Lexicography Then and Now: Selected Essays 9783110924459, 9783484391291

Citation preview

Series Maior

LEXICOGRAPHICA Series Maior Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for Lexicography Supplements ä la Revue Internationale de Lexicographie Supplementbände zum Internationalen Jahrbuch für Lexikographie

Edited by Pierre Corbin, Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, Franz Josef Hausmann, Ulrich Heid, Sven-Goran Malmgren, Oskar Reichmann, Ladislav Zgusta 129

Published in cooperation with the Dictionary Society of North America (DSNA) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX)

Ladislav Zgusta

Lexicography Then and Now Selected Essays Edited by Fredric S. F. Dolezal and Thomas Β. I. Creamer

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2006

Philosophus quidam vita quid esset olim interrogatus "nonnullae litteris repletae paginae" optime respondisse traditur. Fabula Archicliana.

Coniugi optimae, quae in mundo turbulentissimo otium et tranquillitatem ad haec necnon ad alia opuscula scribenda negotia mea suis semper praeponens mihi parabat D. D. D.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar. ISBN 13 978-3-484-39129-1 ISBN 10 3-484-39129-4

ISSN 0175-9264

© Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 2006 Ein Unternehmen der K.G. Saur Verlag GmbH, München http .//www. niemeyer. de Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Laupp & Göbel GmbH, Nehren Einband: Nädele Verlags- und Industriebuchbinderei, Nehren

ν

Contents Preface Introduction The Life and Times of Ladislav Zgusta A Note from the Editors Chapter One: History and Dictionaries 1.1. History and Dictionaries 1.2. Etymology and (or) Derivation as the Logical Origo of the Entry 1.3.The Western Tradition 1.3.1. The Ordering of Senses as Established in Early Modern Europe 1.3.2. Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (1572) 1.3.3. Accademia della Crusca (1612) 1.3.4. Academie fransaise (1694) 1.3.5. Charles Richardson [1775-1856] 1.3.6. Franz Passow 1.3.7. The Dictionary of Liddell-Scott 1.4. Some Historical Dictionaries of German, French, and English 1.4.1. The Style of the Deutsches Wörterbuch 1.4.2. The Style of the Deutsches Wörterbuch and its Relation to Richardson's and Passow' Dictionaries 1.4.3. ä propos of Richardson 1.4.4. ä propos of Passow 1.4.5. The Organization and Style of Littre's Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise 1.4.6. Grimm, Littre and the Dutch Historical Dictionary; M. de Vries and L. A. te Winkel's Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal 1.4.7. James Murray and the Structure of the Entry in the OED 1.4.7.1.The Lemma and the Sequence of Senses 1.4.7.2.The Sequence of Illustrative Examples 1.4.7.3. The Relation of the Factual Chronology and the Reconstructed Sequence of Senses 1.4.8. Grimm and Murray 1.4.9. Conclusion 1.4.10.Epilogue Chapter Two: Methods and Trends in Lexicography 2.1. Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English 2.1.1. Introduction. Origin of the Term 2.1.2. Early History of the Term 2.1.3. Pragmatics and Lexicography 2.1.4. Three Aspects of Pragmatics 2.1.4.1. The Cultural Setting 2.1.4.2.Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

ix xii xiv 1 6 11 11 13 15 17 19 27 35 39 43 46 47 51 53 55 59 60 67 67 76 80 82 87 87 87 89 90 91 92

vi

2.1.4.3.Lexicographic Definitions 93 2.1.5. Conclusion 98 2.1.6. Epilogue 99 2.2.Lexicography and Linguistics 100 2.2.1. Some Branches of Linguistics and Lexicography 100 2.2.1.1. Phonetics and Phonology 100 2.2.1.2. Morphology 101 2.2.1.3. Syntax 101 2.2.1.4. Sociolinguistics 102 2.2.2. Some Linguistic Schools of Thought 103 2.2.2.1. Historicism 103 2.2.2.2. Structuralism 104 2.2.2.3.Danish Structuralism 105 2.2.2.4.Valences, Collocations 105 2.2.2.5.Frequency of Occurrence 106 2.2.2.6. American Structuralism 107 2.2.2.7. Pedagogical Dictionaries 107 2.2.2.8. Post-structuralism 108 2.2.3. Some Contemporary Achievements and Trends 109 2.2.3.1.The COBUILD Dictionary 109 2.2.3.2.Prototype Theory Ill 2.2.4. Compatibility of Theories 115 2.2.5. Theoreticians and Practitioners 120 2.2.6. Computational Linguistics 122 2.3. Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity 126 2.4. Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow Or, Vaticinations on the Learner's Dictionary ....133 Chapter Three: Dictionaries and the Lexicon 3.1. The Lexicon and Dictionaries: Some Theoretical and Historical Observations 3.2. Onomasiological Change: Sachen-change reflected by Wörter 3.2.1. New things Come Into Existence Or Are Discovered 3.2.2. Things Cease to Exist 3.2.3. Change in the Denoted Thing 3.3. De verborum in etymologiis constituendis examinandisque significatu 3.4. Sesquipedalian Bilingualism: the Difficult Easiness of Short Words 3.5.'Hard Words' - 'schwierige Wörter' 3.6.Multiword Lexical Units

141 148 148 151 152 154 161 166 178

Chapter Four: Dictionaries and Languages 4.1. The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard 4.1.0. Typology of Dictionaries That Influence the Standard 4.1.1. Type 1: Standard-Creating Dictionaries 4.1.1.1. Type 1.1: New Standard Languages 4.1.1.2. Type 1.2: Revived Languages 4.1.1.3.Type 1.3: Varieties Raised to Standards

186 186 187 187 188 188

vii

4.1.1.4. Borderline Cases 4.1.2. Type 2: Modernizing Dictionaries 4.1.2.1.Type 2.1: Terminology 4.1.2.2.Type 2.2: New Registers 4.1.2.3.Type 2.3: Overcoming Diglossia 4.1.3. Type 3: Antiquating (or Archaizing) Dictionaries 4.1.3.1.Type 3.1: Weaker Type 4.1.3.2.Type 3.2: Stronger Type 4.1.3.3.Borderline Cases 4.1.4. Type 4: Standard-Descriptive Dictionaries 4.1.4.1. Difficulties of Compilation 4.1.4.2. Various Subcategories and Terms 4.1.5. Means and Methods of Influencing the User 4.2. The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types 4.2.1. Introduction 4.2.2. Scripts 4.2.2.1. Alphabetic Sequences 4.2.2.2. Non-Alphabetic Sequences 4.2.2.3.Hybrid Sequences 4.2.2.4. Various Scripts and Signs 4.2.3. Morphology of the Entry word 4.2.3.1.The Paradigm and the Canonical Forms 4.2.3.2. Paradigms and Derivations 4.2.4. Combinations of Lexemes as Entries 4.2.5. Headwords Consisting of Bound Morphemes 4.2.6. Bilingual Dictionary 4.3.Typology of Etymological Dictionaries 4.3.1. Introduction: the Typologies of Malkiel and Reichmann 4.3.2.1.Time depth 4.3.2.2. Direction of Analysis 4.3.2.3.The Range 4.3.2.4. The "Grand Strategy" 4.3.2.5.Structure of the Entry 4.3.2.6.Breadth 4.3.2.7.Scope 4.3.2.8.Character 4.3.2.9.The Author's Style and Creed 4.3.3. Conclusion Chapter Five: Bilingual Dictionaries 5.1.Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries 5.1.0.1.troduction 5.1.1.Psycholinguistic Investigations 5.1.2.Theoretical Linguistics

188 189 189 189 191 191 191 191 192 192 192 194 195 198 198 198 199 199 200 200 202 202 203 205 207 208 210 210 211 212 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 221 221 222 223

viii

5.1.2.Conclusion 229 5.2.Equivalents and Explanations in Bilingual Dictionaries 230 5.3.Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary 236 5.4.Lexicography of Ancient Greek 262 5.4.1. Introduction 262 5.4.2. Mycenaean Greek 262 5.4.3. Lexicography of Classical and Hellenistic Greek 263 5.4.3.1.Ancient Lexicography 263 5.4.3.2.Modern Lexicography 265 5.4.3.2.1. Early Dictionaries 265 5.4.3.2.2. The Thesaurus 266 5.4.3.2.3. Passowian Lexicography 267 5.4.3.2.4. Liddell/Scott 268 5.4.3.2.5. Christian Authors 269 5.4.3.3.Contemporary Lexicography 269 5.4.3.4.Conclusion 272 5.5. Scholarly German Bilingual Lexicography in Imperial Russia 273 5.5.1. Otto Böhtlingk and his Sanskrit dictionary 273 5.5.1.1.Böhtlingk's Dictionary 274 5.5.2. Friedrich Wilhelm Radloff and his Comparative Dictionary of Turkic Languages .279 5.5.2.1.Radloff's Dictionary 282 5.5.3. Vsevolod Fedorovich Miller and his Ossetic Dictionary 287 5.5.3.1.Miller's Dictionary 289 5.5.4. Quasi-bilingual Dictionaries 293 5.5.5. Lexicography's Stability 295 5.6. The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography 297 Comprehensive Bibliography

319

Indexes

365

ix

Introduction: Rem tene, verba sequentur "Contemporary dictionaries are quickly turned into historical sources." The notions 'primary' and 'secondary' sources are challenged by lexicographic texts: primary sources ('literature' in it broadest sense) have "unique importance" and "overwhelming value" but they nevertheless are subject to parsing, excerption, and other linguistic and textual formulations that serve to always remove context; primary sources thus removed, or excerpted, are re-situated as pieces of evidence that taken together, according to various lexicographic procedures, comprise a dictionary. "Thus the most unabashedly synchronic dictionary overtime becomes a period dictionary." Zgusta's work reminds us that within the most up-to-date description of language there is also historical depth, if only implied; it is for this reason that throughout this book, whether investigating bilingual dictionaries, or considering linguistic theory as it informs lexicography (and no doubt is informed by lexicography), the inquiries into the whole range of topics presented here depend upon an historical knowing and seeing. The reader of this book will enter a narrative of wide historical and textual scope while engaging an analysis of dictionaries and lexicographic principles. We encourage the reader to browse the index, because in this preface we can only allude to the topics, texts, authors and languages presented here. Zgusta's work in lexicography and linguistics proper is built upon a multilingual command of linguistic theory, literary history, and the history of linguistics. The topic under consideration may be the organization and development of a standard variety of a language; explorations of the consequences of linguistic theory on the practical lexicographic applications in making dictionaries that range from Ahtna to Zoque and Batad Ifuagao to Yolngu-Matha, the method of definition in bilingual dictionaries; the state of affairs in the lexicography of Imperial Russia; learner's dictionaries; ancient Greek lexicography; pragmatics; scripts and morphological types; the history of English lexicography; or behind the scenes at the making of the Czech-Chinese dictionary - to only indicate some of the depth and breadth of insight that each chapter and section reveals; the reader will not only be offered a careful and wide-ranging study of these important topics in the discipline, but will be taken on a guided comparative and historical tour that illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of current practice and theory. And here we note that this volume represents the lexicographic facet of the multifaceted scholar, Professor Zgusta: throughout this book the reader will be introduced to the other facets of his linguistic, literary, and philosophical knowledge as he draws together his analysis from disciplines such as historical linguistics, onomasiology, lexicology, and indology, etc. Interestingly, perhaps provocatively, we are told that the theory of lexicography, which is "not something opposed to lexicographic practice," is not "an endeavor that largely coincides with linguistics ..."; rather, "it is 1) the study of specifically lexicographic methods and their problems,

χ 2) the selection of those results of linguistic ... research potentially useful to lexicography, and 3) the transformation of these results into useful components of lexicographic practice." The dichotomy can be expressed not as a competitive drawing of disciplinary boundaries, but as a recognition of the differing goals of each; the linguistic point of view is necessary, but the three points 1-3 "should be studied not only from the purely linguistic point of view, but also in respect to the needs of the users of various types of dictionaries." One valuable contribution of this volume rests upon Zgusta's understanding of contemporary linguistic theory and his experience as a "practical" lexicographer (not to mention his facility with ancient and modern languages). His work reminds those linguists and lexicographers who are locked into "paradigm" battles of the Kuhnian kind that the wheel has already been invented; for example, the reader will find a critique of ancient Greek lexicography that calls our attention to contemporary theory and practice, the evolution of lexicography and linguistics, and Classical Greek literature. On the other hand, Zgusta's discussion on pragmatics includes an historical accounting of the term from the Greek literature to William James (and into the 20th century with Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Firth, through John Austin to John Searle and M.A.K. Halliday) in service of reviewing and analyzing contemporary theory and practice. The ensuing discussion provides observations upon cultural context, equivalence in bilingual dictionaries and problems of definitions in monolingual dictionaries. As is the case throughout this book, Zgusta illustrates his points by referring to dictionaries from different epochs and cultures (in this case from Zoque to idiomatic-contemporary-English). Anyone who has heard Zgusta deliver a paper at a conference, read his work, who has been a student in one of his classes, or has engaged him in conversation will know that the prodigious command of language, literature, and theory is leavened with a good humor that in its own way provides insightful texture to his ideas. In a disquisition on the learner's dictionary, "Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow" (an appropriation, if not adaptation, of a Jerome K. Jerome trope) he synthesizes his scholarly program: "how could a humanistic scholar like myself start talking about the future except through an excursus into the past?" (We, as editors, would only makes this change: "humanistic scholar" should read "humanistic and humane scholar") Another sample can be found in 2.3 "Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth, or the Lexicographer's Creativity" which adopts Fred Householder's "idea of identifying among linguists two extreme positions" in a review of a book by Zellig Harris in 1952; Zgusta writes: It would seem that in lexicography all the so-called factual information should pertain to the domain of God's Truth, whereas all the explanations are ripe candidates for Hocus Pocus status, even if they attempt to acquire, or pretend that they bear, the hallmark of God's Truth.

Our editorial goal was to not merely collect and re-produce articles across topics and years but to arrange the articles according to topic and then to construct a continuous narrative of ideas from the collected works while preserving some of the distinctiveness of individual articles. We also decided that if each article were brought up to date this would

xi enhance the connectiveness of the wide-ranging articles and help produce a book rather than a collection (albeit an excellent one!) of greatest hits from the past. We could only have accomplished the grander design through the active authorial engagement of Professor Zgusta.

xii

The Life and Times of Ladislav Zgusta

The life and times of Professor Zgusta (born in Prague March 20, 1924) might easily be narrated as a saga of fierce determination in the face of a series of personal calamities and triumphs, a stirring story of one man's resilience in the face of some of the worst human behavior of the twentieth century - a survivor: of the fascist invasion of the Czech Republic by the Wehrmacht and Gestapo, succeeded by the rise of the totalitarian Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Kruschevites, and the 1968 Brezhnevite suppression of the Prague Spring* — along the way Zgusta is fired from Charles University (March 1949, with the decision rescinded in June ofthat year); in 1950 regular salary increases are stopped; then the next year he is excluded from teaching (a punishment befit Brer Rabbit?); fired again in 1952, but luckily the Academy needs researchers to write in German etc; late in that year he is sent to a "military camp of concentration" from which he is transferred to a military hospital after pulling yet another medical scam (earlier, during the world war, he mesmerized a Gruppenführer to medically release him from another almost certain death sentence of factory work); in the mid-fifties he is interrogated at intervals by the secret police, which is followed up by offers of making up for his political malfeasance of the past by becoming an informer (nice work if you can get it; but he chose rather to trod the road of affliction and non-affiliation); in 1958, following one of the purges his salary is reduced, then four years later there is a "milder purge" and a smaller reduction in salary; in 1965 his promotion to Professor is blocked against the vote of the faculty; after the Russian strike in 1968 "the orthodox ("politically correct") minions" win. Through ingenuity, good fortune, and a plan prepared in league with his family (Mrs. Olga Zgusta and young adult children Richard and Monica), he finds a way in 1969 to make a fantastic journey, including an elephant ride, to his new found land, his American home by way of Cairo (not the one in Illinois). Yet, we would dishonor the spirit and genius of the man if we were to distill the tale into one of yet another victim of political intolerance and overt oppression. The irrepressible intellectual curiosity and merriment of our friend and colleague, Professor Zgusta, forbids us such grim rectitude. Our collective acquaintance of Professor Zgusta begins in 1972 shortly after he is brought to the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, by Professors Braj B. Kachru and Henry Kahane (1970) following a stint at Cornell University. At Illinois Zgusta singlehandedly tormented a generation of Chomskyan-McCawleyite-and-other-luminaries-of-theprevailing-theory linguistics graduate students with his required History of Linguistics course, a course he taught each year until his retirement; for those many years, the University of Illinois was unique in its curriculum of theoretical linguistics - history in the *For a good summary of Zgusta's academic career in Czechoslovakia see Zdenka (T.) Hermanovä's account in Archiv Orientälni 62, 1994, on the occasion of his 70th birthday which includes a comprehensive bibliography of 578 items. Also see "The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the theory of lexicography (Sväkosavidyäsästrakaranyam)" in the International Journal of Lexicography, 5:2, 1992, for a personal account of Zgusta's work as a lexicographer and the conception of his Manual of Lexicography (1970).

xiii midst of an academic culture that demanded that one jump on the current skateboard of linguistic theory at every turn of the page of Language or Linguistic Inquiry. Though (self) tormented by their brush with history, many were the students (and faculty) who would turn to Zgusta to read and comment on their latest papers, most of which were in the sub-disciplines of Syntax and Phonology, such is his acumen and insight into the contemporary linguistic theory. He is known by all as a careful and considerate reader, a man who reads a paper, not with an eye to his own agenda, but to the intentions and interests of the writer. It was a gratifying and sweet torment, that History of Linguistics course: we could fill many pages with the many anecdotes and quotations of Zgusta from the class notes taken with amused amazement over the years. Suffice it to say, the students were richly rewarded with an informed romp from Panini to Chomsky; his command of Sanskrit, Classical Greek and Latin, not to mention modern languages, was only surpassed by his mastery of English (albeit a mix of the archaic, obsolete and thoroughly modern). After being awash in direct quotations recited by heart from ancient texts East and West, students would salve their burgeoning sense of linguistic inadequacy by writing down snippets of Zgusta English and sometimes by daring to question a usage, to which he could always counter with a rejoinder such as: "You will find it in MacCauley." And laugh. The infectious laugh of self-awareness. He is not one who speaks English in fluent Czech; no doubt Zgusta English has a Slavic touch, but mostly he out-Englishes the English speaker's propensity for the nonce and the play on words. In class and out, we were and still are regaled with a stunning concoction of ancient proverb, folk-sayings, words of wisdom, insightful turns of phrase and plain-speaking that always is founded in respect and consideration for the listener, no matter how educationally benighted. After entering the profession, the editors of this volume were introduced to the world of colloquia and conferences and other academic gatherings with the same good-hearted humor and trenchant intellectual insight. We know we speak for many scholars young and old when we say that Professor Zgusta taught us and still teaches us, not only the material of specialized study, but also of the possibility that a generous spirit and a good humor is possible, even most desirable, in the world of the intellect, not to mention the "real" world that tempts us to lose our equanimity to the dark side; instead we rather find bemused comfort at the turn of fortune's wheel, while we follow our heart's desire to know the human condition through the prism of our philological endeavors.

A Note from the Editors This volume represents a broad selection of Ladislav Zgusta's work on lexicography. All of the original articles and their respective bibliographies and subsequent revisions in the present volume have undergone elaborate editing in collaboration with Professor Zgusta. While most of the articles in this volume have been updated, we have also conflated six articles on the history of dictionaries into one seamless narrative with connective tissue supplied by Professor Zgusta. The comprehensive bibliography includes works cited in the original articles; some of the texts cited may not appear in the updated and revised versions of the articles printed here. We also have included subject, citation, and example indexes. We would like to express our special gratitude to Donna Farina who collaborated on the important initial phase of this project. On a snowy evening in Chicago beneath the old and now vanished Barclay Hotel where there was a hidden-away Chinese restaurant, the three of us decided to collect and then edit Professor Zgusta's essays on lexicography; however, we were not content to merely re-print and publish his works, as valuable as that would be; instead, the collection we imagined would constitute more of a single narrative than a succession of discrete texts. We emerged onto a flurry-driven sidewalk with a plan that would include the active cooperation of our teacher and advisor: We would edit each essay, combining, conflating and organizing texts and bibliographies according to themes and topics; Professor Zgusta then would up-date and add commentary to create narrative transitions and to elaborate on ideas that deserved further attention. We would also like to thank the following people: Dale Hartkemeyer, LST; Aung Kyaw Oo; Katie Gentillilo and the University of Georgia Library Photographic Services; Nancy Schiller, Research and Engineering Librarian, the Libraries of State University at Buffalo; the librarians of the University of Illinois Rare Book Room; the University of Georgia Research Foundation; the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Research Board; the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Center for Advanced Studies; and the Takoma Park Scholar-in-Residence program. We would like to thank the following for publication permissions: Mrs Henry Kahane; Mouton de Gruyter; Max Niemeyer Verlag; Walter de Gruyter; Oxford University Press; Institut für Deutsche Sprache: Pedagogische Schwann Verlag; Blackwell Publishers; Hornbeam Press; SEAMO Regional Language Centre; the Dictionary Society of North America; International Linguistic Society/Linguistic Circle of New York; Linguistic Society of the Phillipines. Sero Sed Serio SF Athens, Georgia BI Takoma Park, Maryland August 2005

Chapter One 1.1. History and Dictionaries*

The Greek word ιστορία (historia) belongs to the Indo-European root we id-, woid-, wid'to see, know' (to which belong, e.g., Eng. wisdom, Germ, wissen 'know', etc.). Chantraine [1899-1975] (1956, 134 ff.) studied some related terms in greater detail, but for our purposes it will suffice to say that at the earliest attested stage, historia was something like 'inquiry, information thus obtained'. It is in this sense that Plato [427-347BC] speaks about "he peri phüseös historia" ('the history (inquiry) about (into) nature'); or Herodotus [484-429BC] uses the expression "historiesi eidenai ti" ('to know something through inquiries'). However, what we know appears to us as an aggregate of facts, so that the physician Galenus was able to call historia the repertory of recorded medical cases; on the other hand, our inquiries are usually reported, so that Aristotle [384-322BC] in his Rhetoric can speak about "hai ton peri täs präxeis historia" ('the histories of those who write about events'). Already in late Antiquity, the restriction shown by the last context became frequent, so that Plutarch's [46-120?] collocations "historia Helleniki" 'Greek history' or "historia Rhömaike" 'Roman history' convey the modern meaning 'history'. In most contemporary Western languages the word's application is restricted in the same way as in late Antiquity, and it has the same multiple meaning. For instance, Le Robert Methodique (Rey-Debove 1982) gives us the following definitions: histoire "connaissance et recit des evenements du passe ... ; les faits ainsi relates". The American Heritage Dictionary (Morris 1969) echoes this with history "1. a narrative of events ... 2. a chronological record of events ... 4. the events forming the subject matter of history". Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Mish 1983) tells us practically the same thing: history "... 2 a: a chronological record of significant events ... usu. including an explanation of their causes ... 4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history" (where use of the indefinite article in "a history" adroitly avoids the difficulty into which American Heritage's definition [4] fell). In German, the word 'Geschichte' 'history' had a somewhat more complex development, because it originally meant 'what happened, was done' and later it ousted the word 'Historie,' assuming its other sense; however, the result in the contemporary language is parallel to that in the other Western languages. Duden Universalwörterbuch (Drosdowski 1983) gives for 'Geschichte' "(1) politischer, kultureller u. gesellschaftlicher Werdegang, Entwicklungsprozess ... (2) mündliche oder schriftliche, in einen logischen Handlungsablauf gebrachte Schilderung eines ... Geschehens ...".' This is the basic polysemy, or multiple meaning, of the word history in Western Editorial Note. This section consists mainly of "The Polysemy of 'History'", Introduction to the thematic part of Lexicographica 7, 199 l e , p. 1 - 9 , and of "History and its Multiple Meaning", Introduction to the volume History, Languages, and Lexicographers (L. Zgusta, ed.), Tubingen: Max Niemeyer 1992a, p. 1 - 1 8 .

2

History and Dictionaries

languages; that the sense of a narrative which brings out the logical concatenation of events is frequently expressed by the more recent term 'historiography' has not (yet?) succeeded in making the polysemy obsolete. One of the reasons for this is that historiography is a collective or abstract term, difficult to apply to individual historical works. Another cause may be that, on the one hand, historiography can be applied only to writings that elucidate the political and cultural history of nations or large social groups of humanity (whereas one can write a "history of the universe since the Big Bang", using the term somewhat metaphorically); and on the other hand, historiography must offer (as the definer in Duden well knew) an attempt at a logical presentation of data ("in einen logischen Handlungsablauf gebracht"), whereas the history of a medical case can be and usually is a mere "chronological record of events" (American Heritage 1969). Be this as it may, 'historiography' is a learned word pertaining to learned, explanatory writings as a body, and to their methodology.2 As for history as the chain of events itself, there are two types of connection between dictionaries and the chain of events called history (of language): either the dictionary in question (or rather, its author) tries to exercise an influence on that chain of events, that is, tries to determine or change the development; or the dictionary does not attempt that, but by being descriptive it is a source of our knowledge of that chain of events, a source of data that can be used in giving the narrative of these events. In Zgusta (1989a), four types of standard-influencing dictionaries were proposed: (1) dictionaries that aim at creating a written standard (standard-creating dictionaries); these fall into three subtypes, namely those that (a) help to create a new standard language; (b) try to revive languages; and (c) help to raise a variety of a language into a standard language of its own; (2) dictionaries that try to make a standard more modern (modernizing dictionaries); (3) dictionaries that try to stop any change in the standard or even to reverse linguistic change by reintroducing obsolete forms and meanings (antiquating or archaizing dictionaries); and (4), dictionaries that try to describe the existing standard, thereby clarifying it (standard descriptive dictionaries). 1

The semantic development of Germ. Geschichte is well described in Trübners Deutsches Wörterbuch, herausgegeben von Alfred Götze (Berlin: W. de Gruyter) III, 122 ff. (1939). The older opposition of geschichtlich (i.e., based on data only) and rationell, philosophisch (based on principles, Vernunfterkenntnisse), quite sharply stressed in Kant's Logik (s. Zs. Telegdi "Struktur und Geschichte: zur Auffassung ihres Verhältnisses in der Sprachwissenschaft" Acta linguistica Hungarica 17, 1967, 223-243; suggestion of Brigitte Nehrlich, Kratylos 38, 1993, 5) was 'neutralized' in the course of the nineteenth century, when historical data and their relations (particularly the causalness) were considered real explanations or even the only valid explanations.

