Cognitive Lexicography

Carolin Ostermann

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9783110424287
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

English lexicography and linguistics have always shared close ties, yet the potential of cognitive linguistics for lexicography has only been hesitantly acknowledged in the literature. This is what cognitive lexicography attempts to change by using insights gained in cognitive semantic research for the development of new dictionary features. After a short survey of the history and practice of English monolingual learner lexicography, as well as an outline of the relationship between linguistics and lexicography, three new dictionary features are developed. They cover three different cognitive semantic theories as well as three different parts of the monolingual dictionary entry, each time for a new set of lexemes. Frame semantics, conceptual metaphor theory, as well as cognitive conceptions of polysemy, are used to create a new example section for agentive nouns, a new defining structure for emotion terms and a new microstructural arrangement for particle entries. Dictionary analyses on all, as well as user studies on two of the features, complement these suggestions. The monograph thus presents a new approach to lexicography that incorporates into its description of lexical items how humans perceive and conceptualise language.

1A new approach to lexicography

Some British lexicographers […] believe that lexicography can only progress if it takes into account the work of linguists, their methods, their questions and their answers.

(Béjoint 2010: 269)

The lexicography of English is founded on a rich tradition over many centuries. During nearly all that time, lexicography was influenced by linguistics in various ways and by different schools (cf. Béjoint 2000: 169- 178 and 2010: 262- 347). Lexicographers in recent times have acknowledged the potential and the need for a linguistic basis to lexicography, as the quote by Béjoint above indicates. This quote need not be interpreted radically, in the sense that lexicography is dependent on linguistics and in need of progress. Nevertheless, I argue that linguistics can always contribute to lexicographic theory and practice, and in the light of the developments of linguistics over the last decades, it is time to look at a new set of questions and answers that linguistics now offers.

What I propose is to take a new approach to lexicography by making use of cognitive linguistics, more precisely: cognitive semantics. At first glance, lexicography and cognitive linguistics do not seem to have a lot in common that would favour a projection of one theory onto the other. While the lexicography of English has followed established principles for decades and even centuries, cognitive linguistics is a comparatively new branch of linguistics, which only emerged a few decades ago, and both are very different branches of linguistics. But since cognitive linguistics attempts to describe language according to how humans perceive and conceptualise the world, with language not being seen as an isolated faculty but as relating to the world (cf. Croft/Cruse 2004, Evans/Green 2006, Ungerer/Schmid 2006), a cognitive linguistic approach might be especially suitable for dictionaries that aim at explaining the very same language users process. The use of cognitive linguistic theories in lexicographic practice could facilitate the processing of dictionary information by users and make various features of dictionaries more efficient. This is what I would like to demonstrate here by exploring a projection of cognitive linguistics onto lexicography in different fields.

I argue, therefore, that the application of cognitive semantic theories to different areas of lexicographic practice can improve traditional elements of dictionary structure and make the information offered more accessible to dictionary users. I will attempt to demonstrate as well that different areas of lexicographic practice can be used for what I eventually call cognitive lexicography (cf. chapter 4.3 below).

For my project, I have decided to work with monolingual learner’s dictionaries, and have chosen three exemplary areas of their common lexicographic practice in addition to three major areas of cognitive semantics, which all, once combined, can be developed into a new cognitive lexicographic practice. The lexicographic elements selected – the dictionaries’ example sentences, definitions and the entries’ microstructure – cover the most important elements of a monolingual dictionary. The cognitive semantic principles were chosen in accordance with their usefulness for the current purpose and their dominance, but are a random choice and can be complemented and expanded by further approaches in the future (cf. chapters eight and nine).

In each chapter, one theory of cognitive semantics is combined with one aspect of lexicographic practice. The new cognitive lexicographic features that emerge are demonstrated in relation to a certain group or kind of lexemes, for which I have chosen the most suitable cognitive semantic principle. To make matters more explicit, the concept of frame semantics (Fillmore) was selected to show how persondenoting nouns (such as bridegroom) can be given cognitive example sections based on semantic frames and their frame elements, which at the same time also present a more cognitive semantic macro-structure within the alphabetical arrangement of the dictionary. A class of abstract nouns, the semantic field of emotion terms, will be given a cognitive definition structure based predominantly on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff/Johnson). Finally, the word class of particles (e.g. over) will be given a more cognitive microstructure based on accounts of Cognitive Polysemy (e.g. mechanisms of polysemous extension, or the Principled Polysemy Approach by Tyler/Evans). Thus I will indicate how an existing cognitive approach can be applied in lexicographic practice (frame semantics, here for person-denoting nouns), as well as how the dictionary can be improved in the area of a certain lexical field (emotion terms) or a given word class (particles). The chapters also cater at the same time to different needs of the user: The chapter on person-denoting nouns furthers encoding by aiding vocabulary acquisition and language production and offers at the same time an onomasiological access to the dictionary, while the chapter on emotion terms improves the decoding of definitions. The chapter on particles provides a more transparent location of the required information within the dictionary entry for highly polysemous lexical items. An overview of this arrangement is presented in table 1.

