual lexicography.

The chapter Structural levels of bilingual dictionaries consists of three subchapters dealing with the three major structural levels of dictionaries – megastructure, macro-structure and microstructure. The further subdivisions of these subchapters concentrate on significant issues related to each structural level, for instance, the building of headword list, the form and presentation of the headwords, the treatment of polysemy vs. homonymy are discussed in the subchapter on macrostructure of bilingual dictionaries. The other subchapters have a similar structure but differ in contents. Another distinctive feature of this chapter is that each subchapter winds up with a framework for the analysis of the respective structural level of the ELDs.

The chapter Development of Latvian bilingual and multilingual lexicography is divided in two subchapters – the first describes the development of Latvian bilingual and multilingual lexicography before the publication of the first ELD, while the second presents a description of the development of the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition. The lexicographic tradition is divided into periods which are initially determined by extralinguistic factors. A general description (based on a set of criteria focusing on the authorship, publishing details, repeated editions, etc.) of the ELDs published during each period is provided.

The chapter Analysis of structural levels of English-Latvian dictionaries comprises three major subchapters, each devoted to structural analysis of the ELDs on one of the structural levels. The ELDs are divided into the previously established periods and the analysis is performed according to the framework suggested in the fourth chapter. The main tasks of the analysis are to identify, classify and describe the mega-, macro-and microstructural components of the ELDs published at various periods of the tradition, analyse the findings and draw conclusions on the general tendencies in the development of the ELDs on all three structural levels.

The last chapter Guidelines for a model of a general ELD proposes guidelines for a model of an ELD which corresponds to the latest developments in contemporary lexicographic practice in terms of the structure and sources of evidence. While developing the guidelines of the dictionary model, the typical structural features of the ELDs that do not contradict the latest developments in contemporary bilingual lexicography have been integrated in it.

The Bibliography is divided into two parts – the list of literature and the dictionaries forming the English-Latvian lexicographic tradition. The dictionaries are as far as possible arranged according to the names of the compilers. The repeated editions of dictionaries are listed separately only when the author(s), the editor(s) or the publisher(s) have changed.

The six appendices contain the list of information types in bilingual dictionaries described in literature (Appendix 1), the data collected for the general description of the ELDs (Appendix 2), the entry branch in all the ELDs discussed in the present study (Appendix 3), the data collected for the mega-, macro- and microstructural analysis of the ELDs (Appendices 4, 5 and 6).

The practical significance of the present study rests in the fact that it reveals the shortcomings in the choice of lexicographic evidence, the strong points and the problematic aspects of the mega-, macro- and microstructure of the contemporary ELDs. This knowledge as well as the suggestions offered as a result of the study could be applied in designing the future dictionaries in this and, perhaps, also some other lexicographic tradition in similarly urgent need of updating.

This book is a revised version of my PhD thesis which was defended at the University of Latvia in 2012.

2 Types of bilingual dictionaries, their functions and users’ needs

Dictionaries can be categorized according to various criteria, however, a standard generally accepted dictionary typology has not been created as yet (Landau 2001: 7). Most linguists dealing with the issue of dictionary typologies sooner or later arrive at the conclusion that “[d]ictionaries come in more varieties than can ever be classified in a simple taxonomy” (Béjoint 2000: 37). One of the possible explanations of this situation might be the existence of too many types and subtypes of dictionaries to be presented in a clear taxonomy. It should also be taken into consideration that new (sub)types of dictionaries emerge which cannot be easily integrated in the existing classifications (ibid.).

Béjoint (2000: 32) points out that one of the key iss...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Types of bilingual dictionaries, their functions and users’ needs
• 3 Primary and secondary sources of evidence in bilingual lexicography
• 4 Structural levels of bilingual dictionaries
• 5 Development of Latvian bilingual and multilingual lexicography
• 6 Analysis of structural levels of English-Latvian dictionaries
• 7 Guidelines for a model of a general ELD
• 8 Conclusions
• 9 Bibliography
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Appendix 3
• Appendix 4
• Appendix 5
• Appendix 6
• Index
• Kopsavilkums
• Zusammenfassung
• Endnotes