2

In Zgusta (1991e), the various historical, or, to use a nonce, 'historiographic' dictionaries, that is, dictionaries that describe, analyze, or reconstruct various stages or epochs in the development of a language (mostly period, etymological, comparative, and diachronic dictionaries), are discussed; they are exemplified in the same volume by Adrados (1991b), Mayrhofer 1991; and Zgusta (199Id). Zgusta (199Id) also contains three articles (GoshenGottstein (1991), Malkiel (1991); and Nguyen (1991) that belong to the other sense of history: the chain of events itself. The latter three articles discuss dictionaries belonging to the type of lexica that try to influence language development. Such an influence can be exercized nearly exclusively in the area of standard language (including terminology).

History and Dictionaries

3

What is the relation of these types of dictionaries to history (understood as the chain of events)? Contemporary dictionaries belonging to any of these types deal with contemporary language; all of them, including most of the dictionaries of type (4), attempt to influence future usage. However, all of them have a historical dimension: even the modernizing dictionary (type 2) frequently uses old, obsolete expressions to create new terms; the archaizing dictionary (type 3) tries to throw language back in diachrony; the dictionary that tries to revive a language (type lb) resurrects its past; and dictionaries which create a new standard language (type la) or which describe the standard (type 4) cannot deal with contemporary language only, if for no other reason than because contemporariness is an abstraction: the speaker who spoke yesterday and the writer who wrote yesterday are not, in the strict sense, contemporary to us today. This constant slipping into the past means that to talk about 'contemporary history' is no contradiction: the moment we live an event it belongs to the chain of past events. (Notice, in this connection, that only the French Robert mentions "passe " ["past"] as a feature.) And in the same way as speakers and writers of today will tomorrow become speakers and writers of yesterday, contemporary dictionaries, even those with the focus of attention in the future, are quickly turned into historical sources. Thus, since the "chain of events" called history stretches into the present and is constantly pulled back into the past, dictionaries which try to modify contemporary language are part of this chain; and if they themselves belong to a past epoch, they have a double title to historicity. Further distinctions are necessary. Since Jakobson [ 1896-1982], it has been quite normal for linguists (even if they are not structuralists and/or use another terminology) to understand diachrony as a sequence of synchronies. Thus, a historical dictionary can offer a description of a past synchrony of a language, i.e., a description of a (longer or shorter) stage in the development of that language; on the other hand, it can concentrate on the picture of the change itself: that is, then, a diachronic dictionary. One can push even one step further and posit the type of a historical diachronic dictionary; in this case, we have in mind a dictionary that is concerned with the development of a language in the past only, not focussing on or even not considering at all the present state of that language. In German, this differentiation and the concomitant terms are by now widely used, mostly owing to the efforts of Oskar Reichmann, whose article "Historische Lexikographie" (Reichmann 1984) was a pioneering work in this area. However, while German Sprachstadienwörterbuch is by now a widely, even normally used term, its English counterpart period dictionary is not as frequently used. Thus, the expression historical dictionary is used in reference both to period dictionaries, and to diachronic dictionaries, either of them situated on various points or stretches of the flow of time, or development. That many, perhaps even most dictionaries simultaneously consist of components that belong to different types may go without saying. The word history is usually applied only to such events for which there is some documentation; chains of events (and their description) that stretch beyond the epoch in which such documentation (mostly written, sometimes traditional-oral) exists are usually called prehistory (which term, then, is endowed with the same polysemy as history; but a term like prehistoriography to my knowledge does not exist). In linguistics, this distinction

4

History and Dictionaries

is not made with such sharpness, because when we go back in time, the documentation becomes so scarce that it gradually fades out. Also, there is not much theoretical difference between phonological and morphological rules (sound changes, laws - whatever the term) posited for the historical and those posited for the prehistorical epoch. A diachronic dictionary that concentrates on the origin of lexical items while strongly taking the prehistory of language into consideration is usually termed etymological. Originally, etymology was a Greek philosophical term: 'έτυμος' means 'true, genuine', and etymology was the search for the 'true meaning' of a word, the meaning that reflects the relation between the thing and the word denoting it, a relation supposed by some philosophers to be necessary, because given by nature. Since this 'true meaning' frequently was sought in the word's 'derivation' (homo 'man' is 'derived' from humus 'soil', because of the Biblical story of man's creation, to use a later example), the term etymology developed the meaning of the study of the word's origin. There is, however, a certain vacillation in the use of the term. Derivation (the formation of words by affixes), composition, and other means for coining new lexical units usually exist both in the historical and in the prehistorical period in the development of a language, so that there is a reasonable tendency to deal with the more recent formations in the historical dictionary, or in that section of the entry in the etymological dictionary where "histoire des mots" is discussed. Many words in any language have their origin in borrowing, but (again) some of such borrowings are recent, so sometimes they are disregarded in the core of an etymological dictionary. In this way, the etymology par excellence, at least as practiced by many dictionaries, is the study of the word's prehistorical origin, or of the ultimate root or source beyond which one cannot penetrate any further. The result of such a study can consist in the indication of a prehistoric word in the full morphological form reconstructed for that epoch (e.g. Lat. bös, 'ox, bull, cow'; cf. Greek βοϋς; Sanskrit gauh, from Indo-European *gwöus 'cow, bull'); or of an incomplete word, such as, e.g., the postulated root and affix(es) (Latin culter, cultellum 'knife', from Indo-European *kol-tw-); or only of the root, the mere nucleus of lexical meaning and base of many derivations (Latin bibo 'drink', from Indo-European *pöi- or *pohi-). No need to stress that all this varies with the morphological structure of the language(s) studied. Besides indicating the source of native words, and words from related languages incoiporated at different points chronologically, the dictionary may indicate the (practically) ultimate source of a borrowing. Theoretically an etymological dictionary should study all the lexical units of a language, bringing each of them back to its (practically) ultimate source. In real life, however, most etymological dictionaries concentrate either on the more recent derivations and borrowings, or on the (practically) ultimate sources. Interestingly, one of the exceptions is not an etymological but a general language dictionary: The American Heritage Dictionary (1969, 1992) has an etymological component (by Calvert Watkins) that indicates the Indo-European root not only for each English word of Germanic descent, but also, if possible, for each borrowing from another Indo-European language. Let us also mention that the "ultimate source" of a word is ultimate only because of our inability to penetrate further: this is why we talked above about the "(practically) ultimate source"; the really ultimate sources could be in the domain of the origin of language itself, or close to it.

History and Dictionaries

5

Etymology has largely to do with prehistory; the basic method for the study of prehistory is comparison of historical data and projection of their regularities back in time: therefore, the etymological dictionary of a language must largely deal with comparison of data from genetically related languages. From this type of work it is then only one step to a comparative dictionary of a family of languages. Such a comparative dictionary has the task of collecting all or most of the cognates from the individual languages and listing them under their respective headwords from which they are supposed to descend: this is the minimal task. The author of the comparative dictionary can, however, go beyond this minimum by refining the study, mostly by working out the derivation of the individual cognates in great finesse, by trying to reconstruct many prehistoric words (not stopping at the mere indication of roots and affixes), by trying to establish chronological or dialectal strata within the reconstructed lexis, and so on. All this will render the comparative dictionary similar to the etymological one; hence one can postulate that, for instance, a really good comparative Indo-European dictionary would in reality be something like an etymological dictionary of the Indo-European protolanguage, or a conflated etymological dictionary of all the Indo-European languages. One remark is necessary: the preceding discussion is focussed on families of languages that diverge as strongly as the Indo-European ones. A comparative dictionary of a family (or subfamily) of less divergent languages can be much closer to an etymological dictionary even without a specific effort in that direction, particularly if the author can indicate, at least in most cases, words from an attested language as etyma of the lexis in the individual languages (such as the case, e.g., of W. Meyer-Lübke [1861-1936], Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [3rd ed. Heidelberg: C. Winter 1930 ff.]), where most of the comparative entries have the respective Latin word from which the Romance words descended [i.e., the etymon], indicated as their headwords), or because the individual languages are so close that one can treat their respective words as if they belonged to the same language (such is the case of, e.g., Radloff [1893-191 l]for the family of Turkic languages). It goes without saying that history (narratjon) is possible only because there are traces of history (events) , usually called "sources"; and it also stands to reason that old dictionaries, being themselves part of history(evcms) are eminent sources for history(narrali0n), or historiography of language. 3 Whether they belong to the chain of events in their capacity of instruments of directed change (or of any linguistic policy in general) or not is irrelevant; it is probably even better if they do not, if they are as impartially descriptive as possible. It has just been stated that the more descriptive the (old) dictionary, the better it is as a source. (This statement should not be taken as derogatory to the unique importance and overwhelming value of primary sources; that is, the original texts themselves.) Theoretically, then, one of the best sources should be either bilingual dictionaries, chiefly the "active" ones (those that have the purpose of helping to express oneself in a foreign language (Zöfgen 1989)), or monolingual dictionaries compiled for the learner (foreign or native). This is because in dictionaries compiled for these purposes, everything must be made as explicit as possible. For instance, Stein (1985) has shown that the early German and 3

See Reichmann 1990a, Jacoby 1990, Bray (1990), and Harras 1989.

History and Dictionaries

6 English bilingual dictionaries have a strong didactic component.

If we take a historical perspective, it is probably only natural that in a situation characterized by strong, so-to-say natural bilingualism such as the knowledge of Greek in Imperial Rome, Latin and Greek bilingual dictionaries were not a widely sought commodity: the children of the upper classes had Greek tutors from an early stage in their lives on (already Quintilian [35-99A.D.]) found it necessary to complain and warn, in his Institutio oratorio, that too early and too extensive an acquisition of Greek spoils a child's Latin pronunciation), and the lower classes consisted largely of slaves and libertines, former slaves mostly from the East, whose language was Greek irrespective of their exact origin. On the other hand, bilingual conversational manuals were preserved, and seem to have had a market; they indicate whole equivalent sentences instead of just lexical equivalents. For example, the Hermeneümata or Colloquia gives useful sentences in Greek and Latin, such as Βάλε νέρου. Πρόσθες ακράτου = ' Mitte recentem. Adice me rum'. 'Away with water. Bring forth wine.' (Corp. Gloss. Lat. Ill, 652, 16) (Zgusta 1980c). In both languages, the sentences are given in the colloquial style, in the languages as they are really spoken in everyday situations. The point is clear: the learner needs to acquire the ability to form sentences, clauses and phrases, and the ability to choose correct collocations; the mere acquisition of a vocabulary, however extensive, is not sufficient. 4 Up to now we have discussed dictionaries and their role in history (in its various aspects) in a rather impersonal way: only when different types of dictionaries attempting to influence the development of languages were concerned did we take into consideration the purposes pursued by the lexicographer himself. In reality, however, a dictionary is a human product and as such it is the result of how the individual lexicographer reacts to the intellectual climate of his time, passively (being influenced by the 'Zeitgeist') and actively (pursuing some purposes of his own choice). These influences and interferences largely are of sociological character, because they are embedded in the society as a whole; however, since ideas, beliefs, and opinions are of the greatest importance in this respect, we can summarize this area as the embedding of lexicography in ideology. It goes without saying that ideology changes within history as does everything else.

1.2. Etymology and (or) Derivation as the Logical Origo of the Entry In this section 5 , we shall first discuss the type of diachronic information that we find 4

Palsgrave's dictionary undoubtedly is the most outstanding member of this class of didactic bilingual dictionaries. Because of the wealth of detail and the natural character of his examples, Palsgrave's achievement is comparable to any similar modern work. Quite apart from its importance for the history of lexicography or for the history of foreign language pedagogy, his dictionary is a first-class source for our knowledge of the French language of his day. Indeed, it would seem that he can be taken as a primary source of our knowledge. Considered from any of these points of view, it is somewhat surprising that a work as outstanding as this one has not yet been given the attention it so richly deserves. (On Palsgrave, see now Stein 1997.)

7

History and Dictionaries

interspersed in synchronic dictionaries. Our discussion will focus on, but not be limited to, derivation and etymology. The two notions widely overlap, as we all know. Etymology originally, in Greek linguistics, referred to the search for the 'truth' of the word, which was understood as its 'true' or 'genuine' ('etymos') meaning indicated by its derivational components. Since the nineteenth century, the term 'etymology' has mostly been used in reference to tracing a word's origin in the prehistory of the language, to its derivation from an unattested root in a reconstructed proto-language. 6 On the other side of the scale, derivation is used mostly in reference to transparent combinations of morphemes, preferably such that can be handled by synchronically productive or, if already unproductive, at least statable rules. However, between these poles of the gamut, there are zones of overlapping: so, e.g. the discovery that the word has been borrowed can also be referred to as etymology. The important point is not only that the terms etymology and derivation are overlapping, but also that the synchronic productivity of a rule is one of the areas where a sharp distinction of synchrony and diachrony is neither possible nor desirable. We do not propose to concern ourselves with mere obiter dicta, or 'stray remarks' in dictionaries. Such unexpected pieces of information can be exemplified by a case taken from Furetiere [1619-1688] 1690. This is a dictionary which does not indicate the etymologies of entrywords; still, in the way of an exception we find, e.g.: FAIM ... Desir naturel de l'animal qui le porte ä rechercher les aliments necessaires pour se nourir. Ce mot est tire du Latin fames, qui vient du verbe Grec phagein ... The Latin etymology of the French word is correct, the Greek etymology of the Latin word is wrong, as we know today; that, however, is not the point: the real question is why this entryword should be provided with an etymology while other entries are not. There is no answer to this question that would be based on some systematic regularity in the organization of the Dictionary, there is nothing in the headword or the whole entry of Fr. ' f a i m ' that would render the indication of its etymology more useful, or necessary, here than elsewhere. One is reminded of such obiter dicta as we have them in Johnson (1755). This dictionary frequently indicates succinct etymologies; so, for instance, the source word of an English borrowing is indicated. Compare with this normal way of proceeding, the following: COROLLARY [corollarium,

Lat. from corolla; finis coronat opus·, or from

corollair,

Fr. a surplus]. [There follow the definitions (with examples)], (1) the conclusion, (2) surplus. 5

Editorial Note. The text of this section is based mainly on parts of "Derivation and Chronology: Greek Dictionaries and the Oxford English Dictionary (Dvädasakosyam)",In: Theorie und Praxis des lexikographischen Prozesses bei historischen Wörterbüchern (Herbert Ernst Wiegand, ed.), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer 1987a, p. 259-281; and "The Oxford English Dictionary and Other Dictionaries (Aikakosyam)", International Journal of Lexicography 2, 3, 1989c. 199-230.

6

The difference between a word's etymology and its history, and some problems of the free combinations of words and morphemes were discussed in Seebold 1983 (with further references). Examples quoted from dictionaries without any indication of volume and page are to be found sub voce, i.e., in the proper place of the entryword in the alphabetic sequence. All examples of entries are strongly reduced to show only what is relevant to the argument at hand.

7

8

History and Dictionaries

There is no reason why the Latin proverb finis coronat opus should be quoted as a part of the etymological information: after all, corolla is diminutive from corona 'crown', just as 'coronare' is a denominative verb derived from it. The apparent explanation seems to be that the diminutive noun and the denominative verb were paradigmatically related in Johnson's mental lexicon, since both, in their transferred senses, have to do with the successful conclusion of an undertaking, just as the first, dominant sense of the entry word does (i.e. 'the conclusion'): compare with this situation the fact that the etymological part of the lemma of ' C R O W N ' only indicates [couronne, Fr. kroone, Dut. corona, Lat.], probably because the sense "completion, accomplishment" is presented only as the tenth and last in the enumeration of senses, not as the dominant sense that would evoke the Latin proverb. Such so-to-say obiter dicta are more frequent in older dictionaries: coacervation of variegated if not disparate information deemed tangentially useful was more frequent in older, individually spirited lexicography than it is in our days, when space is scarcer and when teams of subeditors must word their entries on the basis of explicit editorial instructions whose main purpose is to eliminate individualistic or momentaneous whims. In any case, more than in such 'associative digressions' as exemplified by Johnson, or in such occasional forays into etymology as exemplified by Furetiere, we are interested in those cases where a synchronic dictionary brings in elements of diachrony for some reason inherent in the language itself and in the way in which linguists and lexicographers tend to describe it. One of such so-to-say sources of diachrony within synchrony is derivational transparency, real or attempted. Synchronic dictionaries sometimes regard derivational information as not proper to their province. So, e.g. Real Academia 1726 (I, ρ J sq.) tells us in the Prologo: ... la Real Academia ... ha formado el Diccionario... sin detenerse con demasiada reflexiön en el origen y derivacion de las voces; porque ademas de ser travajo de poco fruto, seria penoso y desgradable a los Lectores, que regularmente buscan la propriedad del significado. The principle thus stated is upheld in the Diccionario; the only thing which could be considered an exception is that the Diccionario gives occasional information as to the origin of a loanword or foreign word: however, this is done only in cases of palpable foreign elements (e.g., loanwords: I, 5: ' A B A N D O N E R ' ... es un voz tomada del Frances Abandoner; 1.60: ' A C O N C H A R ' ... Viene del Toscano Aconciare\ or foreign words: I, 161: 'ALB AC ΕA' ... Es voz Araba; I, 308: ' A N T I C H R E S I S ' ... Es voz puramente Griega: I, 417: 'ARROGANCIA' ... Es voz puramente Latina). The indication of the foreign source of loan words and foreign words seems not to be considered by the Academia to be an etymology, so the principle probably is not infracted, by their own standard. The Diccionario has a strictly alphabetical sequence of entries, so derivations are not indicated by another arrangement. However, when the French counterpart of the Diccionario, says (II, 9):

namely Academie

(1694)

MANUSCRTT Ce qui est escrit ä la main the definiens consists of the derivational parts made discrete, which is a good explanation of the general meaning at the same time. While in this case the coincidence of the derivational

9

History and Dictionaries

analysis and the explanation of meaning is rather precise, at least on the general level (one could say that the description of meaning coincides with the description of the derivation), sometimes it is necessary to go beyond the derivation and add some information, frequently of an encyclopedic or at least strongly object-bound character to narrow down the meaning as lexicalized. For instance, Academie 1694 (II, 9): MANIPULE Petite bände d'etoffe large de trois ä quatre pouces, que le Prestre porte au bras gauche lors qu'il celebre la Messe This is (in part) an encyclopedic excursus; sometimes, however, the excursus is of diachronic character. So, for instance, Academie 1694 (I, 62): ATHLEIE ... C'estoit chez les Grecs & chez les Romains, celuy qui combattoit pour la prix dans les jeux. Puissant, robuste athlete. II se dit figurement des hommes forts, robustes, adroits aux exercises du corps ... The first sentence of the definiens clearly is an excursus into the history of the word before it was borrowed into French. This might be considered an example of merely occasional exploits into the realm of diachrony, but let us consider the following example, again from Academie 1694 (II, 286): IMPOSER [listed as a subentry of POSER] Mettre dessus: & en ce sens il ne se dit guere au propre qu'en cette phrase: Imposer les mains. I'Evesque luy imposa les mains en le faisant Diacre,

les Apostres

donnoient

le S. Esprit en imposant

les mains. [Then immediately

follows:] Imposer, en terme d'imprimerie signifie Ranger, ... Ces pages sont composes, ilfaut les imposer

...

[On dit fig.] Imposer le fardeau

a quelqu'un

...

[There follows other figurative usage.] The Dictionary of the French Academy (Academie 1694) is not organized by the strict alphabetic sequence of the headwords; on the contrary, derivations are listed as subentries to the entry whose headword is considered basic. With such a macrostructure, the meaning suggested by the derivation 'mettre dessus' (let us disregard the slight difference of sense in French 'dessus' compared with Lat. in-> im-) necessarily must stand at the beginning of the (sub)entry, even though this causes a violation of the main principle of the microstructure of Academie (1694) viz. that the sequence of senses within the entry should proceed from the generally applicable to the collocationally restricted senses. Derivational considerations may cause yet stronger interference or overlapping of different organizational tendencies, or even principles, of a dictionary. For example, Academie 1694 (II, 93): MOULT adv. Vieux mot qui n'a plus d'usage que dans la burlesque, & qui signifie Beaucoup As a matter of principle, the dictionary of the French Academy does not list obsolete words,

History and Dictionaries

10

nor words restricted to such a genre as the burlesque. Why, then, is 'MOULT' listed? The apparent answer is that the principle of listing derivations and compounds as subentries requires a headword for the basic entry, under which 'MULTITUDE,' 'MULTIPLIER,' 'MULTIPLIER 'MULTIPLICATION,' 'MULTIPLE', 'SOUS-MULTIPLE' and 'MULTIPLICITE' can be listed. To indicate Lat. multus as the main entryword would not do because this word has never been borrowed, so 'MOULT' remains as the only viable candidate for serving as the main headword in spite of its obsolete status. The importance given to derivation in finding out the basic meaning of a word can be so strong that it goes beyond a mere excursus into diachrony. For instance, this is how Robertus Stephanus 1531 (II, 696 verso) treats a group of Latin words8: PUER Un enfant masle [there follow several examples] Puera Unefille [1 ex.] Puellus ... diminutivum a puer. Parvus puer sive parvus filius [1 ex.] Puella ... diminutivum a puera. Une filette [No examples] What else is this but a structuralist analysis? However, the regularity of the derivation as presented is broken by the whim of the real language in which the words are lexicalized: only 'puer' 'boy' and 'puella' 'girl' normally occur, the latter without any diminutive component of meaning, whereas 'puera' and 'puellus' are on the periphery of usage, both extremely rare, the former also obsolete. This example shows the tension between what is really attested in the language on the one hand and, on the other hand, what our knowledge of either history or synchronic rules (or both) tells us, with all the logical conclusive force about the original meaning (and its development): the necessity of coping with this tension is one of the main tasks, and difficulties of lexicography. The force of the logical conclusion may be so strong that it causes the lexicographer to assume or postulate unattested data necessary for a reasonable explanation. So, for example, Crusca 1612: RIVIDERE Di nuovo vedere. Lat. * reuidere ... [examples follow] We can compare this with: RTVDIRE Di nuovo udire. Lat. denuo audire ... The (strictly alphabetically organized) dictionary of the Academy of Crusca offers Latin (in some later editions, also Greek) equivalents of the Italian entry words, such as denuo audire, which is equivalent to It. riudire. However, in the case of It. rivedere, not the Latin equivalent denuo videre is given, but what apparently must be the Latin source of the Italian word. It seems that the conclusive force of this assumption was so strong for the Florentine lexicographers that they indicated Lat. revidere although in their time the verb was only assumed, not attested: neither Robertus Stephanus 1531 nor its Venetian enlargement

8

There are more subentries under the entry PUER, such as puerpera, puerulus, puerilis, pueritia, puerasco, puellaris, puellasco, but they are of no import to the argument.

History and Dictionaries

11

of 1551 include it. (Even in our days, the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968-1982) gives only two contexts of the verb as examples.) These examples show that even synchronic dictionaries contain elements of diachrony. This is caused not only by the circumstance that diachronic considerations have a great explanatory power; also important is the fact that language itself contains elements of various diachronic status (e.g., obsolete words and neologisms) and the fact that productive synchronic rules of derivation operate in a way similar to historically postulated rules of derivations, which are usually assumed to have been synchronically productive at an earlier point of time or in an earlier epoch. It would be easy to adduce many such examples of the influence of diachronic facts or assumptions on synchronic presentations from modern or at least more recent dictionaries; however, older dictionaries were selected for the preceding discussion, which has the purpose of making the following points: it should not be taken for granted that only the burgeoning of historical linguistics in the nineteenth century created an interest in derivations; while nobody will deny that historically oriented linguistics in general and the Neogrammarian doctrines and practices in particular brought about the flourishing of such considerations, they existed and exercised an influence on lexicography centuries before the historicism of the nineteenth century. Nor is the interest in derivations exclusively the product of the philosophical considerations of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries; either of the sensualist-utilitarian type of John Locke [1632-1704] or John Home Tooke [1736-1812], or of the idealist-psychological type of Wilhelm Humboldt [1767-1835]; again, no doubt that while the philosophical attitudes and considerations involved increased interest in them, derivations had an important place in lexicographic (and linguistic) thinking long before that.9 This phenomenon can be easily explained. As we shall see, many important dictionaries organize the information concerning the entry word's polysemy by a mixture of historical and logical considerations, most of them stressing the one or the other of those principles. On whichever of the two principles the organization is based, the etymology or the derivation of the entry word offer a reasonable origo, or point of departure for the following sequence of senses (Dubois 1970).