The overall structure of the book is the following: chapter two gives a short outline of the history of learner lexicography and situates this project in a larger context; it also comments briefly on the different monolingual learner’s dictionaries on the market and their development. Chapter three continues with a summary of theory and practice in traditional monolingual learner lexicography and presents the theoretical basis from which the development of my cognitive features depart. After these purely lexicographical chapters, chapter four builds the bridge to cognitive lexicography by outlining the relationship between lexicography and linguistics over decades, by tracing cognitive principles already in practice in learner lexicography, and by eventually establishing the notion of cognitive lexicography. Chapters five to seven, finally, deal with the cognitive lexicographic theories and the new cognitive dictionary features, with chapters eight and nine giving a final summary of what constitutes cognitive lexicography in general and what could constitute it in the future. All the accompanying materials can be found in the appendix (cf. chapter ten). The supplement at the very end is supposed to be seen as a “cognitive dictionary supplement” which could be added to any monolingual learner’s dictionary: it contains all the dictionary elements and entries developed in the previous chapters in alphabetical order.

Tab. 1: Chapter overview

Purpose of the user	Lexemes and their respective lexicographic elements	Dominant Cognitive Principle
encoding purposes,	Person-denoting nouns	Frame semantics
enhancement of	(e.g. bridegroom)
vocabulary	cognitive example sentences
	cognitive macrostructure
decoding purposes	Abstract nouns: emotion terms	Conceptual Metaphor Theory
	(e.g. anger, love, pride)
	cognitive defining format
transparent location of	Particles	Cognitive Polysemy
information	(e.g. over)
	cognitive microstructure

The structure of chapters five to seven on cognitive lexicographic features is organised as follows: first, there will be a short overview from the literature on the cognitive principle used before I outline the elements, theory and structure of my cognitive dictionary features and present the new dictionary materials. In comparison to the new cognitive dictionary features, I then conduct a thorough dictionary analysis of the entries of the respective lexemes in the five monolingual learner’s dictionaries to ascertain whether cognitive principles are already being applied in current lexicographic practice. Prototype theory, to give one example of cognitive semantics, has definitely made its way into lexicography (cf. Hanks 1994 and chapter 4.2), and the aim here is to determine whether the principles used for my approaches can also be detected. The analysis will not be restricted, however, to the five recent monolingual learner’s dictionaries, but will also be extended to three older editions of the Oxford Advanced learner’s Dictionary in order to determine how lexicographic practice in these areas has developed in the oldest learner’s dictionary. Lastly, the new cognitive dictionary features of frame-example sections (chapter five) and cognitive definitions (chapter six) are put to the test in small-scale psycholinguistic user-studies, in order to discern whether and to what extent they prove to be more beneficial to the learner than traditional features. In chapter seven, a few remarks will be made on particle entries in use. It is therefore my aim both to work meta-lexicographically by conducting dictionary analyses within a given cognitive semantic framework, as well as to work practically and offer new lexicographic features, which are additionally tested in small-scale user-studies or commented on didactically. All the accompanying materials for the dictionary analyses, the cognitive lexicographic dictionary elements, and the user-studies, can be found in the appendix in chapter ten.

The materials with which I will be working are, as previously mentioned, monolingual learner’s dictionaries. Even if the dictionary features proposed in the following can, of course, also be applied to monolingual lexicography for native speakers, I chose learner’s dictionaries, since learners should especially profit from information that is more accessible due to its cognitive basis. Herbst (1990: 1379) defines a monolingual learner’s dictionary as “a synchronic monolingual dictionary intended to meet the demands of the foreign user”. Learners naturally encounter more difficulty in decoding information; they are especially encouraged to enhance their vocabulary, and their particular needs deserve special attention in this kind of dictionary. Therefore, improvements that make the dictionary information more “cognitive” should be most welcome here. The choice of monolingual over bilingual dictionaries was made because they have a larger assortment of lexicographic practices regarding the rendering of information (instead of merely giving a translation) and therefore offer more possibilities for an adaptation of dictionary features. Monolingual dictionaries also reach a wider audience since they do not depend on the native language of a certain user, but are, as Humblé (2001: 34) says, “like universal ‘bilingual’ dictionaries, since they translate hard English into easy English, independently of the user’s first language”. The dictionaries selected for this project are the latest editions (at the time of writing) of the five British monolingual learner’s dictionaries competing on the market (“The ‘Big Five’”, Béjoint 2010: 164): The Oxford Advanced learner’s Dictionary, The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary, The Cambridge Advanced learner’s Dictionary, and The Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. All dictionaries will henceforth be abbreviated to their common acronyms accompanied by a number indicating the edition; they are therefore to be called OALD8, LDOCE5, COBUILD6, CALD3 and MEDAL2.1 As also mentioned previously, I furthermore chose to use OALD1, OALD3, and OALD5 for a dictionary analysis of older editions of the O...

Table of contents

• cover
• Title Page
• copyright
• Preface
• Contents
• 1 A new approach to lexicography
• 2 A history of learner lexicography
• 3 Principles of learner lexicography
• 4 Cognitive linguistics and lexicography
• 5 Person-denoting nouns
• 6 Abstract nouns: emotion terms
• 7 Particles
• 8 Synopsis: cognitive lexicography
• 9 Lexicography in the future
• References
• 10 Appendix
• Endnotes
• Supplement: new cognitive dictionary