1.3. The Western Tradition 1.3.1. The Ordering of Senses as Established in Early Modern Europe In this section10, we shall undertake an informal survey of the ordering of senses in some of

9

The importance of an analysis of all lexical units into their component morphemes in a prevalently synchronic dictionary of Walapai (an Indian language of North America) was recently emphasized by Winter 1983. There is a large amount of literature concerned with derivation and the semantic problems involved, particularly in structuralist publications. See Francisco MarcoMarin "Etymology and semantics: theoretical considerations apropos of an analysis of the etymological problems of Spanish manero, maneria" Fisiak (1985), p. 3 7 7 - 3 9 5 .

12

History and Dictionaries

the important dictionaries of Early Modern Europe. The survey is not exhaustive: we wish to capture only some of the dictionaries that served as models to other lexicographic enterprises. Only some points will be mentioned; an exhaustive study would require enormous time and space. Our study will focus on the ordering of senses in polysemous entries; the object of the study will be the large monolingual dictionaries of Early Modern Europe, some of which were particularly important in the stabilization of standard literary languages, whereas some of them were more concerned with the history of the language treated. (We shall see that these two purposes are sometimes intertwined.) They are all monolingual, the only exception being the Greek dictionaries that offer equivalents and explanations of the entrywords in Latin, German, or English, and which therefore can be and are called bilingual dictionaries. However, it seems to me that there is a category of dictionaries which while offering translations into and explanations in another language than that of the entrywords does not have the same purpose as the majority of the bilingual dictionaries. For instance, the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (1572) has the same purpose as any monolingual dictionary, only it would be impractical to write the definitions in (Ancient) Greek; in the same way as it would be impractical to write a monolingual Akkadian or Sanskrit dictionary. I call this transitional category 'quasi-bilingual dictionaries'. (More on this in Section 5.4) Thus, the difference between these Greek dictionaries and those of the other languages is not so great as might be thought; also, Greek studies were so important in the second half of the intellectual history of Europe, and the study of the language was so strongly formative for European education, at least up to a few decades ago, that not to survey Greek dictionaries would leave a tangible gap in our survey. In this context, it is necessary to explain why there is no discussion of the Latin dictionaries; one would expect that the same arguments could be used for their being included in our survey as in the case of the Greek lexica. However, the Latin dictionaries, not only the quasi-bilingual but even the truly monolingual ones, such as Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis lexicon, Patavii 1771, have the outstanding idiosyncrasy, well recognized by Dietfried Krömer (1990), that they always take into consideration a user who will try to write in good Classical Latin and who must be provided with collocations, dicta, proverbs, etc. selected from that point of view. This makes the Latin dictionaries somewhat different from the usual type of monolingual and quasi-bilingual dictionaries. And of course, since at least 1900, Latin lexicography is dominated by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Lipsiae 1900 ff.), which started being published at that point in time. This dictionary is, however, different from all those that we study by offering a complete documentation of all the 10

Editorial Note. The following section is based on the text of the following articles: "Grimm, Littr£, OED, and Richardson: A comparison of their historicity (Cätujkosyam)" In: Dictionaries 8, 1986a, pp. 74-93. "Derivation and Chronology: Greek dictionaries and the Oxford English Dictionary (Dvädasakosyam)" In: Proceedings of the Heidelberg 1986 Conference on Lexicography, Lexicographica Series Maior, 1987a, pp. 259-281. "The Oxford English Dictionary and Other Dictionaries (Aikakosyam)" In: International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 2, 3, 1989c, pp. 188-230. "Jacob Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch and other historical dictionaries of the 19th century (Dvitlyaikakosyam)" In: A. Kirkness, P. Kühn, H.E. Wiegand (eds.): Studien zum Deutschen Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, Band II. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1991a, pp. 595-626.

13

History and Dictionaries occurrences of every word (with the exception of a few most formal and frequent ones).

The other outstanding gap in our survey is the absence of a discussion of the English dictionary by Samuel Johnson (1755). However, this dictionary is so well known and its connection to Murray's OED so well studied and so evident that a survey of the type intended here is superfluous. To achieve real progress in the knowledge of Johnson's lexicographic work, it will be necessary to undertake a detailed study of his selective preferences, stylistic and sociolinguistic evaluations etc., a study that will be able to offer a complete breakdown of such idiosyncrasies by their individual categories. Our survey begins with one of the most important Greek dictionaries.

1.3.2. Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (1572) The first group of examples will be taken from the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae by Henricus Stephanus (157211). This dictionary was compiled by Henri Estienne (Henricus Stephanus, [1531-1598]), son of Robert Estienne [15037-1559], an excellent Latin lexicographer. Henri Estienne published his dictionary in 1572, in five volumes in folio. It is a dictionary of (Ancient) Greek; the entry words are translated into Latin and all the explanatory text is in Latin as well. (Reduced English translations have been added.) Still, it has the character of a monolingual dictionary by the copiousness of its pericopes and by its whole character. Every good library of Classical Studies will have this dictionary, even in our day. άγκυλος curvus 'crooked' epitheton arcus 'epithet of the bow'... α γ κ ύ λ ο ς metaphorice aliquando usurpatur, ut Latine Tortuosus: ά γ χ υ λ α έ ρ ω τ η μ α τ α των σοφιστών 'crooked questions of the Sophists' ... (I, col. 38) άγριος

agrestis. [The English translation of the following Latin discussion is: In the

same way as the Latin adj. agrestis

is sometimes used with the meaning 'rural', 'rustical',

sometimes with the meaning 'wild, uncouth', so also Greek ά γ ρ ι ο ς has the two meanings. But the first meaning does not occur frequently.' ... ] (I, col. 49)

Of particular interest is the fact that an infrequent sense is put at the beginning, just because it is logically prior. βάσις

gressus 'step, walking'. [Reduced English translation of what follows:

'Philoctetes, whose legs are lamed by poison is said to be ούκ'έχων β ά σ ι ν 'having not

" Henricus Stephanus Thesaurus Graecae Linguae ab Henrico Stephano constructus. In quo, praeter alia plurima, quae primus praestitit (paternae in thesauro latino diligentiae aemulus), vocabula in certas classes distribuit, multiplici derivatorum serie ad primigenia tanquam ad radices unde pullulant, revocata ... Parisiis 1572. 5 volumes. [A reprint of this of 1580 has a few changes, but gives Estienne's epigrammatic and other reaction to the fraud of Scapula.]

14

History and Dictionaries "step"= walking (power)' ... Hence metaphorically in expressions pertaining to rhythm ... also used by mathematicians βάσις κέντρου 'basis of the center' ... and it is known among architects: ... 'base of statues'] (I, col. 635 f.) γλώσσα Attice γλώττα. [Reduced Engl, transl.: 'Tongue, which is called by Euripides with a beautiful epithet λόγων άγγελος that is,"messenger of speech".' In Homer, τοΰ και άπό γλώσσης μέλιτος γλυκίων ρέεν αύδή 'from his tongue flew voice sweeter than honey'. Language, or rather form of language as it is proper to each individual nation. ... In Aristotle, γλώττα is a word proper to a nation or people that is transferred by usage to another people: 'foreign word'.] (I, col. 852 f.) έϊδος form, shape, figure'. The collocations exemplify 'the villain Paris with the best figure', and somebody being 'similar to Nestor in respect to his figure, height, and appearance'. ... λεόντειον είδος leontina species ... In Plato, τρίτον ουσίας είδος 'the third form of matter [or rather, being]'. (I, col. 1105)

Let us take a more extensive example: αγω

... [Has various significations in various constructions; but the first and proper

one seems to be Duco 'lead', when said about animate beings Affero 'bring', when about inanimate things. ... More Latin equivalents follow, and then the collocations:] άγειν ducere, abducere 'lead, lead away': ιππον αγων 'leading the horse', νήπια τέκνα αξομεν 'we shall lead the infant children', ά'γει Άθηνη χειρός έλουσα 'having taken his hand, Athena leads him'. αγειν

metaphor., as Lat. adducere. αγειν έπϊ την εϋδαιμονίαν 'lead to happiness'.

ά'γειν

for abducere 'lead away, kidnap': τέκνα δέ τ' άλλοι οίγουσι βαθυζώνουςτέ

γυναίκας 'other [warriors] lead away children and deep-girded women'. αγειν Educere pro Extrahere, Elicere, Ciere 'lead out' for 'extract', 'elicit', 'cause to discharge' οΰραν, γάλα 'to discharge urine, milk'. αγειν Inducere, Impellere 'induce, compel', τον δ' αγε μοίρα κακή θανάτοιο τέλοςδε 'the bad fate led him toward the end and death'.... αγειν sometimes connotes a certain violence and sounds like 'drag' or 'seize, snatch off: αξειν έπί τό βήμα και άναγκάσειν άποκρίνεσθαι 'to bring him to the bar and force him to answer'. [Many collocations follow with highly specific senses.] (I, col. 59ff.)

History and Dictionaries

15

1.3.3. Accademia della Crusca (1612) The next group of examples is taken from the Italian dictionary of the Academy of Crusca (1612). The Accademia della Crusca was the Florentine institution that prepared the Vocabulario degli accademici della Crusca. The purpose of the dictionary was to describe the Italian of Tuscany, by the sixteenth century already generally used as the Italian standard language. The growth of a regional dialect into a national standard language usually causes, among other things, lexical changes. Indeed, what was called "la questione della lingua," that is the question how close the standard should be to the Tuscan dialect, raged in Italy for centuries. This dictionary is based prevalently on the written works of the trecentisti fiorentini, that is, authors of the fourteenth century, particularly Dante [1265-1321], Petrarca,and Boccaccio. It is a typical philological dictionary based on the excerption of 'good authors'. It is basically monolingual, with definitions in Italian. However, Latin glosses, and in later editions, Greek ones as well, are added. alto

s'aggiunge propriamente a luogo, edifici, piante, monti, e simili, e vale elevato

dal piano, sublime, eminente, contrario di basso ['collocates with places, buildings, plants, mountains, and sim. and means "elevated" etc.']

per metaf., sublime, eccelente ...

per difficile e pericoloso ... [Collocations: cammino [path] alto e silvestre alto periglio alto passo] .. Ε pure in proprio signif. vale anche ... profundo, ... basso, Lat. altus, profundus ['However, it also properly means "deep", "low" ...'] per metaf. intimo, interno ....

Of particular interest here is that two senses are said to be proper, and their respective metaphorical extensions follow. The old dictionaries have not yet developed the 'alphanumeric' system for the presentation of the hierarchy; in a modern dictionary, this multiple meaning would probably be numbered la, b, c; 2a, b, or the like. Profondo

'concavo, molto affondo'laghetto non piü profondo 'a small lake ...'

per metaf.: la profonda notte [cioe nella profonditä della notte] al cuor profondo [cio£ al profondo, e al centra del cuore]

assai giovane ma in iscienza profondo molto [ciofe di grande scienza] con piü dolce canzone, e piü profonda [cioe piena di dottrina].

Notice that we already find here the use of the label 'metaf.' (line three) as a symbol for a very broad category of extensions. Notice also the increasing degree of remoteness from the

16

History and Dictionaries

first sense according to which the sequence is organized: guardare

dirizzar la vista verso l'oggetto 'direct the sight towards the object'Beatrice

mi guardö con gli occhi pieni 'B. regarded me ...' guardai in alto, e vidi le sue spalle Ί looked up and saw ...' per custodire, tenere in custodia, guardia 'keep in custody' in prigione, e in cattivitä per lo Re Carlo guardato 'kept in prison and in captivity ...' per tener conto d'una cosa, aver cura 'take into consideration, care' Donna, guarda, che per quanto tu hai caro il mio amore, tu non facci motto. 'Woman, take care that in as far as you cherish my love you don't say a word.' Again, notice how the senses gradually move away from the concrete one. The following entry would seem at first glance to be an exception: spirito

Sustanzia incorporea, communemente detta in Lat. spiritus 'incorporeal

substance' ex: Ο ben creato spirito, ch1 a1 rai di vita eterna 'oh well created spirit who hast rays of eternal life' spiriti pii celesti spirti [sic]

per alito, fiato 'breath, breeze' ex: non poteva raccoglier lo spirito 'could not catch breath ...' [Indirect senses continue:] per vita, per il senso vitale, per uomo semplicemente, per animo, per vigor naturale, per inteletto, ingegno etc. The reality of the soul was taken to be equally as concrete as breath, and in addition to that sustanzia incorporea was m o v e d in front out of pious reverence. Compare the corresponding verbal entry, which does not have to deal with the religious. spirare

II soffiar de' venti, ed b proprio il soffiar leggiermente. 'The blowing of winds,

properly a light blowing' l'aura suave ... ovunque spira 'a suave breeze blows ...' per uscir fuora 'get out' ex: Spira un fuomo sulfureo 'sulphurous fume leaks out' in vece di mandar fuora 'instead of "to send out'" in vece di respirare 'instead of "to breathe'" ex: elli sta sotto l'acqua, non puö spirare 'he stands under water, cannot breathe' per metaf. ripigliare spirito, ricrearsi 'catch second breath' ex: Onde la nostra Cittä di Firenze ... per sopradette guerre, e afflizioni, non potea

History and Dictionaries

17

spirare, ne mostrar que forze 'could not catch breath ...' per .. dare inspirazione [etc.] Again, there are two concrete senses, the first and the fourth in the sequence; to each of them, its own transferred senses are, so to say, attached. It is hard to say why the blowing of the wind takes precedence over breathing; could one venture the opinion that the former was more physical and sensual, because more 'tangible' and 'outside' oneself?

1.3.4. Academie fran^aise (1694)

The actual title of the dictionary was Dictionnaire de /' Academie. To disambiguate the title, the attribute frangaise is usually added (although the orthography of the day would require the spelling frangoise). Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy in 1635 with the purpose of editing a dictionary like the Italian Crusca. The dictionary was published in 1694. The two dictionaries are different mainly in two respects. In order to reach the authors considered paradigmatic, the Italian lexicographers, working at the end of the sixteenth and publishing their dictionary early in the seventeenth century, had to go back to the fourteenth century. On the other hand, the seventeenth century has been regarded as the golden age of French literature, and so the French academicians proudly say in the Preface that they do not have to go back in time but can use the contemporary language as the model of good French. The other difference was that the Italian dictionary really consists largely of excerpted contexts, whereas the French dictionary was created by drafts of entries being circulated among and emended and supplemented by the members of the Academy. Collocations are frequently introduced by a simple "On dit" ("The usage is") and there are no systematic quotations or citations. Hence, the French dictionary is strongly based on the linguistic competence of the academicians and thus represents to some degree also the spoken language. The constraint is, however, that the language described is only that of the 'honnete homme\ that is, the polished language of the aristocrat or an erudite man of other high standing. There follow a few examples: Balance

... Instrument ä deux bassins servant ä peser 'scales'

exx. II sign. fig. La consideration avec laquelle on pese dans son esprit les raisons qui se presentent pour & contre sur un sujet 'weighing of arguments' exx. II sign, aussi, Un des signes du Zodiaque (178) Progres forward'

... II signifie proprement Avancement, mouvement en avant 'movement

History and Dictionaries exx. II se dit particulidrement d'une suite de conquestes, d'une suite d'avantasges remportez ä la guerre: 'successful acts of war* exx. II se dit aussi, de toute sorte d'Avancement, d'accroissement, d'augmentation en bien ou en mal. 'increase for good or worse' exx. (II 333) Poser

... Placer, mettre sur quelque chose 'place, put'

exx. II se dit en parlant d'Architecture & de bastiment. (term in architecture) On dit en termes de guerre, Poser un Corps de garde ... (military term) exx., idioms

Poser

se dit aussi. en matiere de Doctrine, & signifie Establir pour veritable, pour

constant 'in matters of Faith, "establish"' exx. Poser se dit aussi en matiere de Dispute, de certaines choses dont on ne demeure pas d'accord, mais que l'on veut bien ne pas contester, afin de pouvoir proceder au reste de la dispute, 'admit without accepting, for the sake of the argument' exx. (II 282) Toucher Mettre la main sur quelque chose 'touch, put one's hand on something' exx., idioms toucher

se dit aussi, en parlant du contact qui se fait, soit immediatement par le moyen

des autres parties du corps, soit mediatement par quelque chose que ce soit (other bodily contact) exx., idioms, collocations toucher money;

se dit aussi, en parlant d'une somme d'argent, & signifie, Recevoir 'touch receive'

exx. toucher

signifie aussi, Atteindre ä quelque chose 'reach'

exx.. idioms toucher exx.

veut dire encore, Frapper sur quelqu'un 'hit'

History and Dictionaries toucher

19

veut dire encore, Frapper pour faire aller. Chasser devant soy 'drive, hit in

order to make go' exx. toucher

sign. fig. Esmouvoir 'move'

exx toucher

signifie aussi Concerner 'concern'

exx. etc. (II 574) The last three concrete senses of toucher ('receive', 'hit' and 'drive') are located at the end, before the extended, or non-physical ones probably because of their specificity. To my mind, these examples from all three dictionaries (Greek, Italian, and French) show that ordering the senses in such a way that the concrete and general ones come first and the abstract, metaphorical, specific ones follow was a well-established lexicographic practice already in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, and in different places (France and Italy) at that; and that this ordering makes the impression of coinciding, and indeed largely coincides, with the historical development of most entry words. What makes this result even more remarkable is the circumstance that while the dictionary of the Crusca tries to indicate the etymology (usually the Latin derivation) of every entry word where it is possible, and orders the senses with the etymology taken into consideration, the French Academy proceeds with less historicity: the first sense of avouer is 'to confess' (Littre: 'to give a vow to someone', Lat. ad + votare), the first sense of commetre is 'to be committed' (Littre: 'put together', Lat. cum + mittere), etc. In spite of this difference, the resulting sequence of senses gives the impression of being based on the same organizational principle as in Crusca and Thesaurus. The results of this comparison indicate that there is a wide consensus, although not an explicit one, in the way that European dictionaries proceed in ordering the senses. It will be necessary to study non-European indigenous dictionaries, particularly the Arabic, Indian, and Chinese ones, to find out what principles of ordering prevailed there. Even with this limitation, however, one can consider the ordering of senses as exemplified by the three dictionaries, to be representative of a certain tradition that can be dated back at least to the sixteenth century (Thesaurus).

1.3.5. Charles Richardson [1775-1856]: Philosophical Etymologies and a Chronological Ordering of Senses

This is the chronological place where we have to discuss the ordering of senses in the only dictionary that nearly completely disregards the organizational principles accepted by other lexicographers; it is Charles Richardson's A New Dictionary of the English Language^2. It

20

History and Dictionaries

is strongly inspired by the ideas of John Home Tooke, expressed in his book ΕΠΕΑ ΠΤΕΡΟΕΝΤΑ (Epea Pteroenta, 1786, 1805). Home Tooke's book was published for the last time as late as 1860; however, by that time (and even far before that date) it was outdated and had no influence on contemporary linguistics. Home Tooke is the last in the series of philosophically oriented linguists (or linguistically oriented philosophers) for whom the word 'etymology' had the meaning it had since antiquity, namely the search for the genuine (Greek ετυμος) meaning of the word; the etymologist tried to find similar words, mostly only in the one language under consideration, from which the meaning of the word investigated could be derived.13 It should be remarked that the notion of similarity was taken purely impressionistically, without any attempt to achieve a regular correspondence of the supposedly related forms. In the later nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, 'etymology' denotes the study of the origin of a word's forms, with semantic considerations useful but, regrettably, ancillary to this purpose. One must assume that Home Tooke necessarily knew John Wilkins' 'philosophical language'; however, his own aim was, unlike Wilkins', to explain natural language, not create an artificial one; nor is he constrained in his etymologizing by any desire or even attempt to reach such regular paradigms of derivation as they are represented by Wilkins. A study of the regularities of semantic derivations α la John Wilkins (Dolezal 1985) and of similar semantic phenomena was revived only in the second half of our century, in connection with a revived interest in the philosophy of language (Hultin 1986). The main constraint that made fanciful, so-called philosophical etymologies obsolete arose with the arrival of the historical comparative study of Indo-European languages. Let us recapitulate the main dates: William Jones [1746-1794] held his lecture in Calcutta in 1786; Franz Bopp [1791-1867] published his Conjugationssystem in 1816, Rasmus Rask [1787-1832] his treatise in 1818, and Jacob Grimm his Deutsche Grammatik in 1819-1837. Beginning with these 'founding fathers,' the so-called 'New Philology' spread into England (Aarsleff 1983).

12

Charles Richardson: A New Dictionary of the English Language I, II. London: William Pickering 1836, 1837. (The first installment of the Dictionary is said to have been published already in 1819 in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana: non vidi.)

13

While subsequent developments of linguistic methodology, particularly the neogrammarian requirements of exact phonological correspondence and no admission of exceptions, turned etymological research in another direction, this type of etymologizing, philosophical or the like, has continued to be developed by some scholars in studies of sound symbolism, psychology of language, and in philosophy. Among the outstanding representatives of these trends are Friedrich Kainz, Einführung in die Sprachpsychologie, Wien 1946, and Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 8, 1927, and as a book 1927 (and other publications on the same topics by both authors). An example from Heidegger: Dasein is one of the German synonyms for 'existence'; when it is hyphenated, Da-sein, it reveals the meaning 'being here' (da = 'here', sein = 'to be'). On the other hand, the so-called Ordinary Language Philosophy, a British philosophical trend of the thirties, forties, and fifties (among others, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus, 1921; Philosophische Untersuchungen, 1953) is more connected with lexical semantics and pragmatics than with etymology.

History and Dictionaries

21

Probably the last important linguistic work in which Home Tooke's style of etymologizing was taken completely seriously was Charles Richardson's A New Dictionary of the English Language (1836, 1837). Richardson still did not know the 'New Philology', so the impossibility of many, or most of those fanciful etymologies (of which Richardson himself added not a small number) was not so clear to him. Also, let us not forget that the main purpose of Home Tooke's book was to prove the correctness of John Locke's idea that at their origin, words have concrete meanings and only later develop abstract ones. This is an idea that has an appeal to any lexicographer who wishes to organize the presentation of the senses of a polysemous word in a logical, principled way: we have seen in all the dictionaries that we discussed in the preceding pages the (usually silently made) assumption that there is overlap of logic with history and that the general semantic development proceeds from the concrete to the abstract. The incipient historicism of his time caused Richardson's full acceptance of Home Tooke's idea of etymology embracing the totality of the word's meaning. We shall see later that at least two important contemporary lexicographers, Passow and Jacob Grimm, had closely similar ideas on this subject. Anyhow, Home Tooke was an adherent of the philosophy of John Locke, who tried to corroborate the latter's idea that the meaning of words develops from the concrete to the abstract by construction of etymologies and by an attempt to show that even purely functional words such as prepositions and conjunctions develop from fully lexical elements with concrete meaning: this he also tried to show by etymologies; he was of the persuasion that the word's etymology not only reveals its original, but also comprises its later meanings, at least as the basis of all the later developments. To give a few examples from Home Tooke's Epea Pteroenta: Engl, i f , OE gif originated from given. Engl, field denotes a part of the land where trees have been felled (II, 41). Engl, lord, OE hlaford is composed of the same element as loft and lift, and of -ord = Lat. ortus 'bom', so = 'high-bom' (II, 159). The following group of words belongs to Engl. bar, Germ, bergen 'to defend, keep safe, arm, guard, strengthen etc.': a bar is a means of defence; a barn protects grain from the weather; a baron is an armed, defenceful man; a barge is a strong boat; a bargain is a strengthened agreement; a bark is a stout vessel, or the defence of the tree against weather, or the defence of the dog; and so with borough, burrow, warren, burial, etc. The verb to think is derived from thing, the original phrase being it thingeth me > me thingeth > me thinketh > I think, and this semantic development has the parallel in Lat. res 'thing' > reor Ί think' (< Ί am thinged') and > vereor Ί am revered' (< Ί am strongly thinged'). Lat. ibo Ί will go' consists of i- ('go') + vol(o) Ί will' + (eg)o Ί ' (II, 433). Lat. ad 'toward' and at 'but' both go back to a supposed Lat. form agitum (past part, from agere 'do'), which developed either into agd(um) — ad or into act(um) — at. French sans 'without' is a weakened form of absence (I, Chap. I). Some of these and similar analyses may strike us as strange, some as rather clever even if wrong; but the point is that they are the outgrowth of a philosophical consideration of linguistic meaning and of its analysis into semantic elements; they are not the result of a rigorous study of the development of the words' forms as required in our day, that is, on the basis of a study of as many of each word's occurrences in as many various contexts as

22

History and Dictionaries

possible. Naturally, in his day, he could not act by the neogrammarians' standards or by our present-day standards; consequently, all that precedes is not intended as undue criticism. Richardson was one of the last adherents of Home Tooke, from whom he accepts the idea that the word's etymology reveals the word's meaning, in all its applications. Aarsleff (1983, 250) aptly quotes from Richardson's Illustrations of English Philology (London 1815,248) the following passage that makes the point very well: 1) Interpreters, who seek meaning of a word singly from the passages in which it is found, usually connect with it the meaning of some other word or words in the sentence. A regard to the individual etymology of the word would save them from this error, and conduct them to the intrinsic meaning of the word, and the cause of its application. The Preface to the Dictionary (vol. I) also contains some statements that pertain to this idea. (In my edition and printing, the pages of the Preface in vol. I are not numbered; all the contexts quoted here are from the first there pages of Section II.) 2) In the Etymology of each word must be found the single intrinsic meaning, and the cause of the application in their usages. 3) The lexicographer can never assure himself that he has attained the meaning of a word, until he has discovered the thing, the sensible object -res, quae nostras sensus feriunt; the sensation caused by that thing or object (for language cannot sever them), of which the word is the name. To this, the term meaning should be strictly and exclusively appropriated; and this, too, can be called the literal meaning. 4) [In a context too long and convoluted to quote in extenso, transferred or metaphorical meaning are said to be extensions of the literal meaning by similarity in our mind.] 5) From this literal meaning, and metaphorical signification, the next step can be named, the consequential; and hence descend, in wide and rapid course, the applications of words in all their multitude and variety. J To Etymology, then, the lexicographer must first resort; but he must be cautious and reserved in the pursuit of it. Its use for the purpose of a dictionary of a particular language is barely to ascertain the origin, and hence the radical meaning of each individual term in the vocabulary - and though further inquiry will be indispensable in philological research to trace the origin and formation of tongues, and the dialects of tongues; yet, when the intrinsic meaning is fixed, every lexicographical object is firmly secured. 6) Etymology, indeed, seems to admit of two main divisions; first, that which decomposes words in their primal, literal roots; and this peculiarly the province of the philosophical grammarian or linguist; and the which (in our mingled speech more especially) traces their lineal and colineal descent from a radical meaning to their present form and use. To this latter, the researches of the Dictionary have been generally limited. This is not an easy doctrine, particularly because some formulations lead to a conception of etymology as the ontological principle of the meaning of the word, partly as a methodological

History and Dictionaries

23

means how to understand the polysemy of words; the two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, but there is a certain tension between them. The second difficulty consists in the not quite clear limitation point (6) seems to impose on this whole area of study; should we understand the etymologies indicated in the entries of the Dictionary as the decomposition of words in their primal roots, or rather as the starting point for an understanding of all the word's application: the last sentence of point (6) suggests the latter, but points (1) and (2) make such an understanding difficult, while point (3) seems to exclude it.14 Be this as it may, because of this basic stance, Richardson's dictionary does not treat individual words but their derivational groups; they are treated in individual entries, as wholes. The etymology leads to the definition of the meaning which is worded in a sufficiently general way to cover (or at least attempt to cover) the whole derivational group and the whole polysemy, or it leads to a presentation of the meaning by a chain of (near-)synonyms. Sometimes the meaning of a derived word is mentioned specifically if its aberration from that of the whole derivational group is too notable. On the whole, one can say that Richardson follows Home Tooke in the basic assumptions concerning etymology and in the whole approach to meaning, but not in every detail: Richardson's etymologies are of the semi-philosophical type Europe had known and accepted since Plato's Cratylus (as described above). However, it was during Richardson's life that the so-called comparative-historical linguistics, 15 based on the comparison of Indo-European languages, came into existence and started spreading through Great Britain. This new type of linguistics was not compatible with the philosophical etymologies, mainly because of the striving at the accuracy and regularity of the proposed sound correspondences; this did not make a particular impression on Richardson. On the other hand historicity, interest in history started commanding the attention of linguists, Richardson being no exception. Being thus located on the divide of two epochs, it is no wonder that Richardson combines with his somewhat old-fashioned, explanatory etymologizing an historical outlook: he advocates strict adherence to the chronological order in the sequence of the contextual examples excerpted from authors (which he calls 'authorities' as was then usual) that are quoted in the entry. We read in the Preface to vol. II of his Dictionary (52 ff.): By commencing with authorities in the earliest period of English composition, and continuing then successively through the different stages by which the language has arrived at its present stage of copiousness and (I would add) refinement, the Dictionary aspires to the pretension of presenting to the English reader an insight into some very

14 15

The analysis of this problem was enhanced with F. Dolezal. For instance, the group of derivations gloom v., gloom n. gloomy, gloomily, gloominess receives this etymology in Richardson's Dictionary: 'See gleam. Gloom, the noun, (Tooke) is 'the past part, of A. S. Leoman, lioman, ge-leoman, ge-liomen, radiare, coruscare, lucere, to irradiate, to enlighten. Gloom is that which is gleaned or enlightened, through which the light penetrates, or by which it is overshadowed. To gloom is formed upon this past part, and, thus, is so different in its meaning from the verb of gleam.' The meaning is explained by a chain of near-synonyms: 'To darken, to overshadow, to overcloud, to have or give a dark or dismal appearance; (met.) to harbor dark or dismal thoughts'.

24

History and Dictionaries interesting and instructive portions of a history of his native tongue.'6

Accordingly, the contextual quotations in Richardson's entries are ordered without any semantic consideration for the individual senses of polysemous words and without being grouped by their concrete senses; rather, they appear in their chronological order, from the oldest to the newest ones. See Richardson's entries back and bar in Excerpts 1 , 2 . We see that Richardson's belief (inspired by Home Tooke) concerning the importance of etymology has finally only a minor role in his lexicographic practice. In reality, the sequence of his quotations has a poor connection with the etymology; nor can all the senses be easily treated as logically derivable from what the etymology indicates as the original meaning. There are some favorable cases where this is possible, but cases of rich polysemy usually cannot be treated by such an assumption. The following examples (Richardson 1837, s.w.) show this: The headwords advene, advenient, advent, adventine, adventitious, adventive and adventual are interpreted by their etymology (as luck would have it, a [nearly] correct one): 'from' Gr. β α ι ν ε ι ν ; 'to come to' ['to' = Lat. ad] and by two remarks: "Advent and adventual are more particularly applied to the coming of Jesus Christ' and 'Adventitious (the most frequently met with) - accessory, accidental." The first quotation is taken from the oldest source, in this case Robert Gloucester [cl074—?], "so gret frost ther com in Advent... That men mygte bothe ryde & go in Temese upe yse" - clearly a reference to a season in the ecclesiastic calendar, a derivative technical sense. The rest of the examples follow in chronological order. The group of headwords indulge, indulgent, indulgential, indulgently, indulgence, indulgency, etc., is first interpreted by an etymology (a wrong one: from an invented, fictitious Lat. *indurgere = non urgere) and then by quasi-synonyms whose chain starts with the 'etymological' meaning: "Not to urge, press, or exact; and therefore, to give way, to concede; to yield; to grant, as an act of favour ...". However, the first quotation (from Piers Ploughman) mentions the pardon and indulgences of 'Paumpelon' (Pamplona, an important goal of peregrinations on the route to Santiago) and Rome, a sense not covered by the quasi-synonyms at all.

16

Quoted from Richardson 1837. However, his Dictionary was published in individual issues of the Encyclopedia Metropolitana, vol. 14 to 15, from 1818 on (see Read 1975, 717; non vidi). Since the Dictionary had already at that time had the same structure as in 1836-1837, it follows that Richardson's ideas concerning historicity developed at about the same time as those of Passow 1812. See below.

25

History and Dictionaries βac

Some called bim Bacchus, because of the great number of shameless«- drunken bacchanalian women, which followed him with clamors and outcryes, whom he taught to gather fruits, and to presse them, whereof they made drinke, and were daily drunk.—Slo w. Chronicles. Brief Abstract.

Β AC

I

All rules of pleasing in this one unite, "Affect not any thing In Nature's spite." Baboons and apes ridiculous wefind; For what ? For ill-resembling human kind. Cungreve. Of. Pleating. BA'CCHANAL. > A follower, of Bacchus. I BACCKAXA'WAN. I .One devoted id the. plea- Ι sures of wine; I Unto whom {BacclitroJ wre*k t h o s e bars O f terrour and abhorrence N a t u r e t h r o w s Cioss o u r o b s t r u c t e d w a y . — Y o u n g . Complaint,

S t r a i g h t a s above t h e s u r f a t c o f t h e fleodT h e y w a n t o n rise, or u r g ' d by h u n g e r leap, T h e n fix, w i t h g e n t l e t w i t c h , t h e barbed hook. Thomson.

Night 3.

Maid. B u t w h a t i s m o r e , m a d a m , t h e y o u n g g e n t l e m a n , as y o u p a s s e d by in y o u r p r e s e n t d r e s s , a s k d m e if y o u w e r e t h e 4 e r - m a i d ? H e m i s t o o k y o u for t h e bar-maid, !—Goldsmith. She Stoops Ιό Conquer, A c t lH.

B A R B , t. Λ D n t . Borbeeren ι Fr. Barber ,· BAR»,». I L a t . Barba, (of unsettled etyBAiuu'tED. I tnology) a heard. T h e noun Barb, is applied t o — T h e j a g s o r r e v e r s e d p o i n t s of an arrow or h o o k ; to certain equipments, caparison, armour, a horse or man. ( S e e BARD.)

Barbet is applied to— A certain covering or protection for the head. Barb, in t h e citation below from Chancer, is said by Mr. Tyrwhitt, to mean a hood or muffler, which covered t h e lower part of t h e face and shoulders. T o barb, is also to cut close ( t h e beard), to shear, t o shave, to motor. B u t let b e t h i s , a n d tell m e h o w y e f a r e , Do w a y y o u r barbe, a n d s h e w y o u r face b a r e D o w a y y o u r b o k e , r i s e u p a n d let v s d a u n c e A n d let v s d o n e t o M a y s o m e o b s e r v a u n c e . Chaucer.· Trott. i Cres. b. i i . A b o u t t h e t y m e of p r i m e c a m e t o t h e bärriers of t h e Hates, t h e d u k e of H e r e f o r d m o u n t e d on a w h i t e coieer barbed w i t h Trie w e a n d g r e n e v e l u e t e m b r o d e r e d . s u m p t e o u a l y w i t h swannes and antelopes otgoldsrnithes worke, armed at all p o l n c t e s . — H a l l . Hen. IV. I n t r o d . T w o m a n n e r of a r r o w e s h e a d e s , s a y t h P o l l u x , w a s u s e d in olde t i m e . ' T h e One h e calleth ο γ κ ν α τ . d e s c r i b i n g e i t t h u s , h a v i n g e t w o p o l n t e a or barbes, l o k i n g e b a c k e w a r d e to t h e s t e l e a n d t h e f e a t h e r s , w h i c h e s u r e l y e we call in E n g l i s h e a b r o d e a r r o w e h e a d , or a s walowe t a y l . — ' A i c h a m . Toxophiltts. I n f a i t h q n o d y o u r f r e d I t h y n k e s a i n c t P o o l e m e n t not so. F o r t h e h a d w i u e s b e n e in h i s t y m e - l i t t l e b e t t e r t h a n g r a s s e w i d o w o s b e n o w e . Fur t h e y b e e y e t a s s e u e r a l l as a I a r b e r s c h a v r c , a n d n e v e r t a k e b u t o n e a t once. Sir T. More. Wortes, p. 230. F o r of a s u e r t i e t h e d u k e s t r a k e t h e k y n g o n t h e b r o w r i g h t l i n d e r t h o d e f e c e of y · h e d p e c e on t h e v e r y coyffe soull or b a s s e - n e t p e c e w h e r e u n t o t h e barbet. f o r p o w e r a n d defence* is c h a r n e j d . — H a l l , Hen. V I I I . a n . 16. T h a n k e d t h e y w e r e f r o m t h e sen a t , a n d _ s e n t u n t o t h e m j t o w i t , a e h a i n e of gold w e i g h i n g . p o u n d s j c e r t a i n g o l d e n c u p s of f o u r e p o n n d e w e i g h t , b r a v e c o u r s e r barb'd a n d t r a p p e d , "and a n h o r s e m a n ' m o u r . — H o l l a n d . Liviat, p . 1179. -

a

Civilis-vpon a b a r b a r o u s v o w w h e n first h e e n t r e d w a r r e w i t h t h e R o m a n e , sufTred h i s y e l l o w h a ire t o grow long w i t h o u t barbing, a n d n o w , a s v p o n a c c o m p l i s h m e n t t h e r e o f c a u s e d i t to be c u t , w h e n t h e s l a u g h t e r of t h e l e g i o n s p e r f o u r m e d . — S a v i l l e . Tacitus. History, b.iv." W h o w o r k s f o r w a r , n o w t h r i v e t h by h i s t r a d e . T h e c r o w n bill a n d t h e b a t t l e - a x p r e v a i l ; T h e c u r i o u s f l e t c h e r fits h i s w e l l - s t r u n g b o w , A n d h i s barb'd arrow, w h i c h h e s e t s t o s h o w . Drayton. The Battle of

Ayincourt.

T h e n e x t t h i n g t h a t all people of. t h e w o r l d a g r e e d i n , t o e n t e r t a i n ' e barbers, b u t it w a s l a t e first ere t h e y w e r e i n a n y r e q u e s t at R o m e . H i e first t h a t e n t r e d i n t o I t a l i c c a m e o u t of Sicilie, a n d it waa in t h e 454 y e e r e a f t e r t h e foundation of R o m e . B r o u g h t in t h e y w e r e b y P . T i c i n i u e M e n a , Μ V a r r o d o t h r e p o r t : for b e f o r e - t i m e t h e y n e v e r c u t t h e i r h f t l r e . T h e first t h a t was s h a v e n e v e r y dny was ScipiO Africanus : and after him commetli Augustus the empero u s e d t h e r n s o i i r . — H o l l a n d . P i i a i e . ' b . v i i . c. 132

Excerpt 2: (Richardson 1836)

Spring.

W a t e r m e n b r a w l , eoblvis s i n g ; b u t w h y m u s t * barber b» for e v e r a politician, a m u s i c i a n , a n a n a t o h n s t , a p o e t , anil a p h y s i c i a n Ϊ-— T h e l e a r n e d Vossius says, h i s barber tts'd t o comb hi» h e a d in i a m h i e k s . - - 7 V r « i r r N e . 5 4 . O h , h e h a s ail disgrae'd H i s h i g h - b o r n a n c e s t r y ! iiiit 111 f o r g e t binx H a s t e , E v e l i n a , barb m y k n o t t y spear, B i n d f a s t t h i s t r u s t y f a l c h i o n to m y t h i g h ; My bow, m y target. Mason. CaractacHs.

R e l a x , s w e e t girl, y o u r w e a r i e d m i n d . A n d to hear the poet talk, G e n t l e s t c r e a t u r e of y o u r k i n d , L a y aside y o u r s p o n g e a n d c h a l k , Cease t h e i n r - b e l l , n o r r e f u s e T o h e a r t h o j i n g l e of t h e m u s e . — S m a r t , B a l l a d 14.

BA'RBED. > B A ' R B E B , v. J BAIRBE'R, η. I BA'RBBT. ) o r t r a p p i n g s of

Sno> U p o n hevTanrling, A n t h o n y , sent t o l i m i t e d b e i to s i m p e r : feho m $ l i e d i I t s h o u l d be better, h e been»».· her HDvsl: W h i c h she entreated, enr courteous Anthony, W h o m » e r e t h e word υϊ NO v.outnu b a r d j p o a ^ e . B e i n g barber. 'd t e n t i n e » »'is. g«aas t o t h e ft·»».' Shakespeare. Anlhoxy ft Γί«Λ/«ιί>Λ. Tooke - suggests the C r . BARBA'RIAN, a d j . Β opus, strong, with a reduB A R B A ' R I A N , N. plication of βαρ, to give BARBA'RICK, a d j . additional foree. Tlte bar. B A R B A ' R T C K , FT. barians seem to have been BA'RBAROCS. distinguished by Greeks a n d BA'RBAROCSLT. Romans for their strength. BA'RBAROUSNRSS. ( S e e Toofre, 8vo. ed» vol. ii. p. 183. Note on tho English Bar.). A barbarian is now applied to— One who is rude, fierce,-cruel; not improved or polished by t h e art»-of civilization. To barbarize, is to reduce t o a state of barbarism ; to make, or cause t o b e made, fierce, cruel, uncivilized BA'RBARJZE. BA'RBARISM..

BARBA'RITV..

Britheren I nyle that ghe u n k n o w e that ofte I purposide t o c o m e to g h o u , a n d I n m l e t t t o t h i s t y m e t h a t 1 k a u e s u m f r u y t i n g h o u , a s in o t h e r * f o l k i s ; to (ireeki* e n d to barbaryns t o w i s e m e n a n d to u n w i s e m e n I a m d e t t m i r Wictif. linmnyi.t. v. I B u t if I k n o w e n o t t h e v e r t u of a vote, J v h a l l>e to h i m t o w h o m I scbal a p e k e a barborgk; anil be that· f j t k i l h t u m e s h a l be a barbarik —Id. J Cofynth, c. H . K o r w e r « t h e C o r i n t h i a n s p r o u d e oneVy l»y rw.son of t h e r e w e l t h e , b u t also b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e l e a r n e d isi t h e G r e c i a n s p h i l o s o p h y , a n d t h e r e f o r e elenpised t h r y s u c h e , a s wore n o t learned therein, as rode and barharmete. Udal. Argument to 1 Corin. A f t e r w h i c h of a n h u m b l e & h>w m i n d h e confesseth Iiis r u d e n e s a n d barlaronsues in l a n g u a g e , b u t yet k n o v l e g * a n d l c a r n v n g t a k c t h he vpon h i m , t e s t e t h e y m y g h t c i n h y m for t h i s f i n d e a n y l a c k e . — I d . Argument to 2 Corin. So t h a t w c m a y e b e h e l d « d y u e r s y o n g c gentyll m e n n e , w h i c h e v m i e t h c a n s p e a k e one hole s e n t e n c e in t r e w e I j i t i n e , b u t t h a t w a r s is, h a u e all l o m y n p e in derision, a n d i n s k o r n c t h e r e o f , wil of w S t e n n e s s e s p e a k e t h e m o s t barberously t h a t t h e y c a n i m a g i n e . — E l y o t . Gorernotr, b. i. e> 13 W h i c h t h i u g e s s n r e l c y . if God liolde not h i s bolye h a n d o v e r u s , a n d p l u c k e ü s f r o m t h e m , w i l l b r i n g e ns to a m o i « T u r k i s h n e s , a n d m o r e b e a s t c l y c blind barbarontntsse, ta callinge ill t h i n g e s good, a n d good J h i n g e s 01. Ascham. Toxophilu*. T h o n s c u r u y v a l i a n t a s s e . tlion a r t b e e r e b n t t o t h r e s h T r o y a n s , a n d t h o u a r t b o u g h t a n d solde a m o n g those of a n y wit, l i k e a barbarian slaue. Shakespeare. Troil. $ Cre*. A c t ii. s c . I

History and Dictionaries

27

We shall return to Richardson's dictionary later.

1.3.6. Franz Passow Franz Passow [ 1786-1833] was a German scholar active in the first third of the nineteenth century. Having decided to become a lexicographer of Greek, he prepared himself for the task by writing an important essay on the principles of lexicography (Passow 1812). In this essay, which is still worth reading in our day, he proclaims several principles that are of interest in the present context. One of them is the following (Passow 1812, 8): Aus welchen Atomen das Wort zu seiner sanctionierten Bedeutung zusammen gewebt sey, mag ein Gengenstand der Sprachphilosophie, der philosophischen Grammatik seyn: In ein Wörterbuch gehören diese Untersuchungen nicht, obgleich geistvolle Gelehrte sie hineingetragen haben. Dem Wörterbuch eignet das Wort dann erst, wenn es mit einem Begriff innig verbunden und in gemachter Form in irgend einem Sprachdenkmal erscheint. In translation:

Of which atoms the word's sanctioned meaning has been woven together

may be a subject of the philosophy of language, or of philosophical grammar: such enquiries do not belong in a dictionary although they have been brought in by ingenious scholars. The word belongs in the dictionary only when it is intimately connected with a notion and when having an established form it occurs in a text.

This is the rejection of, inter alia, the philosophical etymologies. One cannot argue against this opinion by quoting from Passow (1812,26): 'Daß aber ein kritisches Wörterbuch, wenn es zugleich genügen und zahllose Wiederholungen spaaren will, etymologisch sein muß, liegt in der Sache . . . ' . I n translation: ' . . . that, however, a critical dictionary that is to be satisfactory and at the same time avoid endless repetition, must be of an etymological character, is given by the facts themselves ...'. In this context, the word 'etymological' must be understood as 'derivational': in 1812, Passow planned a dictionary with a derivational macrostructure; that is, with derived words grouped in the entry of the basic word. The purpose of this arrangement was on the one hand, scientific: to show the structural relations obtaining in the form and meaning of derived words; on the other hand, the purpose was practical: to avoid unnecessary repetitions. However, after the publication of his theoretical treatise, Passow became, quite correctly, persuaded that the public does not easily accept such an arrangement, which inevitably grows complicated. In his lexicographic practice, Passow stuck to a strictly alphabetical order of entries; but he always treats the meaning of a derived word in correlation to the meaning of the basic word. His rejection of a philosophical analysis of the entry word's meaning is based on his strong belief that a dictionary should capture the meaning the word has when occurring in texts. Thus, Passow has a strictly philological and linguistic understanding of his tasks.

History and Dictionaries

28 adtia,

-ή, (ado'/ς) der Zustand, wo man nichts

zu fürchten hat, Sicherheit; bes. Ungestraftheit, sicheres Geleit, Amnestie , Bocckli athen. Staats -

üausli. 2. ]>. 184.

ΰιατάναι,

Lysias

τό αώμά Tito; tii äSttav

*α·

Jemandes Person Sicherheit gewähreu,

epitaph.

15.

olx

iv

aötiij

notüo&at

το λέγιιν, sich nicht getrauen mit der Spraclx* lierauszugehn, Hdt. 9., 42. tV ade ία, in voller Sicherheit, ohne alle Gefahr, Xen. Mein. 2 , 1, 5. in' äStias, nach Belieben, UCT' aSeiai, u-ater Zusicherung vou Amnestie, Thuc. 6, 60. aSeiav noiüu&ai, sich Amnestie ausbedingen, ebend. ά-

fiecai τιγχάνειν, aäciar

λαμβάνιιν, sicheres Geleit

haben. Sich nicht zu furchten brauchen, tliun können was man will, Dcui. de pace ρ, 58 u. 59-

ων tipQovow λαβάντα aSuav,

die ungestraft ihre

Gesinnung haben und äussern durften, Dem. cor. p. 321. γήί aSstav i'/stv, sich in einem Lande sicher od. ruhig aufhalten dürfen, Soph. OC. 447. aSuav δώάνα» mit Infin., Erlaubnis« artheilen, Diod. 20, 41. vgl. Schaef. mel. p. 81.; demlnfiu. wird auch τον zugesellt, Funkhaenel Dein. Andrei. p. 51. 91.

Excerpt 3: (Passow-Rost 1841)

Passow rejects philosophical etymology; on the contrary, the concrete, linguistic derivation gives the primordial, most general meaning, from which the individual applications flow. See Excerpt 3. The noun άδεια is derived from the adjective άδεής, which, in its turn, goes to δεος 'fear', and the ά privativum; consequently, the general meaning is 'the state in which one has nothing to fear, security' ('der Zustand, wo man nichts zu fürchten hat, Sicherheit'); from this then flow the specific meanings such as 'safe-conduct', 'amnesty' ('sicheres Geleit', 'Amnestie') and others. (There follow then collocations, short pericopes and collocations, with some explanatory glosses.) The thing to notice is that the derivation of ά + δεος more immediately suggests a meaning like 'the state in which one is without fear', which would be in German 'der Zustand, wo man sich nicht fürchtet': but the formation given in the dictionary ('wo man nichts zu fürchten hat') prepares the ground better for the subsequent semantic developments. This is the typical technique of Passow by which he succeeds in presenting the individual senses of polysemous words in their unity. In spite of what he says about the lexicalized sense in his theoretical treatise, he starts with a

29

History and Dictionaries

somewhat periphrastic description of a broad notion, well worded so that it serves as a good starting point. (More examples of this procedure of his can be found in Zgusta 1991 a). Passow's next principle which is important in the present context is stated in the Preface to his Dictionary (Passow 1831, vol. I, p. XXVII): Das Wörterbuch s o l l . . . die Lebensgeschichte jedes einzelnen Wortes in bequem geordneter Überschaulichkeit entwerfen: es soll Auskunft geben, wo und wann ein jedes (natürlich immer soviel wir wissen) zuerst gefunden werde, in welchen Richtungen es sich fort bildete, welche Veränderungen es in Hinsicht auf seine Formen oder in der Entwicklung seiner Bedeutung erfahren habe, endlich um welche Zeit es etwa aus dem Gebrauche verschwinde und durch ein andres ersetzt oder verdrängt werde. In translation:

The dictionary should set forth the history of each individual word

according to a convenient and clearly ordered arrangement; it should say when and where each one (only, of course, so far as we know) may first be found, [with] regard to its forms or in the development of its meaning, finally by what time it may perchance go out of use and be replaced or driven out by another.17

One of the reasons why derivation has such importance in lexicography consists in its giving the entry (apart from the headword) a logical beginning: since the derivational meaning is by logical necessity the original meaning of the word, it gives the starting point from which the sequence of the senses of a polysemous word can devolve. The difficulty is that the derivational meaning is a logical construction, not an historical reality; hence some discrepancies about which we shall talk later. The logical requirement of starting with the etymological (or derivational) meaning necessary must be even stronger in historical dictionaries, or more precisely, in dictionaries with a strong diachronic component. What does, then, the lexicographer do when the derivation (or etymology) is unknown? He will treat the entry of such a word on the model of the 'normal' entries, that is, he will make assumptions about what the primordial meaning and its development is. It follows that actual attested history and its reconstruction on the basis of logical assumptions have a broad range of overlap and interplay. We shall examine several questions that arise from this interplay using several Greek dictionaries, because this language has a long lexicographic tradition and also because we wish to analyze the classical tradition itself. (There is an ultimate purpose in this, yet it will be revealed only later.) Passow's conception of historicity, however, is not identical with Richardson's, i.e., of sticking to the chronological sequence of contexts in the whole entry, nor with Murray's of 17

Quoted in Aarsleff 1962 and Aarsleff 1983. The translation reproduced here above is given in 1962, 433 (and repeated by Wells 1973, 28, who, however, quotes it as if it stemmed from Passow 1812). The passage is usually quoted with yet another sentence following, in which Passow sets a purely descriptive, non-presecriptive goal for his dictionary; it is an oblique polemic against the dictionary of the French Academy. The sentence is not quoted here as it is irrelevant to our purpose.

30

History and Dictionaries

ordering the examples by their chronological (if we are allowed to anticipate) sequence within the individual senses. One glance at the sequence of the sources quoted in an entry of Passow 1831 in which the entryword18 occurs, is sufficient: τέλος

[la:] Homer, Hesiodus, Homer, Herodotus, Plato

b: Homer, Hesiodus c: Hesiodus d: Homer e: Homer f: Homer, Hesiodus, Homer, Pindarus, Herodotus ... etc.

It is true that Homer is the oldest source of Classical Greek; however, we see that in sense la and If the younger Hesiodus precedes the second pericope from Homer, and sense lc precedes d, e, and f: all this is done in spite of the strict chronology. Passow's sequence of senses is of the same logical, reconstructed character as the sequences in other dictionaries; a simple comparison of the sequence of senses (translated into English) in Passow 1831 and the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae 1572 (with English glosses added) shows that: Passow 1831 τέλος

[1] [a] end, goal, purpose, Homer; completion, Homer

b) goal reached, Homer c) the limit, Hesiodus d) the main purpose, the main point, Homer e) time limit, Homer [f) used as paraphrasis] g) completion, perfection, Plato 2) [a] troop, Homer [b) transferred senses of a)] 3) supreme power, magistracy, Herodotus 4) [a] toll, taxes (various later sources) b) citizen class 5) [a] initiation, mysteries etc. (the few following lines are without interest to us)

18

Greek τέλος (t£los) is a word without any apparent derivation and even today's etymological dictionaries offer no certainty as to its origin. See Frisk (1973), p. 871-3 on the various assumptions. See also Chantraine (1968) s.v., and footnote 21 below.

31

History and Dictionaries Thesaurus

Graecae τέλος

Linguae

1572:

[1] Finis, exitus, effectus ... 'end, outcome, effect' ... Homer

[2] Vectigal ... 'toll' ... Plutarch [3] Impensa, sumptus ... 'dues, expense' ... Thucydides [4] Dignitas ... 'dignity' ... Sophocles [5] Legio. turma, agmen ... 'legion, troop' ... Homer [6] Mysteria ... 'mysteries' ... Plato P a s s o w ' s distinctions of senses are finer than those of the Thesaurus·, on the w h o l e , however, the sequences are identical (with the exception of the particularly difficult sense 'troop'). What are the main differences between Passow and Stephanus, with the two and one half centuries between them? First, let us say that Passow has many more quotations than Stephanus; however, this is not the subject of this study, nor is it of particular interest: had Stephanus had them at hand, he would have put them in. Second, and this is of interest to us, the fifth sense of Stephanus, 'legion, troop', is moved forward to the second place in Passow, which is more in harmony with the chronology of contexts. What has been said up to now would, however, be a poor description o f P a s s o w ' s method; to do him justice, we must consider the exact wording of some of his explanations. Neither the chronological sequence of the pericopes, nor the sequence of senses reveals anything that would specifically belong to or be typical of Passow. His real specificity is revealed by his formulations, by his technique of describing the meaning: Passow 1831: τέλος

[1] Ende, Ziel, Zweck ... von Sachen und Handlungen Vollendung,

Vollziehung

Vollbringung,

(= 'end, goal, purpose, about things and actions, completion, execution'),

etc. 2) eine Schar Krieger, wahrsch. von bestimmter Anzahl, obgleich diese nirgends angegeben ist (= 'a troop of warriors, probably an exact number of them, though this number is nowhere indicated') 3) der höchste Stand im bürgerlichen Leben, das äußerste Ziel bürgerlicher Ehre, dah[er] obrigkeitliches

Amt, obrigk. Würde etc. (= 'the highest rank in a citizen's

life, the supreme goal of civil honor, hence supreme office') 1 9 etc. 4) was zum Zweck der Stratsverwaltung bezahlt oder entrichtet wird, Abgabe,

Steuer,

Zoll, von jeder öffentlichen Last, auch Tribut überhaupt Ausgabe, Aufwand (='what is paid to the state administration, taxes; every public expense, and tributes in general, 19

All of the English translations are approximative. In the case of the preceding translation, the German words Obrigkeit, obrigkeitlich are difficult to translate into English; they denote the authority exercised in respect to someone who is the Untertan 'subject'. It is questionable whether the German words are really good equivalents of the Greek expressions, but that is not a problem to solve here.

32

History and Dictionaries expenses') 5) die heilige Weihe od. Einweihung,

bes. in die Eleusinischen Mysterien, worin

Priesterbetrug - solange es ging - den Gipfel und die Vollendung des Lebens ahnden ließ (= 'the sacred initiation 20 particularly into the Eleusinian Mysteries, in which the priests fraudulently tried - as far as it was possible - to make the initiated get an idea about the summit and the completion of life') etc. In the German original, the real lexical equivalents are printed in italics; the text printed in roman has an explanatory character in general, but its specific purpose is to explain how, by which logical steps one sense developed from the other, and all of them from the general, basic meaning of the entryword: in short, the roman print offers 'semantic bridges' that span the semantic distance of the individual senses (or sub-senses) to the other senses. This is the specificity of Passowian lexicography: the Lebensgeschichte, the history of the life of each word is explained by these semantic bridges. With the help of these semantic bridges, even the more distant senses can be seen as emanating from the basic notion, and can be perceived as still forming a unity. How strong this central effort of Passow was is best shown by sense 2, where the absence of any testimony for a logically necessary feature is honestly admitted. Unfortunately, Passow died young; in the next (and last completed) edition of his dictionary, his specific method was strengthened by the editors, particularly by V. Rost: Passow-Rost 1841: τέλος tatsächliches

Ende, d.i. Ende eines Zustandes od. einer Thätigkeit... (= 'the

actual end, i.e. the end of a state or of an activity'): 1) Ende, Ausgang, etc. 'end, outcome' etc. 2) der Höhepunkt, das Höchste, was zu erreichen ist-, dah. a) Gipfel, Ideal·, etc. (= the highest point, the supreme thing that can be attained; hence, a summit, ideal' etc.) 3) was in Erfiillung zu bringen ist, dah. a) Zweck etc. ( = 'what is to be brought to completion; hence, a) purpose' etc.) ... 4) was zu leisten ist; dah. a) Entrichtung

...; bes.. Abgabe, Zoll, .... iiberh. Aufwand,

Kosten ... b) speciell: Entrichtung an eine Gottheit, dah. aa) Opfer, Spende ... bb) ... Ceremonie, Feier, heiliges Fest, Mysterien ... (= 'what is to be contributed·, hence a) contribution

...; spec, duty, toll ... in general cost, expense ... b) spec.:

to a deity, hence aa) sacrifice, gift...

20

bb) ... ceremony, festivity, holiday,

contribution mysteries

The German words Weihe and Einweihung do not yield a good English translation, particularly not in reference to pagan rites. Weihe is the process, sacrament, or rite by which somebody or something gets into contact with the numinous, gaining thereby an element of numinosity of his own; Einweihung is the process, sacrament, or rite by which a person becomes aware of a numinous mystery, or even gets the sense of having reached a knowledge of it, or by which he becomes a member of a ritual group.

History and Dictionaries 5) das in sich Abgeschlossene, d.h. eine Heeresabtheilung

33 ... (= 'what is complete

in itself, hence a troop ... '). Apart f r o m many other interesting details, three new features must be mentioned: first, the dah[er] 'hence' strengthens the logical consequentiality; second, the admission that there is no testimony for the 'semantic bridge' of sense 2 'troop' becomes unnecessary in the new formulation of the semantic bridge of the sense (which is now relegated to 5); consequently, the semantic bridge ('das in sich Abgeschlossene' = 'what is complete in i t s e l f ) makes an even more factual impression; third, the basic notion of the entryword is given in an unnumbered preamble between the lemma and the numbered sequence of senses. W e see that the numbered senses are preceded by an adumbration of the general notion, of which the concrete senses are presented as specifications, with the semantic bridges made explicit, in as far as possible: all these features are of typically Passowian inspiration. And we cannot fail to notice that the military sense 'troop' is relegated to the last place similarly as in Stephanus 1572, in spite of its Homeric antiquity; logically it belongs there: hence, logical considerations prevail over the chronological ones once again. On the other hand, Passow/Rost does not have the exact distinction of fonts which is such an outstandingly useful feature of Passow 1831. T h e italics in which obrigkeitliches Amt is printed in Passow 1831 tells us that this is the lexicalized meaning, whereas the roman font of 'der höchste Stand im bürgerlichen L e b e n ' indicates that this is a logical construction of the semantic bridge which keeps the individual senses together as a unified meaning. In this respect, Passow-Rost 1841 loses an important distinction by printing both in italics: both was in Erfüllung zu bringen ist (logical construction) and Zweck (lexicalized meaning) are printed in italics. The preceding examples taken f r o m Passow 1831 and Passow-Rost 1841 were short and simple, so it was sufficient to indicate the general meaning at the beginning and leave to the reader the interpretation of the subsequent developments. In more complicated cases of polysemy it is, on the other hand, necessary to give explicit explanation. For instance, the verb σ υ ν τ ί θ η μ ι (from aw 'together"+ τ ί θ η μ ι ' p u t ' ) has the following indication of its general meaning: 'mit, zugleich, zusammen stellen od[er] legen, an denselben Ort stellen oder legen' (approx. = ' p u t or lay with, at the same time, together, to put or lay on the same place'). There follow various specific senses such as 'put together, assemble', 'compare', 'arrange', 'agree upon' and many others; they are indicated without any gloss or discussion, since their development f r o m the basic meaning is easy to understand. There is also, however, the specific sense 'notice'; here the reader gets the necessary explanation: '2) ... e i g e n t l i c h ] sich etw. zusammen stellen, anordnen ... ; bes. a) äussere Eindrücke mit dem inneren Wahrnehmungsvermögen in Verbindung bringen, dah[er] merken, achten, aufmerken ... '. Translation (approximate): '2) ... properly, to put something together for oneself, to order ...; specifically a) to bring into relation the outer impressions with the inner ability to perceive, hence, to notice, pay attention . . . ' . The words that stand between a) and dahfer] ( ' h e n c e ' ) are not a lexical equivalent, but an explanation of how to relate the specific sense to, or derive it f r o m , the general notion. In Passow-Rost (1841-1857) this type of lexicography reaches its highest point. One can only admire the adroitness with which the connective passages are worded in such a way that

34

History and Dictionaries

the distinct, polarized individual senses, lexicalized on different semantic dimensions, are brought together still to form, or be represented as, a unified notion. After reaching this peak, Passowian lexicography declined in Germany. The most widely used dictionary of the second half of the nineteenth century was the Griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch by Wilhelm Pape. The preface to the first edition is dated 1842, that to the second edition, 1848. The third edition was prepared by M. Sengebusch; its preface is dated 1880: this edition is being reprinted into our own day. In this edition, the entry τέλος has the following form (English approximate translations are again added): τ έ λ ο ς 1) Ende, Ziel, Vollendung (= 'end, goal, completion')... die Gränze, das Äußerste ... (= 'limit, extreme') Der Zustand der Vollendung oder Vollkommenheit (= 'the state of completion or perfection') ... 2) eine Schar Krieger, wahrscheinlich von bestimmter Anzahl (= 'a troop of warriors, probably of an exact number') ... 3) der höchste Stand im bürgerlichen Leben, dah. Obrigkeitliches Amt u. Würde (= 'the highest rank in a citizen's life, hence the supreme office etc.') ... 4) der Zoll, Abgabe, Steuer,... ('tax, duty, toll')... 5) die heilige Weihe, bes. die Einweihung in die eleusinischen Mysterien, wahrscheinlich, weil sie als das höchste Ziel oder die Vollendung des Lebens betrachtet wurde ... (= 'the sacred initiation, particularly into the Eleusinian Mysteries, probably because it ( = the initiation) was regarded the highest goal or as the supreme completion of life') ...

If Passow-Rost(1841) is the consummate version of the underlying principles of Passowian lexicography, as it undoubtedly is, we can say that Pape-Sengebusch 1880 is a weakened version even in comparison with Passow 1831. It is true that the sense 'troop of warriors' is restored to the second position; the reason for this change, however, lies in the facts of chronology. The admission that the 'exact number' of the warriors is 'nowhere indicated' is dropped, which, so to say, strengthens the semantic bridge and saves space at the same time: still, it is hardly an improvement. Also, the treatment of 'mysteries' somehow loses the sharpness once Passow's subjectively venomous formulation is changed into the colorless statement in Pape-Sengebusch, and does not even gain the advantage that the location in the sequence of senses as chosen in Passow-Rost undoubtedly possesses. And most decisively, the fact that the lexicalized senses are not distinguished by the script (or font) from the postulated semantic bridges is nothing but a step in the wrong direction. The loss of this distinction is rendered worse by the same font (roman) being used even for the translations of difficult or typical collocations, so that even contextual nuances of meaning are printed in the same way. The way in which Passow (1831) uses italics is superior to any other, because he quite sharply and unambiguously singles out the lexicalized equivalents by their italicization; the semantic bridges are printed in roman. On the contrary, the new edition (Passow-Rost 1841)

35

History and Dictionaries

prints in italics some of the semantic bridges: in sense 2, 'das Höchste, was zu erreichen ist'; in 3, 'was in Erfüllung zu bringen ist': in 4, 'was zu leisten ist'; in 5 'das in sich Abgeschlossene': as already mentioned, these are not equivalents (they cannot be inserted into any context in which the entry word occurs), but explanatory semantic bridges. The loss of Passow's distinction is regrettable; however, the suggestion that these bridges are a factual reality is strengthened, and so is the impression of the semantic unity of the whole entry.

1.3.7. The Dictionary of Liddell-Scott Passow's lexicography exercised an influence on Greek lexicography in England, or rather, was transplanted there. Indeed, the dictionary compiled by Henry George Liddell [1811-1898] and Robert Scott [ 1811-1887] has the title A Greek-English Lexicon based on the German Work of Francis Passow. Its first edition was published in 1843 by the University Press in Oxford. 21 A perusal of the entry for τέλος (quoted here without the examples and in an abridged form) shows the strong dependence on Passow. Liddell-Scott 1843: τ έ λ ο ς [t.] an end accomplished:

and so the fulfillment,

any thing, Lat. effectus

...

II. a body of soldiers,

prob, of a definite,

completion,

complete

accomplishment

number,

of

though this is

nowhere stated ... III. the highest or last station in civil life, i.e. a magistracy

office ... like Lat.

magistratus

IV. [1] that which is paid for state purposes,

tax, duty, toll...

(2) property

citizen, that at which he was rated for taxation, and according which he belonged to a certain class, Lat. census V. consummation esp.

into

the

consummation

by being consecrated Eleusinian

...

or initiation,

mysteries,

which

of a

to the amount of

and in gen.

were

considered

of life, while the Romans took them as the beginning,

initiation, as

the initial

of a new and perfect life ... etc.

This is the merest skeleton of the entry, all of the contexts, examples, and interpretations being left out, but it suffices to show the degree of dependency on Passow: a detailed 21

The history of the subsequent editions of Liddell-Scott is well-described, with a wealth of detail, in Lopez Facal (1977), 119ff. See also Chadwick ( 1 9 9 6 ) . Chadwick [ 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 8 8 ] concentrates on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the participation of the editors of later editions (particularly Henry Stuart Jones[1867-1939]andRoderick McKenzie! 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 4 0 ] ) and on interpretation of individual Greek words and contexts.

History and Dictionaries

36

comparison of all the contexts quoted and interpreted would have the same result. One can even say that in some respects, the Passowian ideal finds an even stronger expression in Liddell-Scott than in Passow himself; so, for instance, the very first words "an end accomplished" (which have no counterpart in Passow) are nothing but an attempt to give the basic meaning from which all the senses flow. The omission of the number in the first sense (or subsense) is also nothing but an imitation of Passow. On the other hand, the italicization in Liddell-Scott is quite misleading, because it mixes up (in a similar way as its absence does in Pape-Sengebusch) real equivalents, or indications of lexicalized senses, with the explanatory remarks or semantic bridges, typical for Passow; so e.g. "a definite complete number" in sense II, the first two italicized expressions in III, most of the italicized text in IV 2, etc. The introduction of the Latin equivalents is of no relevance to the topic being discussed. The second edition of 1845 differs only in points of detail and in the slightly greater number of contexts quoted. However, the third edition of 1849 comes even closer to the model of Passow (particularly as accomplished in Passow-Rost), because the first English words italicized are not so much lexicalized equivalents as adumbrations of the putatively basic, or central, notion: τέλος the fulfillment or completion of any thing, Lat. effectus. [The rest of the entry shows no major changes.] The fourth edition of 1855 has dropped the reference to Passow from the title page, but changed nothing of importance in the entry, and the same can be said about the fifth edition of 1861: Passow-Rost was then available, so the wealth of detail is even greater: there are also minor changes and improvements in the presentation of the individual specific contexts, particularly within sense I. However, the whole structure of the entry, the method of presentation, the italicization, the wording of the main 'definitions' are the same - barring irrelevant trifles. We know that Passow-Rost can be considered an even stronger version of Passowian lexicography: Liddell and Scott are not as strong in this respect as Passow-Rost, but they did not recede from Passow at that point of time, either. A certain weakening of the Passowian method of presentation comes only in the sixth edition of 1869. We find here a reorganization of sense I, which is divided into I: ' the fulfillment'1 etc. and II: 'the end proposed, chief matter ... the highest point, ideal' etc. The main change (at least as far as the topic of the present discussion is concerned) is the re-wording in sense V, which now reads: metaph. in plur. offerings or sacred rites due to the Gods ...: also of the Eleusinian mysteries, which were considered as the consummation of life etc. This is a slight break from the Passowian method, because while the idea of 'consummation' (which can be derived from that of 'completion, end') does not remain unmentioned, still the thrust of the new wording is such that it connects sense V with sense IV (in a paraphrasis, IV: 'what is due to the state', V: 'what is due to the Gods') rather than directly with the basic notion of 'end, completion'. The disintegration of the Passowian model continues in the seventh edition (188322):

37

History and Dictionaries I. the fulfillment

or completion

II. the end proposed, III. supreme

of anything ... etc.

chief matter ... etc.

authority

... 2. also a magistracy,

office, Lat. magistratus

... etc.

Again, it can be maintained that the word 'supreme' in sense III establishes the connection with the basic notion of 'end, completion'; however, as it was in the case of sense V in the sixth edition, here, similarly, the connection with the basic notion is weakened. In the eighth edition (1897), the entry remains unchanged. The final break with the Passowian model and tradition comes in the ninth edition (1940). Our entry has here the following form (here strongly reduced again): Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie 1940 τ έ λ ο ς [ I. 1.] coming to pass, performance,

consummation

2. power of deciding, supreme power 3. magistracy,

office

4. decision, doom

... ...

...

...

5. some thing done or ordered to be done, task, service, duty ... 6. services

or offerings

7. service

rendered

due to the gods ...; of the Eleusinian mysteries

by a citizen in the Solonian constitution to the

state, also his rating according

to this service

...

8. dues exacted by the state ...; a market-toll... 9. financial means, expenditure ... 10. a military later military II.

station or post with defined duties (cf. signf. 5) ...; unit, division,

[ 1.] degree of completion

or attainment

2. state of completion

squadron

...

... degree of maturity

or maturity

...

...

3. ... 4. end, cessation III. [1.] achievement,

attainment

2. winning-post, 3.[a.] ...full

...

goal

realization,

... ... highest point,

b. the end or purpose of action

ideal

...

This entry is vastly removed from the Passowian model. The basic difference does not, however, consist in the reorganization of the sequence of senses into another pattern; the real point is that, contrary to Passow, next to no effort is made to make the reader aware of the semantic bridges, of the unity of the word's meaning. The only exception is sense I 10, where an explicit attempt is made to derive it from sense 15. ('task, duty' > 'defined duty'). 22

At least in my copy; Lopez Facal (1977), 121 gives 1882 as the date of the seventh edition: possibly different printings?

38

History and Dictionaries

That Passow had the sincerity to present his interpretation (based on the idea of an 'exact number' of soldiers) as a mere probability ('wahrscheinlich ... obgleich . . . ' ) , whereas our lexicographers present theirs as a fact, is in this context immaterial. And so is the question of whether they are right or not. 23 The main point is that there is no attempt to assume, grasp, or indicate (or at least adumbrate) a unitary, comprehensive meaning of the word present in all of its lexicalized senses. Certainly, the sequence of the senses is not haphazard: our lexicographers do try to establish a logical sequence of senses (how far they would claim that it also reflects real historical development remains unknown), but they leave it to the readers to perceive the semantic bridges, i.e. how the senses are connected - that is, if the readers are at all interested in reaching such an understanding. 24 The attempt to establish a logical sequence of the senses is, however, nothing specific to the Passowian method: already in Stephanus 1572 w e find the attempt to establish such a logical sequence as w e have seen above, and the practice is quite general. 25 W e conclude that in the same way as the Passowian tradition was largely abandoned in Germany with Pape-Sengebusch in 1880, in Great Britain it started disintegrating in the sixth edition of Liddell-Scott in 1869, also later to be largely abandoned.

23

A perusal of the four passages from the Iliad that are quoted as the basis of the interpretation shows no 'defined duties'. The troops mentioned in these passages are posted at certain places, indeed; however, the Iliad consists of vivid descriptions of battles, not of military deliberations, so location in concrete, if imaginary, time and space is only to be expected and is a matter of context, not necessarily of the lexical meaning. This is perhaps the place to mention the following. As we have seen, the sense of τέλος 'military troop' is the one whose position in the entry changes most frequently over the centuries of Greek lexicography, which undoubtedly shows the difficulty to locate it in a logical sequence with the other senses. This difficulty even leads some etymologists to postulate two homonymous Greek words, τέλος 'end, completion', to Lat. colo, Skr. carati; and τέλος 'troop' to Skr. kula- n. 'kin, clan', O.Ch.Sl. celjadb 'tribe, domestics'. (See Frisk (1973); Frisk catalogs this etymology without accepting it for himself.) Naturally, such an interpretation is considered certain by none and rejected by many; but it shows not only how actual attested history, but also etymology intertwines with and depends on, the logical assumptions concerning the development of senses. Chantraine (1968) (see fn. 17) sticks to the traditional explanation as well; it may be interesting to see how an etymological dictionary that has the sub-title Histoire des mots treats the matter: τέλος 1. 'achfevement, terme, realization', ... 'but', d'oü 'd6cision, autorite, charge', aussi 'rite' ... ; 2. 'ce qui est dü, devoir, taxe, douane, paiement', d'oü 'depense' ... ; 3. 'detachement militaire ou naval, troupe' ... : cet emploi qui a embarrass^ s'explique, p.-e., parce qu'il s'agit d'un ditachment complet, organise; cf. fran;ais unite; 4. le mot est attest6 aussi de la fagon la plus banale 'fin, terme' ... . Interesting in this entry are not only the laudably frank p[eut]-e[tre] 'probably', but rather the well placed d'ou's 'hence' (or to be more literal, 'whence'), which suggest the logical connections, and expressions such as pouvoir de decision, ce qui est du, which function more as semantic bridges than as equivalents of lexicalized Greek senses. Typological similarity of these features to Passowian lexicography is beyond dispute; whether one should assume its influence as a model will have to be studied.

24

The user of the dictionary may find that the task is sometimes rather difficult; so e.g., the Eleusinian mysteries as inserted into sense 1.6. do not yield easily to such an interpretation as 'services' or 'offerings', etc.

History and Dictionaries

39

1.4. Some Historical Dictionaries of German, French, and English The Romanticism of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (whose main protagonist in linguistics was Johann Gottfried von Herder [1744-1803]) developed into historicism, whose main linguistic achievement was the creation of Indo-European comparative linguistics. The comparative method brought into linguistic research a greater regard for the formal regularity of the cognates in the individual Indo-European languages, thereby putting a constraint on the philosophical interpretations of meaning and polysemy. We have seen that already Passow 1812 and 1831, had an aversion to the so-called semantic analyses, or etymologies, unsupported by attested lexical meanings, and claimed that an entry should give the 'Lebensgeschichte des Wortes'. However, the first truly historical dictionary started being compiled by one of the founders of comparative linguistics, Jacob Grimm [1785-1863], We shall now analyse several historical dictionaries that were the product of the historicism of the nineteenth century (although some were finished only in the twentieth). The central position in this enquiry is given to the Oxford English Dictionary (= OED) and its main editor James Murray [1837-1915], There are several reasons for this. One is that the OED is a dictionary that largely succeeds in its attempt to document and clarify the development of the modern English words since their first attested occurrence, beginning, if possible, with Old English. Few dictionaries achieved something similar in the nineteenth century. There are a few dictionaries that try to do that. Some of them are etymological dictionaries (such as Walther von Wartburg [1888-1971], Französiches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1-24. Bonn 1928 ff.), so they are of different character than the dictionaries that we discuss here. One of the few dictionaries comparable to the OED is Μέγα λεξικόν τ η ς ε λ λ η ν ι κ ή ς γ λ ώ σ σ η ς , vol. 1-9, D. Demetrakos, Athens 1933-1950 (J. S. Zerbos, ed.), in which, however, the ancient language has a more important role than the modern one. In addition to that, both these and similar dictionaries are products of the twentieth century, whereas we wish to get at least some glimpses of the development within the nineteenth

25

We are discussing the practices of dictionaries of classical languages. In the nineteenth and in the first half of the twentieth century, the organization of the entry as a putatively logicalhistorical sequence of senses was quite normal in large monolingual dictionaries of living languages, even in those without any claim as to their historicity. In this sphere, however, this organizational principle seems to be receding, at least in some languages. Whereas in the first half of our century, only one large monolingual English dictionary (Funk and Wagnall) was not based on this principle, a recent analysis by C. Marello (1982, 82) has shown that out of seven recent monolingual Italian dictionaries, two organize the sequences of senses on the (putatively) historical-logical principle, two proceed from the direct to the transferred and from the general to the particular senses, and three start with the most common and most frequent sense. A general survey of the ordering principles is given by Gold (1983). Gold discerns seven possible principles of ordering (namely, 'according to the importance of the senses, in order of their frequency, according to a logical ordering, according to an empirical ordering, following syntactic criteria, following semantic criteria, and in order of historical appearance'); his preference is for the historical ordering of senses. For psychological considerations connected with grouping the senses see Geeraerts (1985a), p . 1 2 6 - 1 5 3 .

40

History and Dictionaries

century. Murray's OED has, so to say, the deepest historical dimension, documented by an ingenious system of presentation that will be analysed in detail below, and has an enormous wealth of contextual examples, both pericopes and collocations. While any large dictionary in the nineteenth century displays a wealth of contextual examples, two outstandingly important dictionaries that pre-date the OED26 are organized on a historical principle as well. One of them is the large, four-volume dictionary by Emile Littre [1801-1881] (1873) which also has a rich, diachronically arranged documentation. Murray undoubtedly knew and used Littre: in the Preface to vol. I (dated April 1888; reprinted in Raymond 1987, VI) he says that Littre was used in determining the size of the pages, which are identical in the OED and in Littre, but that the typographical features (use of boldface, italics, etc.) are different. (The advantage of the OED over Littre in this respect was recognized in Bradley 1884; see Excerpt 4.) However, Littre proved to be useful in other ways, too: for instance, one of the definitions of carousel in the OED is quoted in translation from Littre. The microstructure of the entry is different in Littre than in the OED, but there is one striking similarity: Littre's entries show something like a 'double articulation.' Littre systematically covers the period of time between the early seventeenth century and his day. The senses are given in the same historico-logical sequence as we have seen in dictionaries since Stephanus; and they are accompanied by rich illustrative examples, quoted without much regard for their chronological precedence. Besides this, however, there is, in a separate part of the entry, a purely chronological sequence of pericopes that document the entryword since the earliest times: like Richardson's, this is a sequence that does not differentiate, or group together, contexts by the senses forced by them.

26

Publication of the OED started with the first issue of the letter A on February 1, 1884 (Preface, page VII D, Compact Edition; Raymond 1987, table 4; Murray's Preface to this first issue is dated November 1883: Raymond 1987).

41

History and Dictionaries AVO

AVO

vif. Le feu aviv£. La passion aviv6e par I es obstacles. AVIVER (a-vi-v6), v. a, |] 1° Rendre vif, donuer de la vivacitS. Aviver un tableau, tine couleur, uue statue. Le vent avivelefeu. J| Fig. Lamarche a quelque cliose qui avive mesidees. J. J. ROUSS. Con1', iv. II2° Terme d'arts. Aviver une figure de bronze, la netloyer, pour la rendre plus propre ii la dorure. II Aviver l'or, l'ötendre, apres cju'il a έΐιί amalgame avec le vif-argent. || 3" Coupcr le bois h vive anile. II i " Blanchir avec de Γέίηϊη la surface du plombque Ton veut souder. || 6° S'aviver, 1\ reft. Devenir vif. Uno couleur qui s'avire. Sa douleur s'aviva. — HIST, xia* s. Et saelics quo du rogarder Feras Ion euer frirc et larder, Et tout ades en regardant Avivcras le feu ardant, la Hose, 23r»c. Et dottier ne so doivent des prelas qui or vivcnt. S'en incurs ou en science aulrcmentne s'iivivent,}. DEMECNO. Test. cfis. Vinrent de bon poivre avive Kt jelines ct cos sailvaiges,Fabliaux, Mit. UAMJAZ. t. iv, p. 88. Voioz la malice du raonile, Comment tousjours croisl ctavive, Bestimm dans JJU CANGE, avnare. || xiv° s. Car mes roloirs ft ce s'avive, Ne dou faire no soray j;\ lassez, Tant qu'once mond vous plaira quo j e vivo, MACIIAULT, p. 4. Quant il ha servi longucment El obe'i dosiraminent, Jit soil ce qu'en bonespoir vive, Ades ilosirs en lui s'avive, in. p. 20. || χν» s. L'amourcux lien, loqucl n'emposche mie un λ poursuivir le noble exercice des armes, ain?ois est ce qui plus fait es jeunes occurs aviver et croistre lc desir de Γΐιοιιηοrable poursuite choraicrouse , Bouciq. 1, cli. 7. II xvx* s Puis eslargie [la flamme] aviva sa pasture Des pins gommeux qui sont sees de nature, RONS.

042.

— ETYM. Λ c t v i f ; proven^, auvar, avidar; espagn. avirar; iial. avivarc. AVIVES (a-vi-v'), s. f. plur. Tormo do vetorinaire. || i ° Engorgement des glandcs parotides chez le clieval. || 2" Ces glandes memos. || Batlro les avives, op6ration barbare des empiriqucs, qui consistait it contondre la parotide malade, alin d'on olitenir la guerison. || Proverbe. Si vous ne lui donnez cela, il en aura les avives, c'est-ä-dire il desire furt cela. — HIST. XIV" s. Quant clieval a vives, Me'nagier, it, 3. Κ xvi° s. Puis lui mit une langue de serpeut dans l'oreille , afin que lo clieval, par un tremblemenl continuel, semblast avoir les avives, YVEB, p. 012. Le plus asseur6 rcmede, est d'arraclier les avives avec la lancette, ce que fait l'expert maresclial, 0. DE SERRES, 083. Av6s vous point ouy qu'on sceut charmer ung cheval des avyves? PALSGR. p. 481. — ETYM. Kspagn. adiras, avicas, do I'arabe addziba, ad-diba, sorte do mal do gorge chez le chev a l (OOZY).

j A VIVOIR (a-vi-voir), s. τη. Terme de dorour. Instrument qui sert.il aviver, ii 6taler 1'amalgame de l'or. — ETYM. Aviver. AVOCASSER (a-vo-ka-sö), v. n. Faire, dans la m6diocrite et l'obscurit6, la profession d'avocat. il 11 so conjugue avec l'auxiliaire avoir. — HIST. XIV" s. Que l'advocat qui plaidora pour sa partie la plaide senloment par sa bonchc, puis que il auracommencö it plaider, sans quo nut autre advocat estant avec lui en la cause en puisse parier ne advocasser, Ord. des rois de France, t. it, p . e . II xvi° s. II avoit accoustume de s'en aller do grand matin aux polite,s villes d'alcnviron advocasserel piaider pour cculx qui s'adressoientMuy, AMVOT,Calon, u. — KTYM. Arneat. Dans I'ancien francais, avocasscr n'avail aucun sens dofavorablo. f ΑΛΌΓΑ SS KR IH (a-vo-ka-so-ric), s. f. Terme familier. || i ° Par denigremeut, la profession d'avocat. l|2° Mauvaiso chicane. — ETYM. Arocrtsser. f AVOCASSIEH, l £ U E (a-vo-ka-ssiö, ssiß-r'), adj. Se prend en mauvaiso part. Qui concerne les mauvais avocats. La gent avocassiöre. — KTYM. Avncnsser. AVOCAT (a-vo-ka; lo t so lie dans io parier soutenu : un avocat habile, elites . a-vo-ka-l-liabilc; au luriel, i's se lie : des η vocals hnbiles, dites : a-voa-z-babiles; avocats rime avec fracas, appas), s. «ι. Κ1° Celui d o n t l a profession est de plaider cn justice. Un avocat savant et esluniS est cerlumemeiit au-dessus de ccux i|ui ont acheie pour un peu d'argent le droit d'etre injustos; un tel avocat serait ua excellent conseiller; mais ού est le conseiller qui serait un bon avocat? VOLT. Lelt. Lavausc, 4 juillet, 4 702. La fonclion do I'avocat est p6nible, laborieuse, et suppose dans celui qui I'exerce un

E

riebe fonds et de grandes ressourcos, IABRUY. 4 6. II Avocat plaidant, celui qui s'occupe particuWrement de plaidoiries. || Avocat consultant, celui qui donne des conseils dans son cabinet, et des avis icrits sur les affaires litigieuses. || Avocat du roi, avocat de la rGpublique, avocat imperial, qualification que, dans l'usage ties tribunaux, on donne, ä l'audience seuiemont, aux substitute du procureur du roi ou du procureur impönal. || Avocat general, avant 1780, membre du ministere public pros des cours supörieures qui portait la parole; on disait le procureur g6n6ral a la plume, I'avocat g6neral a la plaidoirie. Depuis 1840, titre des substitute du procureur g(.'n6ral prfes la cour de cassation, ou de certains S u b s t i t u t s des procureurs gen6raux prfes les cours impöriales, et donne dans 1'USJIRC ätouslessubstituts du procureur g6n£ral lorsqu'ils sidgent, lorsqu'on leur parle ou lorsqu'on parle d'eux. Les avocats g6neraux sont hiirarchiquement sup6rieurs aux simples substitute; mais les fonctions sont les memes. II2" Fig. lntercesseur. II ne faut pas se faire I'avocat ae l'injustice. II a fini par Sire I'avocat bavard de lasuperstition.voi.T.Iclfr. DamilavilU·, β nov. 1762. Iis n'6laient que des avocats subtils et v6h6ments de ΙΑ plus mauvaisede toutes les causes, ID. Letir. time du Deffant, mars 4 7G6. || 3° L'avocat du diable, celui qui propose les objections dans uneconf6rence religieuse, et, en giineral, celui qui defend une chose peu digne d'Glre döfendue. j| Avocat de Ponce Pilate, avocat sans causes, h cause des paroles de Ponce-Pilate : «on mvenio causam. || Jeu de I'avocat, jeu de society on dialogue. — HIST. xn c s. [Un roi] Dulz, charitables e gentils, Juz [juste], avocaz de sainte Eglise, IIENOIT, π, 1058. La cruiz arcevesqual fist porter & sa desire, Et la reisgne del frein tint en la main senestre; Fait out sun avocat de Jesu-Crist sun mestre, Th. le man. 38. || xm« s. Et bien saci6s de voir que li doi meillour avocat de la court [de Rome] par qui vous esploiterus plus tost do vostre besoigne aciever, e'est ors et argons, Chr. de Rams, 244. Mes s'il sunt advocat por ens En la causo as fins amoreus, la Rose, 10575. Et oil qui parolent pour autrui sont apeI6 avocat, HEACM. ν, ι . Lors se font avocas, qu'il n'ont d'autro rccors, Et s'en vont cn enfer tout droit plus q u e l e c o r s , J. DE MEUNG, Test. 020. Mout d'escnvains, j e n'en dout pas, Sont peintrcs, et tous avocas Peignent en leur parole, Ditdes pernires. II xiv° s. Es vous un hoinme ä moi venir, Qui bien senibloit estre advocas, Qui parier sceüst en tous cas, BRUYANTdanslf^nafft'er, 1.11, p. 24. || xv" s. Le due de Berry fut pour le vicomte de Chastel si bon et st certain avocat, que labesogne se conclutdu tout it son entente,KROiss. ru, i v , 24. || xvi c s.Tout advocalbeau disottr ressemble ä bassin de jongleur, OESIN, Recreat. t. 11, p. 250. — ETYM. Bourguig. atvocar; provene. avocat, advocat; espagn. abogado; portug. advoijado; ital. advocato; de adrocalus, de ad, ä , et vocatus, appelü: celui qui est appele au secours; derocarc, de ιοχ (voy. voix). Avocat est un mot fait dans le XU« sieclo sur ad vocatus, qui avail donne, dans le franrais prtmilif, aro«e. AVOCATK (a-vo-ka-t'), s. f. Celle qui intercede. Sa mere fut son avocate. L'avocalo des peclicurs, la sainte Vierge. — HIST. xv°s. Monseigneur, rospondit la dame, j e croi que lc gentil chevalier et vaillant prud'homme n'a nulo avocato fors moi, FROISS. i n , iv, 30. — ETYM. Avocat. f AVOCAT1ER (a-vo-ka-lie), s. m. Arbre de 1Άniöi'ique du Suca] 1 0 0 0 ... c 1 2 0 0 ... 1 3 4 0 ... 2 . Viewed in reference to its position and functions, as: a . in man, the hinder surface of the body, that which is opposite to the front or face, and which is turned upon those who are left behind. (Hence many phrases: see V I . ) c885...1382...cl500... b . that part of the body which is the special recipient of clothing (as the belly is of food); often put for the whole body in this capacity. Orig. because simple articles of clothing cover the back completely, but are either open, or merely fastened in front. a[nte] 1 3 0 0 . . . 1 3 7 5 . . . 1 5 4 9 . . . c . the part of the body which bears burdens. c 9 5 0 ... α ... 1 3 0 0 . . . c l 3 8 4 . . . d . in animals, the upper surface opposite to that on which they walk, crawl, or rest: extended from vertebrates to other walking or creeping animals. 1383. ,.cl500... 1647... I I , transf. The surface of things analogous in position to the (human) back: the hinder side. 3 .gen. That side or surface of any part of the body or of any object, which answers in position to the back; that opposite to the face or front, or side approached, contemplated, or exposed to view; e.g. the back of the head, of the leg; the back of a house, door, picture, bill, tablet, etc. 1626...1777.,.cl850... 4 .spec, a . The convex or outer side of the hand, opposite to the palm. b . The under side of a leaf, which forms the outside before it unfolds, c . The convex part of a book, opposite to the opening of the leaves, d . The thick edge of a knife or other cutting instrument, oppositeto the face, or cutting edge. Hence back and edge:

everything,

through everything, through thick and thin. a[nte] 1 3 0 0 [a] ... c 1 4 4 0 [d] ... 1 5 2 3 [d] ... 1 6 0 1 [a] ... 1 6 4 1 [idiom] ... 1 7 1 6 [idiom] ... 1 7 8 9 [b] ... 1 8 4 4 [a] ... 1 8 6 3 [c]... 5. The side of any object away from the spectator, or spectators generally, ... cl645...1696...1704... t 6. Of time: the other side, the time after. Obs. or dial.

History and Dictionaries 1673 I I I . Parts of things having relation, or analogous in position, to the human back; the hinder part, rear, following. t

l . p l . Clothes. O b s .

1341...cl350...1377... 8 . Armour protecting the back; a back-plate. 1648... 1651... 1695... b . fig. A defence, protection. 1686... 9 . The hind part of a coat or other garment. Modern] What is the material of the back of the vest? 1 0 . The upright hind part of a chair, that supports the back of the sitter; and gen. the hinder portion of any structure. 1 5 3 0 [chimney] ... 1 6 7 0 [ c h a i r ] ... 1 7 1 6 - 1 8 [chair] ... 1 1 . The rear of an armed force, arch. 1597... 1737... t

12. A following: a body of followers or supporters; support backing. Obs. 1566. . 1 6 1 1 . .1649...

I V . Surfaces or parts of things analogous to the back of animals. 1 3 .fig. The surface of a river, the waves, etc., which bears floating burdens ... 1610... 1697... 1850... 14. The ridge of a hill, of the nose (obs.). 1615...1863... 1 5 . The convex surface of any thing bent. cl850... 1 6 .Arch. The upper surface or edge of any horizontal or oblique beam. 1677... 1753... 1 7 . The keel and kelson of a ship. 1541.

.1692...1883...

V . Technical uses. ( t r a n s f . , f i g . , and 18

elliptical.)

.Leather-trade...

1 9 .Mining

...

2 0 .Jewellery

...

21

.Football...

22

.Sporting...

VI. Phrases. (Chiefly from 2 a., also 2 c.) 2 3 . With

prepositions:

a . At the back

of...

History and Dictionaries

63

b. Behind the back of... 2 4 . With

verbs:

2 5 . complex... We see that the main sequence of definitions that capture the entry word's multiple meaning is the one given in the arabic-numbered paragraphs; most of these definitions pertain to the actual lexicalized senses of the entry word. What follows the roman numerals are either general summaries of the arabic-numbered senses that follow (e.g. II, III, IV), or information for the user about what to seek in that section (e.g., VI); IV seems to be a borderline case between these two categories: I is most interesting, because it does not bother the user with a cumbersome summary of numbers 1 and 2, but simply characterizes both. That the arabic-numbered senses have a numerus currens from the beginning to the end of the entry and that their sequences do not start with 1 within each of the roman-numbered 'branches', reinforces the impression that they are not taken as some subdivisions of the latter, but on the contrary, that they are basic for the organization of the entry and for the understanding of the multiple meaning. There is, however, some flexibility in this as well: e.g., number 4 treats the subsenses a-d in the same way as V treats 18-2 2: no generalizing definition is given in either case, only simple information on what makes groups out of senses a-d and 18-2 2, respectively. Thus, an arabic-numbered paragraph does not necessarily deal with a single lexicalized sense, just as a roman-numbered one does not, either. Other things to notice are that just as I gives the "original sense" and II a "transferred" one (with more transferred, or extended, senses to follow), in the same way we have within I, sense 1 marked "properly" and then sense 2, which needs an explanation (in small print) of how it came into existence, as it obviously is understood as being derived from 1; and within II we have 3 "general" and then 4 "specific". Let us also mention that there are several explanatory glosses that historically explain the polysemy: first, one could consider the title of I itself such an explanatory gloss, "original sense": a characteristic to which are related the labels of other senses such as "transferred", "figurative" et sim.; second, there is the parenthesis at the end of the definition of sense 2a, which pertains to the "phrases" listed under VI and explains their origin by the clarification offered in the definition of sense 2 a; third, there is the second paragraph of the text of sense 2b, beginning with the word "Origfinally]"; and fourth, there is the remark within 2d following the colon. Let us remark, however, that these (and similar) explanatory glosses do not have the character of Passow's semantic bridges; whereas the bridges try to present the entry's multiple meaning as still belonging to a unified notion, Murray's glosses rather explain how the meaning was extended, transferred or the like. Other symbols used in the texts, such as the dagger ( t ) used to mark obsoleteness, are not important for the present discussion. The next example will show the subtitles of groups of senses marked by asterisks, and the absence of an a in spite of there being a subsection marked b (c etc.).

History and Dictionaries Bar ... [In the etymological part of the lemma, bar is said to be borrowed from late Latin barra

'of unknown origin'. A Celtic derivation is discussed and rejected. The

lemma is closed with the following parenthesized remark:] '(The development of sense had to a great extent taken place before the word was adopted in English.)' I . A piece of any material long in proportion to its thickness or width. * of shape only. 1 .gen. A straight piece of wood, metal, or other rigid material, long in proportion to its thickness. 1388... 1690... 1753... 2 .spec. a. A thick rod of iron or wood used in a trial of strength, the players contending which of them could throw or pitch it the farthest; the distance thrown was measured in lengths of the bar ... 1 5 3 1 . . . 1 6 0 0 . . . 1 7 1 5 .. t

b . An iron bar used in breaking criminals on the wheel. Obs. 1577...

3 . A narrow four-sided block of metal or material as manufactured, e.g. of iron or soap; an ingot of precious metal. 1595... 1753... 1755... t 4 . ... 5 .... 6 . ...

7 .... ** Of shape and confining

purpose.

8 . esp. A stake or rod of iron or wood used to fasten a gate, door, hatch, etc. c l 17 5... c l 3 2 5 . . . 1 3 8 8 . . . a 1 4 2 0 . . . 1 5 3 5 . . . 9 . A straight, strong rod of iron or wood fixed across any way of ingress or egress, or forming part of a fence, gate, grating, or the like ... cl386...cl440...al658... 10... 1 1.... I I . That which confines, encloses, limits, or obstructs, with no special reference to shape. * A material

barrier.

1 2 .gen. A material structure, forming a secure enclosure, or obstructing entry or egress; a barrier. cl325...1388...1667... 1 3 .spec. A barrier closing the entrance ...

65

History and Dictionaries ** Art immaterial

barrier.

1 8. Law. A plea or objection of force sufficient to arrest entirely an action or claim at law. 1495... 1528... 1599... 1 9 .fig. An obstruction, obstacle; a barrier. 1531... 1649..1713... I I I . A rail or barrier acquiring from its use special technical significance; the space it encloses. * Ina court of justice. 2 2 . The barrier or wooden rail marking off the immediate precinct of the judge's seat, at which prisoners are stationed for arraignment, trial, or sentence. a 1 4 0 0 ... 1 4 8 0 ... 1 6 1 3 ... b .fig. A tribunal, e.g. that of reason, public opinion, conscience. cl375...1594...1665... 2 3 . ... * * In the Inns of Court. 2 4 . A barrier or partition separating the seats of the benchers or readers from the rest of the hall, to which students, after they had attained a certain standing, were 'called' from the body of the hall, for the purpose of taking a principal part in the mootings or exercises of the house. Obs. ... c 1545... 1574... 1608... 2 5 . The whole body of barristers, or spec, the barristers practising in a particular court, circuit, or country ... 1559...1695..1864... 2 6 . abstractly

(combining 2 3 and 2 4): Occupation as counsel in a court of justice; the

profession of a barrister. 1632...1709...1770... *** In legislative

assemblies.

2 7 . The rail or barrier dividing from the body of the house a space near the door, to which non-members may be admitted for business purposes al577...1790...1849... **#* [nan

inn>

or

other place of refreshment.

2 8 . A barrier or counter, over which drink (or food) is served out to customers, in an inn, hotel, or tavern, and hence, in a coffee house, at a railway-station, etc.; also, the space behind the barrier, and sometimes the whole apartment containing it. 1592 ..1601. IV. Comb, and

.1712...

Attrib?5

66

History and Dictionaries

The subtitles marked by asterisks are a very practical way of ascribing a feature to several senses without claiming, on the one hand, that they really form a group such as the roman-numbered 'branches', nor, on the other hand, repeating the feature in each of the senses. (That the individual senses 2 7 and 2 8 must get the asterisk on their own is a by-product of the system.) Sense 2 2 shows the absence of the a\ one can form the opinion that b is just a specific subcase of 2 2 , so that a division such as 2 2 , a ... b would be misleading. Be this as it may, both the asterisks and the handling of the a's gave Murray an additional flexibility that allowed highly practical solutions to the problems with which any presentation of multiple meaning is connected. On the whole, Murray created a rich classificatory system that allows a high degree of flexibility. We do not discuss each single detail, because they may be fairly obvious. However, it must be stressed that this flexibility does not give the reader the impression of an agglomeration of ad hoc solutions to individual cases of difficulty. A similar flexibility can also be seen in the arrangement of the lemma: while its general structure is fixed (headword, pronunciation, [variants], part of speech, attested forms of the entry word, etymology or derivation [the latter normally in square brackets]), occasionally there is some additional information; in the present discussion, we are interested in such remarks as pertain to the meaning. These frequently are of a purely practical character. For instance, the lemma of do is divided, after the grammatical category, into "A. Inflexional forms" and "B. Signification"; under the latter, we find a "General scheme of arrangement", which does nothing but recapitulate, or rather, anticipate, the articulation of the following nearly five pages of the entry. In a similar way, the entry for come contains under "B. Signification" an excursus on the differences between come and go. Some of these excursus, or at least remarks, are, however, of greater interest for the present discussion. For instance, the lemma of bind has the following remark that follows the square bracket of the etymology:'General sense: to make fast with band or bond'; the numbered sequence of senses starts in the next paragraph with Ί . To tie fast'. The lemma of carry has the following excursus in a separate paragraph located between the etymology and the numbered sequence of senses: "From the radical meaning which includes at once 'to remove or transport' and 'to support or bear up', arise two main divisions, in one of which (I.)· 'removal' is the chief notion and 'support' may be eliminated, as in 4, 5,and several of the fig. senses, while in the other (II.) 'support' is the prominent notion, and 'motion' (though normally retained) may entirely disappear ...". These last two quotations from bind and carry exemplify those cases where the purpose of the remark, or excursus, was clarification of the basic meaning from which the polysemy developed. A similar purpose is present in the example quoted above: the lemma of bar concludes with the remark, this time included in the brackets that contain the etymology (which is said to be ultimately unknown,

35

This entry was published in the second issue of the OED. In the Prefatory Note to this issue (reprinted in Raymond 1987), Murray acknowledges that the entry was sub-edited by W. J. A s h l e y [ 1 8 6 0 - 1 9 2 7 ] . The sub-editor's activity left no visible trace in the entry, which is identical in detail, in style and wording, with any other entry edited by Murray.

History and Dictionaries

67

the word being borrowed from Late Latin) but set apart in parentheses: "(The development of sense had to a great extent taken place before the word was adopted in English.)" A regressus in incertum, certainly, offered in lieu of an explanation of the type exemplified by the preceding cases. In general, this optional, final part of the lemma serves as an introduction to or commentary on the sequence of the senses.

1.4.7.2. The Sequence of Illustrative Examples The other component of the main part of the entry consists of the illustrative contexts, in the overwhelming majority of cases cited from written texts and identified by quotation. (For an exception, see above in the specimen of back, sense 9.) These contexts (mostly pericopes because they are not only mere collocations, but mostly whole or reduced sentences) are ordered in their chronological sequence; and it is this sequence that will be one of the main topics of this discussion. The content of the examples, or pericopes, is only exceptionally important for the purpose of this paper, so they are represented only by their year in the above reduced entries. The basic advantage of such an arrangement by chronological sequence is its factual character: barring the re-dating of or an error in dating a source, the sequence offers a positivistically certain picture of how the entry word, or rather its individual senses appear within our horizon; which sense appeared when, or rather when it is attested first. There is not a unified chronological sequence of examples for the whole entry; each branch and numbered sense has a chronological sequence of its own, as the samples above show. Consequently, while the lemma gives the etymology or derivation as the point of origin, the main part of the entry contains two sequences of data: the sequence of senses, i.e., the reconstructed history of the multiple meaning, and the chronological sequence, or attestations. i.e. the 'factual' or 'recorded' history. Since the reconstruction is based, as are all reconstructions, on the knowledge of parallel, similar developments in the same language or in different languages, and more generally, on logical considerations of what probably developed from what, the reconstructed history can also be called 'logical'; Murray himself (Preface, p. 38) calls the factual chronological sequence of attested contexts the "historical record" and the sequence of senses presented in OED the "actual order" whose "rational or logical development" is inferred from the historical record.

1.4.7.3. The Relation of the Factual Chronology and the Reconstructed Sequence of Senses As stated above, the presentation of the entryword's meaning in the main part of the entry is characterized by its double articulation, by the interplay of the two components: on the one hand, the factual, or recorded history; and the necessity to reach or reconstruct a rationally acceptable sequence of senses, on the other hand. For this purpose, the illustrative contexts

68

History and Dictionaries

are distributed throughout the entry so that each numbered sense is supported by its examples, which are ordered in their chronological sequence. It is this arrangement (among other things) that makes the OED so successful, because the senses normally follow each other in a smooth way which does not make the reader reluctant to accept their sequence; and the chronology of contexts within the individual senses, and also in a broad, general way in the whole entries as well, seems to be in quite good harmony with their sequence. While there cannot be any doubt about the overall success of this whole enterprise, there are still two questions to be asked, namely: (1) How great really is the concord between the factual record of chronology and the reconstructed sequence of senses? And (2), whose reason or which logic is it that makes the sequences of senses 'rational' and 'logical'? One type of discrepancy between the chronological record and the logical sequence of senses can be easily understood, namely that observed in borrowed words. For example, the entry for annunciation has the sequence of senses "1. The action of announcing,... 1563: . . . 2 . The intimation of incarnation ... to the Virgin ..., ... c. 1 4 4 0 ; ... 3. The church festival ..., Lady-day, ... c. 1400." At the end of the lemma we read the remark: "The specific senses 2, 3 , were the earlier in Eng." It stands to reason that this remark is right, that the specific senses came already with Christianity, and the general one only with the good knowledge of Latin brought by Humanism and the Renaissance. In this case, the sequence not only shows the preference for the logical arrangement (first the general, then the specific senses), but also an endeavor to proceed logically from the point of origin, which is given by the etymology. This endeavor is well represented by the entry for another loan-word: agony. We read at the end of its lemma: "The development of the senses in Gr. was: 1. A struggle for victory in the games; 2. Any struggle; 3. Mental struggle, anguish; e.g. Christ's anguish in Gethsemane. But the historical appearance of the meanings in English was as follows:" There follows the main entry, in the sequence "1. Anguish of mind,... paroxysm of grief', the first example c. 1 3 8 6 (Chaucer); "b. Hence ... paroxysm of pleasure", the first example a. 1 7 2 5 (Pope); "2. spec. The mental struggle ... of Christ in ... Gethsemane", the first example 1 3 8 2 (Wyclif); "3.... pangs of death: the death struggle,... 1 5 4 9 ; ... 4. Extreme bodily suffering,... 1607; ...5. A struggle or contest,... 1677". (Notice that the difference in chronology between the English senses 1. and 2. is correctly treated as irrelevant, and notice the chronology of the intercalated, because secondary, sense 1 .b.) Both preceding examples are concerned with borrowings; for a native English word treated in the same way, see below on be. It is this attempt not only to achieve a harmony between the logical sequence and the chronological record, but also to start with and be in harmony with the etymology, that leads to explanatory remarks such as that concerning bar as quoted above. Let us note at this juncture that the cases where the sequence of senses is dictated by chronology against the consideration of a logical order are extremely rare. One of the few examples is the entry for cretinize: 'To reduce to the condition of a cretin'. There follow the examples grouped into two different paragraphs (showing that the semantic difference was realized): "1858 ... No Jesuit, seeking to cretinize humanity for pious purposes ...

History and Dictionaries

69

1869: ... Society ... would cretinize an archangel." (Paragraph): "1876 ... the dwarfed, diseased, and cretinized inhabitants." Clearly the context from 1876 shows the more original, non-transferred sense. I would venture that in this case, the dominant sense prevailed and was, therefore, listed first. The other way of explaining away discrepancies between the chronology of the contexts and the reconstructed sequence of senses consists in invoking the usual objection to argumentum e silentio, which is based on the assumption that it may be only because of the scarcity of our sources that our written sources do not have a context attesting a usage at a point of time; hence, such an absence of attestation is not necessarily proof positive that the usage did not exist. Murray himself vents similar apprehension in his Preface (p. 38; quoted in Hultin 1986): If the historical record were complete, that is, if we possessed written examples of all the uses of each word from the beginning, the simple exhibition of these would display a rational or logical development. The historical record is not complete enough to do this, but it is usually sufficient to enable us to infer the actual order.

One must concede a certain weight to this argument, particularly for the oldest stages of the language. Any student of a language that is known only from a limited corpus of texts will appreciate the importance of the objection to an argumentum e silentio; he will, however, also know that with the increasing density of texts the power of the argument decreases: but there usually is no sharp boundary. In spite of that, while lacking the expertise of a true student of the older stages of English, I would still dare the opinion that the fourteenth century is the epoch when the objection against the argumentum e silentio starts losing much of its force. Apart from these two main causes of discrepancy, one can also say that some of its cases were produced by Murray's principles concerning the organization of the senses. For instance, in the example above, back sense 2 is attested at uc[irca] 8 8 5", considerably earlier than sense 1. However, the context in 2 (from Aelfred) is Da wendon hi me heora baec: clearly, there is no real reason why this could not belong under "1. properly"; it is only Murray's insistence on grouping 2 .a with 2 .b and 2 .c that produces the discrepancy. The same could be said about 2 c the example (c 950): Hia jebindas ... by r Senna ...in scyldrum vel baeccum ... does not force another meaning than 1; only the lexicographer decided to set this function of the normal human back apart as well. Similarly, in the same example, the obsolete sense 7 'clothes' is attested already in the fourteenth century, with senses attested only in the sixteenth century preceding in senses 5 and 6. This is fully in agreement with Murray's organizational principle about which he says (Preface, 38) that in each of the 'branches' "the historical order begins afresh". Sense 7 is the first in branch III, so chronology starts afresh; however, since sense 7 clearly is primarily connected with 2 .b, the chronology causes no real difficulty. There are even stronger cases of such a distribution of chronological data. For instance, in the same example of back, branch II, sense 3 , attested in 1626, precedes sense 4 , attested in a[nte] 1300; although by the principle just quoted, chronology should "begin afresh" in

History and Dictionaries

70

branch II, because sense 3 is labeled "generally" whereas sense 4 , "specifically". Murray always tries to put general senses before the specific ones. In this specific case, the whole distribution of 3 and 4 is open to doubt: what is the difference between the back of the leg and that of the hand? The difference is merely that subsenses a, b, c, d in 4 are taken as separate specificities, whereas the parallel collocations of 3 are contracted in a more general descriptive statement. (One could even take the point of view that the "back of a house" etc. is a more remote extension of the original meaning, so that it should follow 4.) However, whatever opinion one has in respect to the correctness of the distribution of senses in 3 and 4, the important fact for the present discussion is that indubitably Murray's classificatory principles are proven stronger, in this case, than the factually attested chronology of examples. The problems of chronology vs. reconstruction covered in this section have been discussed before, by Hultin (1986) and Zgusta . While our research was independent, our conclusions agree to a gratifying degree. We both perceive the tension between the reconstructed, or logical, sequence of senses and the actual chronology of the contexts and its consequences. One difference seems to be that I am more inclined to allow for the argumentum e silentio and am more willing to take the point of view that some discrepancies are not real or not serious (e.g., above, on sense 7 of back). On the other hand, Hultin insisted more strongly on Murray's giving precedence to the logical order over the chronology than I did in 1986, and I think he was right. Also, the preceding discussion of branch II in back shows that the order of senses chosen by Murray is not necessarily the only possible one. Hultin's criticism of Murray was also stronger than mine in this respect, because his analysis of the entry for board shows that it would be possible to construct another sequence of the senses that would be in agreement with chronology and that would also be logical, only using other parameters. That the sequence of senses has a logical character has always been accepted as a matter of fact, or rather as something self-evident, and has never been objected to. In his review of the OED, published several years before he became one of the editors of the OED, Henry Bradley [1845-1923] (1884) wrote: "The examples are placed under the definition which they severally illustrate, the original sense of the words being first explained, the derivative senses following in the order of their logical descent." This leads, then, to the second question mentioned above, namely, which logic and whose reason it is that makes the sequence of senses logical? On one level, it clearly was Murray's reason and logic that has distributed senses 3 and 4 of back as they are. On a deeper level, Murray belonged, as everybody does, to his epoch and did not hesitate to accept current views when he found fit. So for instance, his explanatory remark in back 2.d "extended from vertebrates to other walking or creeping animals" (whose correctness can easily be doubted, because it presupposes a modem knowledge of zoological anatomy in old times - the examples are dated Ί 3 8 3 , c 1500' etc.) is inspired by a context quoted in the entry from an 1847 book on zoology: "The lower side (of Flat-fish) is generally white, whilst the upper is brown; and the former is commonly (but erroneously) regarded as the belly of the fish, and the latter as its back."

36

See note 10.

History and Dictionaries

71

There is however, a yet deeper layer of problems: what was Murray's inspiration, or philosophical doctrine in making these decisions? Hultin (1986) offers the following answer to this last question. According to him, the OED is (1) "a refutation of ideas which found their most influential spokesman in John Home Tooke" (1798); and (2) it is "an attempt to marry the empiricism of the 'new philology' to the rationalism of the Enlightenment." One of the questions that may be asked is: what if any, influence on the OED was exercised by the English dictionary of Richardson (1836,1837). Richardson was one of the last adherents of Home Tooke, from whom he accepts the idea that the word's etymology reveals the word's meaning, in all its applications. We have discussed the pertinent problem above with the result that Richardson's indications of meaning are the result of his etymological assumptions, whose method is inspired by that of Home Tooke. However, the main part of each entry is the sequence of pericopes, ordered by strict chronological order and the known history or at least the probable development of the meaning, which sometimes is taken care of by a suitable note. It happens only in quite exceptional cases that Richardson yields to the logic of development and transposes the chronological order of the quotations. One of such infrequent cases is accent 'to sing or sound, or speak to, or in unison with ...'; in this case, the first quotation reflects a more original sense ("Harry ... first taught our English music how to span words with just note and accent, not to scan ... committing short and long"), which, however, comes from Milton (seventeenth century), whereas the much older quotation (1326; "accenting and pointing") comes only second, probably because it reflects the transferred sense of stressing importance. Quite in harmony with this highly factual approach of Richardson's to the pericopes quoted is the absence of any evaluative remark or advice or indication of preference in cases where any of the other dictionaries would by their own principles be less uncommitted. One example for many: the entry for no, nor, not contains no remarks on usage at all, but simply lists cases of the double negative, such as, The deol that made Imogen, no tonge ne telle ne may (Glouces.); Neither Gildas, no Bede, no Henry of Huntington, no William of Malmesbiri, ne Pers of Bridlynton, writes not in their bokes of no king Alhelwold (R. Brunne) ... in their chronological order among other examples of negation, single or double, without any comment whatsoever.

Needless to say, Murray's etymologies fully belong to his own era: they have the scientific quality brought in by historical and comparative linguistics. There is no trace of the 'philosophizing' attitude largely present in the older epochs. That both Richardson and Murray put etymological information into the lemma before the main part of the entry constitutes the only similarity between their presentation of etymology and of its use. The division of the entry into two parts, one relating to specific contexts and their sequence, constitutes a striking similarity between Richardson and the OED. Naturally, the etymologies in the OED are the modern ones, strictly linguistic and

72

History and Dictionaries

not philosophical-explanatory; therefore, the OED cannot and does not treat the etymology as an explanatory element in all entries. This difference notwithstanding, the similarity of the basic division of the entry into the two parts described exists only between the OED and Richardson; neither Passow nor Liddell-Scott articulate their entries in such a way.37 The OED differs from Richardson in that the quoted contexts are grouped by their senses, if the entryword is polysemous; whether this method is adopted in the OED because it is the method by which Liddell-Scott proceeds (cf. the analyses above), or because it is the normal method κ α τ ' ε ξ ο χ ή ν , cannot be definitely determined, but the latter assumption is quite possible, if not necessarily more probable. There is the fundamental difference that while Murray tries to explain to the reader how the attested senses developed from the one indicated by the etymology (if such a sense can be found), he does not claim that the etymology explains a word's whole multiple meaning; therefore, he does not take inspiration in this point from Richardson, who claims the contrary; nor is Murray, a fortiori, influenced by HorneTooke. His method is connected with broader traditions of lexicography, as shown above: the Greek thesaurus, the dictionaries of the Academies, Italian and French — all of them well before Home Tooke and Richardson. What is, on the other hand, striking, is the similarity in the way the chronology of the contexts is handled both by Richardson and by Murray: objective, actual chronology is the only ordering principle in Richardson; in Murray, each sense has a sequence of its own, but within this limit, the sequence of the dates is the only ordering principle as well. (See, e.g. above, sense 4 in the example back: there are subsenses a, b, c, d; the sequence of their exemplification is a[nte] 1300: a; c[irca] 1440; d; 1523: d; 1601: a; ... 1789: b; 1844: a; 1863: c.) Also, there is no other historical dictionary prior to the OED that would handle chronology in this mechanically objective way; the only exception - a partial one - is Littre. It seems the conclusion that is unavoidable that Richardson's example exercised in this respect an influence on Murray, who, however, modified his procedure according to his own understanding of multiple meaning and according to his method of how to present it. It is no less interesting to compare Murray's presentation of polysemy with Passow's. We know that Passowian lexicography was transferred to Great Britain through the medium of the dictionary of Liddell and Scott. (That the later editions of this dictionary allowed the Passowian tradition to disintegrate is of no relevance here, because that process started only after what must have been Murray's formative years.) The assumption of the medium of Liddell and Scott is quite logical, because that was the Greek dictionary normally used in any university in Great Britain, her then colonies, and in the United States.38 However, the 37

Only the later editions of Liddell-Scott have some etymologies; they, however, are given at the end of the entry, i.e. as additional information, not as the logical or historical point of departure for, or even explanation of, the individual senses. 38 In America, there existed both adapted editions, such as A Greek-English Lexicon based on the German Work of Francis Passow by Henry George Liddell ... and Robert Scott ... with corrections and additions, and the insertion in alphabetical order of the proper names occurring in the

principal Greek authors, Drisler (1846), and reprints such as that of the edition of Liddell-Scott, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880.

73

History and Dictionaries

features of the OED which can be seen as a product of such an influence need to be pinpointed. Certainly the influence is not seen in the arrangement of senses in the OED\ we have shown that such a logico-historical ordering has been normal since the sixteenth century. Nor can the sequence of the pericopes, the illustrative examples, be seen as influenced by Passow. Let us repeat that typical for the OED is an arrangement like the following (a short example is chosen on purpose):

OED Ash

1. A well-known tree ... 2. The wood or timber of the ash-tree 3 . The ashen shaft of a spear; a spear. Obs. a 1 0 0 0 Beowulf... 1 6 0 7 Shakespeare 17 00Dryden ... etc.

In sense 3 , the logically prior meaning 'ashen shaft of a spear' is forced only by the late context from Dryden: "The tourney is allowed but one carrier of the tough ash, with the sharp-grinded spear". The two older contexts show the metonymic meaning 'spear'. This is the double articulation of the entry in the OED mentioned above: the 'definition' of sense 3 follows the logical sequence ('ashen shaft of a spear' > 'spear') while the sequence of contexts follows their chronology pure and simple. This has nothing in common with Passowian lexicography, in which the sequence of examples follows a logical order. It was mentioned above that in some entries of the OED there is a remark at the end of the lemma or between the lemma and the main part of the entry that summarizes the multiple meaning or explains it, or indicates something like the basic meaning: the question may arise whether this is not of Passowian inspiration, whether it is not something like the general, basic meaning given in Passow-Rost before the numbered senses. The question must, however, remain moot, because one could also argue that the inspiration stems from Richardson, who always starts with the 'etymological meaning' that is followed by the uninterpreted chronological sequence of the pericopes. Such an assumption is possible; however, it is also possible that many of these remarks in the OED are inspired by the merely practical necessity of making a long entry graspable as a whole, or of giving information that does not fit elsewhere. The strongest point of similarity between Passowian lexicography and the OED consists in the fact that the OED occasionally offers remarks or explanations resembling the Passowian explanations and semantic bridges. For instance,

74

History and Dictionaries OED Ash ... commonly in pi. Ashes 1. The powdery residue ... left after the combustion of any substance ... 2 . Volcanic ash: the similar powdery matter ejected from volcanos ... 3 . transf. or fig. Ruins, remains ... 4. From the ancient custom of burning the bodies of the dead: That which remains from a human body after cremation or (by transf.), total decomposition; hence poet. for 'mortal remains, buried corpse'. 5. Dust of the ground. (Hence used to express man's mortal constitution.) etc.

The remarks in senses 4 and 5 are comparable with similar remarks in Passow and, derivatively, in Liddell-Scott. The difference is that Passowian lexicography indicates as many of such semantic bridges as possible, because it is a matter of principle (the individual senses should be shown as having a unified, or unifiable meaning); whereas in the OED they occur only occasionally and would seem to be a matter of explanatory practicality. This difference notwithstanding, I think that it is possible to assume that this point shows some Passowian inspiration in the OED (possibly transmitted by Liddell-Scott); the assumption is, however, not certain, because the coincidence may be a mere typological similarity, independently produced. There are more points of similarity between the OED and the Passowian dictionaries. For instance, there is the quite minor but conspicuous absence of the first number (or letter) in the numbered sequence of senses. Again, one can admit that Liddell-Scott probably was the model; but in spite of such inspiration, Murray operates in his own way: he either gives or does not give the first letter (the first number is given), thereby conveying some information, whereas the absence of the first digits is mechanical and thus meaningless in Liddell-Scott. One also could think that the wealth of contextual examples quoted in (Passow and) Liddell-Scott makes Murray familiar with the advantages of such rich documentation. One hardly could assume, however, that Liddell-Scott was Murray's inspiration, or even the main source of his inspiration: first, the examples of Liddell-Scott are as short as possible (usually only the collocations); and second, in the nineteenth century, any larger dictionary had a rich exemplification by contexts. Another feature of the OED deserves our interest. For instance, in the entry for bind: immediately following the etymology, outside the square brackets but in the same paragraph, there is the remark "general sense: to make fast with band or bond". The enumeration and description of the senses follows in the next paragraphs. Similarly, in the entry carry, in a paragraph following the etymology and preceding the presentation of the senses, there is the following excursus: "From the radical meaning which includes at once 'to remove or transport' and 'to support or bear up', arise two main divisions, in one of which (I.) 'removal' is the chief notion and 'support' may be eliminated, as in 4 , 5, and several of the figurative senses, while in the other (II.) 'support' is the

History and Dictionaries

75

prominent notion, and 'motion' (though normally retained) may entirely disappear The effort to capture the generality of the entryword's meaning or its unified, homogeneous character, as manifested in the two preceding examples, can be conceived of as being inspired by Passowian lexicography: the technique used, however, is different, because in Passow (and Liddell-Scott) the generality or homogeneity is worked out within the bulk of the entry, within the sequence of the concrete senses, whereas here it is stated separately, in the lemma.39 It is quite possible that this arrangement is dictated by mere practicality, as in the case of the entry for do. Let us, however, consider the following example. The entry be is more than seven pages long. Some two pages are needed for the enumeration of the forms (including the suppletive ones, i.e. those that belong to different morphemes while forming one unified paradigm of a single verb); the remaining five pages given to the description of meaning are articulated into four main senses I - I V , called 'branches' in the terminology of the OED. The semantic part of the entry ("B. Signification and uses.") is introduced by a bracketed excursus: [the primary sense appears to have been that of branch I I below, 'to occupy a place'

thence the more abstract branch I was derived ... Branch I I I was derived from I I . . . ]

This shows that the logical sequence of senses given in an entry does not necessarily coincide with what is considered to have been the actual historical sequence, or development of the senses. The same result was reached when we analyzed Murray's treatment of the words (admittedly foreign loan words) agony and annunciation: the actual history does not necessarily coincide with the logic of development. The result of this analysis seems to be this: it cannot be doubted that Liddell-Scott may have been the model for the OED in such major points as the wealth of examples quoted, the finesse of their interpretation, and their semantic groupings and subgroupings, and even in some minor points such as the insufficient discrimination by different fonts of the lexicalized and the non-lexicalized components of the explication of the meaning. The OED even shows a possible influence of Passowian lexicography in the occasional use of explicitly stated semantic bridges in order to make the unity of the entryword's meaning clear. The fine discrimination of senses (called "branches" in the OED) and sub-senses, and the grouping of the contextual examples by this articulation of the entryword's meaning can also be assumed to be inspired in the OED by (Passow and) Liddell-Scott; however, the question of how far such an inspiration was exclusive in all the preceding points will require a further study.

39

Only in Passow-Rost does the adumbration of the basic notion precede the numbered senses; but even so it remains within the bulk of the semantic description of the individial senses.

76

History and Dictionaries

1.4.8. Grimm and Murray If we compare the Oxford English Dictionary with Grimm's Deutsches see that the two dictionaries are strongly dissimilar.

Wörterbuch, we

Excerpt 10 shows a part of the entry for bergen 'hide' from Grimm and Excerpt 11 the entry for the etymologically cognate bury from the OED. The differences in style are so stark that they hardly need a detailed commentary. Of particular interest is the etymological speculation concerning berg 'hill' in Grimm's lemma; the remarkable choice of sense (1) as the primordial one (notice that the sequence of the Latin 'equivalents' suggests the same idea: servare 'save', tueri 'protect' and only then tegere 'cover', celare 'hide'); the explicit indication that sense (3) goes to (1), and (4) to (2). The OED entry is radically different not only in the length of the time-span covered (the oldest pericope comes from about 1000 A.D.), but in its trimmed, non discursive style. The relations of the alphanumerical classification of senses are completely different from what we see in Grimm. The richer variety of fonts also agreeably differs from Grimm's somewhat monotonous pages. Munray offers no explicit advice on usage in the form of remarks ä la Littre or explanatory discussions a la Grimm. On the other hand, he labels some senses or usages as "catachrestic" (thereby implicitly invoking a logical judgement), some senses or applications as "colloquial" or such (thereby implicitly passing a stylistic judgement), some expressions as "vulgar" thereby implying a sociolinguistic judgment). Since all is handled by labels, there are no real discussions of such judgements and classifications; it is left to the user whether he will accept the advice implied. 40 The only somewhat discursive passage in this example of the OED is the explanation of the idiom to bury the hatchet in sense (2). Again, it is not necessary to belabor what leaps to the eye: the complete difference of the approaches and presentations of Murray and Grimm. However, let us not fail to notice, first, the strongly encyclopedic character of definition (I 1) (particularly the phrase that follows the semicolon), and, second, the completely encyclopedic excursus given in small print between the definition of ( 1 1 ) and the illustrative contexts. Needless to say, these few lines in the OED are negligibly minute when compared with the long discussion at the beginning of Grimm's entry. It must be conceded, however, that the whole discussion in the first four paragraphs in Grimm's entry, while somewhat meandering, is not superfluous, or selfserving: it has the purpose of clarifying the word's origin by analyzing the folkloristic and superstitional traditions. Considered from this point of view, Grimm's discussion is quite germane to the topic and it is only his verbose style that brings the whole passage out of proportion. One could even say that Murray's excursus in the OED is more disconnected from the purpose at hand, which is clarification of a sense of the word bear, not information on various species of the animal thus called. We know, however, that Murray occasionally is not averse to some discrete encyclopedic information (see above, sense I d.): science was as important to the positivist at the end of the century as folklore was to the Romantiker at its beginning. Still the difference in style is overwhelming. 40

The development and growth of such labels was recently described by F. Cassidy (1997). The same issue of Dictionaries contains a collection of articles on "Dialect labeling in dictionaries".

History and Dictionaries B E R G E N , servare, tuen, legere, eelare, ρra«. bare, p a f geborgen, golh. bairgan τηρβιν, aha. p e r k a n , b e r g a n (Guar. 3, t e e ) , mhd. bergen Bkn. i , m . 1M, oga. b e o r g a n , aUn. biarga, scfw. berga, ddn. bjerge. Aublung will b e r g e n «ο« b e « abUfUen ' ** « » umgedreht b e r g von bergen tUmml, d. k i n b e i g die Vorstellung dee schüttenden, hebenden, «eÄr«Klt» zuerkennen ist, nicht in b e r g e n nolhvendig die der hihe, 1 gr. φςάγνυμι, ψάςγννμι wurde oben (twler bei») g t i e £ man trvidge $ηγννμι (unter brechen) und aywui, w? b a i r a n tragen bleibt besser o « i dem spiel; denn bergen feT sich zwar deuten in die höhe tragen, hervortraten, mmt gen, doch der gulturallaul scheint, tete sl. brjeg und'gr L· ' seigen, schon frühe vwselhafl, nicht alt ableitend n X weisen. 1) b e r g e n , den mit der ßut ringenden an das u(tr reiten, das im meer schwimmende gut an den ttrand bri^ sichern und reiten: e s s i n d n u r wenig leute aus dem b r u c b g e b o r g e n w o r d e n ; g e s t r a n d e t e gflter bergen. bergegeld, bergegut, bergelobn. alles, die ganze Udao.« g e b o r g e n , res in vado est, t n tuto est, auft trotlme sebredi man sagt nun auch: d a s h e u b e r g e n , einthun, in die tAtu, führen, o b s t b e r g e n , übst lesen, afterbergen, nachlutn. 2) b e r g e n , condere, absconderc, legere, verstecken, me» tau überall deuten bewahi ~en, schalten: in der erde, 1q dit erät b e r g e n , terra condere; d e n leiciinam bergen, bei/raten, bauten; eich i m d u n k e l d e e w a l d e s b e r g e n ; wol dem, den bisher barg ein grab für so viel arg. Lösau 1 , 2 , 6 2 ; lief barg: ich m i c h nun iu den haioen Achäat. dasz meto Ohr nicht vernahm jenen orten. K l o w o c k 2 , 192; ulmen, u n t e r deren blauer oft die nachtigali sich barg. S a i u ; noch köstlicheren samen bergen wir trauernd in d e r erde scbosz, und hofTeu, d a » er aus den eärgen üi blühen soll t u schönerra losz. S c n n . u a ; alle sturmerprobte schiffe bergen sich in sichrer bucht. 60": u n d s p r ä c h e t i h r zu d e r nacht verhülle mich, und tu do Unstern is birg m i c h ! 13»'; dein auge rollt fürchterlich, «4 will m i c h h i n t e r dich verstecken. Guelfe birg mich m i* n e m b l i c k ! K u t t c a a 1, 6 1 ; d e r genius deckte «eine muiip Streiter m i t e i n e m g r o s z e n Schilde, er konnte aber dit » z a h l b a r e m e n g e n i c h t bergen. 3, 2ö3. mhtL segle m & kl& in die f ü e j e b e r g e n , die klauen einstehen, krone Ml». 3) aus der ersten hedeulung folgt die abstraction da Alfens, reUens, sicheres, geborgen sein heissl in tduU tu Sicherheit sein, gut dran seinda ruh du, mein a r m e s , da rub nun iu goltt geborgen auf i m m e r vor elend und spou. B f l t m ; komm, komm, du bist geborgen, last gott und mich nur sorge«. 53*; vor euern klauen und geieregriffea, vor euern praktiken und bösen kniffen ist das geld nicht geborgen in der trab, das kalb nicht s i c h e r in d a r kuh. Scutut* 826*; er ist gereuet doch und wol geborgen t 522't mein weib verzagt u m micb. verkündet ihr, dass ioh gerettet sei und wol geborgen. Ml'; solch e i n e e c h w e a t e r ! und ioh wir geborgen, « m J , t i wenn aus dem h e r m ein bräutigam wird, io in il» gekitp« 40,814;

eheime krftfte en schlaf i u bannen, birgt ein geschftne. 3, 524 ; ich habe gründe, dieses s t r a f b a r e e e h e i m n U tn«» top, S t m t n M I , ich darf „ i c h ? ' rcb pMmnlj w e i n . « 8 ; " ' ein was loh dem himrael brauch ich , „ r menschen „ i c h , u m in. dir perion.: denn ich . . „,1, . ' 1 l „ aicht allein die « m e n t a l , » » N . , . '«'β™, « » e h r l i c h und Obel davon reden ' l „ ™ 8 ™ η •JCd^ ; hm, ich kann euch nicht« bergen. Λ ύ » « ™ ' wnpricll mir, wenn dein h e n w n e l i m l i r t e r

J

III Bergen. LaeeiKö 2. 2 « . « H M Unglücks s c h m i c h dem , n i d 8 t . „ ' , . . , SCHII.L«a 23«. (I Jlcb bergen: kmm halt Ich mich l u r ü c k , wo b e r g ich m i c h ! . . . aller mund erlTO, ^ ' " ' i m , Ü»| b:.fn Bleb meinem h e r r n l SceitLna 67· »rk nicht i n bergen wiesen, nicW » „ » , „ „ Μ „ α ω > s i c h « i >» « e M » oder rellm: e r weiee sich ™ r f , „ d e « J J ,,eh, .« bergen, m , „ n , M » o , er to „ I I , i , ^ * ™ I , ; bat er sich , o r I r e u d e n k a u m z u bergen g e w u a l M f w l . 1,2; ich kann Μ g a r n i c h t r o r ihm bergen . i m m e r « k l er mich; eich »or f r o s t , hitee, hunger, d u r a „lebt Te r f " " ! « » ! " " dl« f » « w , können „ i r „ „ , , 0 Γ ,Ά . KU und mausen nicht bergen. Λ Α dllere i p r a c k , ,l,ll„ da,u die m h i i» dm ömiti,· •Λ tob mich meiner k u n s t nit geborgen. R a u c n u » a w » ™ » ; ikr habt n u n m e h r wol , o n a n d e r n gehört, , „ n Z m L «ir das gelt und die U e i d e r k o m m e n , d e n n ich mich sein Mth nie geborgen habe. Gnlm} 23S.,

i s t d e r d i r e c t o r glücklich genug ihrer (schöner im) kifel zu w e r d e n , s o sind k o m ö d i e n - u n d tragOdienschreiber gd« g e n . 23, 2 3 ; w e r d e n begrif [des bildes) foeeeu kann,»!« d e r k u n s t sein g a n z e s l e b e n geborgen. 39,13; so iit «r physiker) g e b o r g e n u n d der philoeoph mit ihm. M, » ' · w b e r g e n u n s w o l , a b e r d a s volk ist verloren. 4) ft us der zweiten die des t e r hehlens, verbergen, a) ohne casus, oder mit dem blassen α et. der J«*«·' » n a r r zeigt s e i n e n z ü r n balde, aber wer die sduoKi bsP· i s t witzig, spr. Sal. 12, 16; f ü r s t e n müssen fiel ding* bap u n d heimlich h a l t e n . Luthkb 8,49*; wie gar kannat i m » b e r g e n , w a s d u i m s i n n h a s t ? dat.; alsbald die h a u b e deckt das haupt, entdecken elcb dieai!»» die nicht wie, wann a i e i u n g f e r n alod, die weiter befgeaM·»* Loom 3,9,19; d e r n i c h t b e r g e n k a n n , wie viel ihm d e m gelegen ist. * n i c h t s g e m e i n e s a n g e s e h n zu werden. J. E. Sc s u m S-j*· b e i a l l e m d e m k&nnen wir nicht bergen, d a « . WikuksI-^ e i n e lacke, u n d z w a r wie wir nicht bergen, eine betrt®** lücke. 1 , 1 0 6 ; i h r h e n , wir können« nicht bergen, nahm aaibol] «n i " 6, to»: w wir k ö n n e n n i c h t b e r g e n , Daniscbmend haue u. t. * «k birg nicht gefUhle, die dich ebxen! Gort« 5 ·

Excerpt 10: Entry bergen in Grimm 1854

78

History and Dictionaries B u r y (BEII), v. F o r m s : Ι b y r 5 ( E ) a n , b y r i s a n . b y r i e n , l b i r r j e n n (Orm.), 3 - 5 b u r i e n , b y ,3 Ζ·. *,. . ·, ~ • '...:

1737 M I L L « Gard. Diet. (175g) $. V. Cedrus, This wood.. resisting gmi shots, andburyine the shot without splinter. lDg:. 179« SMEATON Edystone 1.1 07s The seas that are

r(en, b i n e n , 4 b i r m , 5 b y r y y n , b y r y n , b e r y y n ,

manner to W y the house m umeofstorm». Ibid. % »73 The two stones together would compleatly. .bury the , . . . . o r s i n k d e e p in, s o a s t o c o v e r P u t o u t « s i g h t ; a l s o m phrases, t0 bury tn tmes "" ίΜ* Panels, ones hands tn on* spockets, etc. Ä S Ö S Ä ' Ä Whig-Exam. No. 4 ρ ι As well assault an army that i t buried in intrenchments. 1815 BYRON Heb. Melodies, Song y , o a L , h f . b o s o ™ Gath: °£.Saul!> ! MRS. STOWB UncU Tottis C. xxaui. aoo T a k i n g a p l n .. he buried it to the head IA her flesh. . 8 » KINGSL.V A'yfiati* xxv. 31a H y ' — · · « · . . . in her hands „, , t n t r - r t ß - o r / f » · J b n r r o w > a l s o M e c h · t o h e e m b e d d e d o r enclosed. »8«« JamfSTOM inProc. Brrw. Mai. Club L N o . 0. 366 The animal buries in sand, c 1850 Rudim. If mit. (Weak) Those endsof the planks which bury in the rabbets, O. fig. c 144a PECOCK Repr. 1. VÜI. 39 T h e inward book of la we of kinde, biried in mannis soule and herte. 171a BKRKELEY Pass. Obtd. § 9 Wks. 187« III. 113 Every man's particular rule is buried in his own breast. 1855 H. R*ED Led. Eng. Hirt. Ü. fit The truth, that now is buried beneath the mass 0 f the old British legends. 5 . pass. T o b e p r o f o u n d l y a b s o r b e d o r engrossed

b e r r y , 3 - 5 b i r y , b e r i ( e , 4 - 6 b e r y , b y r y , (6 b y r r y , b y r r e y , b u r r e y , b u r r y , burye, bewry, 7 b u e r i e , b u r e ) , 4 b u r y e , 4-7 burie, 4 - bury. A l s o Sc. 5 b e r y s s , 6 berieoh. [ O E . hynan wk. v . : — W G e r . *bitrnan ( o f w h i c h the only other trace is the O S . derivative « s b -Β,ώαβ), a p p . f. fr/r^- ablaut-stem of O T e u t . *bcrg-an Btr. t o protect, c o v e r : see BERGH V. T h e Scotch f o r m s boyss, beiisch, appear to follow the analogy 67 1 r t, (T . . ,i T o f w o r d s f r o m l· rench l i k e fe>yss,fensch.] 1 . T o d e p o s i t ( a corpse) in the ground, in a t o m b ; t o inter, H e n c e to c o m m i t (a corpse) to the sea, w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e fnneral rites. ,t 1000 Hymns iGr.i x. 20 pone jeomormod Josep byriide. 1154 Ο. E. Chron. (Laud MS.) an. 1137. 6 j , & sythen byrieden him. e lewis .. beried [iho crossis) fro Crystcn men in a preuy stede. 1530 PALSCR. 451/« It is the property« of a dogge to burye his mcate ia the gronndc. 154« BOORD!: Dyrlary xviii. 11870) 277 Bike meatc .. is buryd in pnast. i6a6 BACON Sylva § 378 A Mottle of P.ecr, buried in like manner as before, became more lively. »697 DKVOKN Virg. Georg, ill. 547 The froren Kurth lyes buried there, lielow A hilly Heap, seven Cubits deep in Snow. 1753 CHAMOERS Cycl. Supp. s. v. Burial, Chemists sometimcsbury their cements. 1841 LANF. Arab. .Vts. 53 So I took the money, and buried 3000 pieces of gold. b . O f t h i n g s : T o cover over out o f sight, to submerge.

Excerpt 11: Entry bury in OED

History and Dictionaries

79 ing the beare amongst vs. 1751 CHESTERF. Lett. III. cclxii. 202 T h e French people of learning . . are not bears as most of ours arc. 1832 Legends Loud. II. 247 When I was the youthful Bear—as the disciple of a Private Tutor is called at Oxford. 1855 MACAUI.AY Hist. Eng. I I I . 51 T h i s great soldier.. was no better than a Low Dutch bear. 3 . Astr. N a m e g i v e n t o t w o c o n s t e l l a t i o n s i n t h e northern hemisphere k n o w n respectively as t h e ' G r e a t Bear,' and ' L e s s e r Bear.' 1398 TRKVISA Barth. De P. R. vm. x x x v , A l w e y Jioo sterres wynde)> and tume|? rounde aboute )>at lyne, fiat is calde Axis, ns a bere aboute be stake. And J>erfore J>at cercle is clepid HE more bear. 1551 RECORDE Cast. Knmvl. (1556) 263 The'moste northerly constellation is the lesser Beare .. Nigh vnto it is the greater Beare. 163a MILTON Penser. 85 Where I may oft outwatch the Bear. 1868 LOCUYER Heavens (ed. 3* 320 Between the Great Bear and Cassiopeia is the Little Bear. 4 . In N e w South Wales, the local name o f the Phaseolarclos, a Marsupial a n i m a l allied t o the l ' h a l n n g e r s , c a l l e d b y t h e n a t i v e s Koala o r ' B i t e r . ' 1847 CARPENTERZool. §314 By the colonists usually termed the native Bear or Monkey. 5 . S e a - b e a r : popular name o f a specics o f seal. 1847 CARPENTER Zool. § 202 Several specics of Seal are known under the names of Sea-Lion, Sea-Bear, etc. 1883 FI.OWKR in Glasgow Weekly Ηtr. 14 July 8/t. 6. A rough mat for wiping boots o n ; a b l o c k covered with s h a g g y matting, used for s c r u b b i n g t h e d e c k s o f vessels. '795 J· AIKIN Manchester 349 T h e making (by blindfolk) of. .white and tarred bears, fooL-cloths, etc. 1805 D . JOHNSTON Sernt./or Blind 20 Rope-bears for cleaning the feet at our doors. 7 . A m a c h i n e for p u n c h i n g holes, 1869 Si* E. REED Ship Build, xx. 446 T h e holes which come in the plate-edges are usually punched by a bear, b . O t h e r t e c h n i c a l uses : s e e q u o t . 1864 Reader N o . 85. 203/3 A machine called the bear, which sheltered a number of archers. 1871 Trans. Amur. Inst. Min, Engineers I. 112 Metallic iron, not finding heat enough in a lead furnace, .congeals in the hearth, and forms what smelters term 'sows,' 'bears,' 'horses.'

B e a r (be-u), sbl Forms : ι bera, 2-7 bere, (3 b e o r e , ? b o r e , 4 b e e y r , 4 - 5 b e e r e , 5 b a r r e , b e e r , 6 Sc. b e i r , 6 - 7 b e a r e , 7 b a r e ) , 7 - b e a r . [ O E . bera = O H G . bero, pero, M H G . ber, m o d . G . bar, M D u . bere, D u . beer : - O T e n t . Heron-. The O N . björn \-*bem-oz seems to be a n e x t e n d e d f o r m . S u p p o s e d b y F i c k t o b e c o g n . w i t h L . ferns w i l d , a s i f 'the w i l d b e a s t ' o f n o r t h e r n n a t i o n s . ] I . 1 , A heavily-built, thick-furred plantigrade q u a d r u p e d , o f the g e n u s Ursus; belonging to the Carnivora, but h a v i n g teeth partly a d a p t e d t o a v e g e t a b l e diet. The best-known species are the Brown Bear of Europe ill. arc tos), the White or Polar Bear (U- maritimus), the Grizzly Bear (U.horribilis otferox) and Black Bear {U. Americanits) of North America, and the Syrian Bear (U. Syriacus), mentioned in the Bible; there are remains of fossil species, some larger than any now known. c 1000 «LFRIC On Ο. T. in Sweet Render 66 Dauid . . gewylde Sone wlldan beran. c 1200 Tritt. Coll. Η out. 211 Ech man is efned to deore \>e he nimeS after geres . . sum bere, sum leun. 1398 TREYSA Barth. De P. R. xvm. liii. ('495) 8r3 Whan beeyrs ben syke they soke amptes and deuoure them. Ibid. cxiL 854 T h e beer can wonderly stye vpon trees. ci^toAnturt 0/ Arth, χ, Tims were the grehondes a-gast of the gryme bere. 1501 DOUGLAS Pal. Hon. m. xxvii, Dauid I saw slay baith lyoun and bcir. 1506 SHAICS. Merch. V. 11. i. 29,1 would .. Plucke the yong sucking Cubs from the she Beare. 1624 CAPT. SMITH Virginia II. 34 Their attire is the skinnes of Beares. 1733 POPE Horace' Sat. 11. i. 8/ Tis a Bear's talent not to kick but Hug. i860 GOSSE Rom. Nat. Hist. 62 The white bear seated on a solitary iceberg in the Polar Sea. b . in p r o v e r b i a l phrases, r e f e r r i n g t o t h e h a b i t s o f bears, and t o t h e o b s o l e t e s p o r t o f b e a r - b a i t i n g . Are yon there with your tears t = ' Are you there again, or at it again?' is explained by Joe Miller as the exclamation of a man who, not liking a sermon he had heard on Elisha and the bears, went next Sunday to another church, only to find the same preacher and the same discourse. •562 J· HEYWOOD Prov. tf Efiigr. (1867) 17 With as good will ns a beare gotli to the stake. I bid. 54 As handsomly as a beare picketh muscles. 1589 Pappe m. Hatchet (1844) 16 Swarmd.. like beares to a home pot. 1601 DENT Patliiu. Η tauen 63 T o put his finger into the Lions mouth, and . . take the Bear« by the tooth. 160a FULBBCKE ist Pt. Parall. 28 A man should deuide honie with a Beare. 1736 BAJLEVs.v., You dare as well take a Bear by the Tooth, That is, You dare not attempt it. 174a RICHARDSON Pamela I I I . 33s Ο ho. Nephew I are you thereabouts with your Bears? _ 1820 SCOTT Abbot xv, ' M a r r y come up—are you there with your Bears?' muttered the Dragon. 1830 MAR· RYAT King's Own xxvt, As savage as a bear with a sore head. >831 GF.N. THOMPSON Exerc. (1842) I. 48s Not fit to carry garbage to a bear. 1858 Sat. Rev. 7 Aug. 139 You must not sell the skin til! you have shot the bear [cf. I f ] , C. fig. c 1230 Atter. R- 302 J>e Bore I? bere, beove] ofheui SlouhSe haueS )>eos hweolpes. Γ1400 Apol. Loll. 58 £>e bere of glotonie romis a bout, .for to fille pe wombe. 1591 SPENSER Rvines Time (A W h a t nowe is of th' Assyrian Lyonesse? . - What of the Persian Beares outragiousnesse ? 2 . fig. A r o u g h , u n m a n n e r l y , o r u n c o u t h peTson. To play the bear: to behave rudely and r o u g h l y . A l s o in obs. c o l l o q u i a l s e n s e : see q u o t . 1 8 3 2 . 1579 TO.MSON Calvin's Serin. Tim. 473/1 When we haue so turned all order vpsidowne. .there is nothing Imt..play-

I I . 8 . Stock Exchange. A specnlator for a f a l l ; i. c. o n e w h o s e l l s s t o c k f o r d e l i v e r y a t a f u t u r e d a t e , in t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t m e a n w h i l e p r i c e s w i l l f a l l , a n d h e w i l l be a b l e t o b u y i n a t a l o w e r rate w h a t he has contracted to deliver at a higher. Formerly, T h e stock so contracted to be delivered, in t h e p h r a s e ' to b u y ' o r ' s e l l t h e b e a r ; ' s e e b . IAs applied to stock thus sold, bear appears early in 18th c., and was common at the time of the South Sea Bubble. The term ' bearskin jobber,' then applied to the dealer now called the bear,' makes it probable that the original phrase was ' sell the bearskin.' and that it originated in the wellknown proverb,' T o sell the bear's skin before one has caught the bear.' T h e associated BULL appears somewhat later and was perhaps suggested by bear.) a, 1719 Α nat. Change A lley [in N. ft Q. 1876 Ser. v. V I . 118 Those who buy Exchange Alley Bargains are styled] buyers of Bear-skins. 1726 DE FOE Hist. Devil Ufa) Every secret cheat, every bear-skin jobber. b . 1709 STEELE Taller No. 38 r 3 Being at that General Mart of Stock-jobbers called Jonathans . . he bought the bear of another officer. Ibid. Τ s, I fear the Word Bear is hardly to be understood among the polite People; but I take the meaning to be, That one who ensures a Real Value upon an Imaginary Thing, issaid to sell a Bear. 1714 C. JOHNSON Comtry Lasses 1.1, Instead of changing honest staple for Gold and Silver, you deal in Beats and Bulls. 1720 POPE Inscr. Punch Bowl in South-Sea I'ear (Globe ed.) 490 Come fill the South Sea goblet full; The gods shall of our stock take c a r e : Europa pleased accepts the bull, And Jove with joy puts off the bear. 1721 CIUBER Refusal Wks. 1754 I. 41 (front end). And all this out of Change-Alley? Every Shilling, Sir, all out of Stocks, Tuts, Bulls, Rams, Bears, and Bubbles. 1731 BAILEY, To sell a hear [among Stockjobbers], to sell what one hath not.

preparations; b e a r - h o u n d ( = b e a r - d o g ) ; bearl e a d e r , f o r m e r l y a ludicrous n a m e for a travell i n g t u t o r , c f . s e n s e 2 a b o v e ; b e a r ' s - m u c k (see quot.); b e a r - p l a y , rough tumultuous behaviour; b e a r - w a r d e n = BEAR-WAUD; + b e a r - w o l f , a vigoro u s t e r m o f o p p r o b r i u m ; ·)* b e a r - w o r m , o b s o l e t e name of a hairy caterpillar, or ' woolly-bear.' A l s o BEAR-BAITING, -BERRY, -FOOT, -SKIN, -WARD. 1607 TorsELt. Fourf. Beasts 15 O f the * Hear-Ape Arctopithecus. His belly hangeth very low, his head and face like unto a childs. r 1590 in Chatham Misc. V, Maigames, rushbearings, 'bearcbaites. 1583 STANYHURST Epitaphs X59 Thee ' bearbrat boucher thy corps with villenye mangled. 1365 GIILUING Ovid's Met. sin. (1593) 315 A traile ol flowres of * bearhrich. 1736 BAILEY House/t. Diet. 71 *Bears breech or Brank Ursine, is an herb of singular use in physick, f o r . . the gout and cramp. 156« J. HEYWOOD Prrn. φ Epigr. (1867; 194 T h e y put on blacke scrafs, and go like "beare buggis. 1589 FLEMING Virg Eclog. iii. 8 Compassed about the eares with tender *beare-claw (leauesj. 1673 Loud. Gaz. No. 763/4 A Blew blinded *Bear Dog of about three quarters old. 1597 GERARD Her ball ir. cclxii. 640 There be diuers sorts of Mountaine Cowslips, or * Beares eares. 1671 GREW Α nat. Plauts τ. (1682) ρ Sometimes single, as in 'Beares-Ears. c 1350 Will. Paleme 2430 WiJ> hem bojie *bere feiles J>ei bere in here urmes. XM6 J. NOBDF.N Progr. Pietic (1847) 177 And go to the .. "bear-gardens . . where they lose their time, .and offend the laws .. of her majesty. 1687 SETTLE Reft. Dryden's Plays 33 Our " Beargarden Duellers. 1743 WBSLKY in Wks. 1782 I. 439 One of them having been a prize-fighter at the 'bear-garden. i8b3 BRISTED Pcdcst. Tour I I . 543 Squabbles and boxings., rendering the place more like a "bear-garden than a hall of instruction. 1611 COTCR., Ail d'ours, Ramsons Beares garlicke. 1863 PRIOR Plant-n. i j *Bear's-garlick, so called, says Tabcrniemontanus, quia nrsi eo delectantur. 11430 Pallad. on Httsb. I. 838 And evry tole in "beres grees defoule. x6ox HOLLAND Pliny I I . 103 Wild Rose leaues reduced into a liniment with "Beares grease. 1843 THACKERAY Irish Sk. Bk. 11863» 286 A tuft on the chin may be had at a small expense of "bear's grease, by persons of a proper age. 1837 CARLYI.B Fr. Rev. I. HI. i. 80 The Wolfhounds shall fall suppressed, the 'Bearhounds, the Falconry. 1749 H. WALIOI.E Lett. H./latin io»(z834>II. 283 She takes me for his ''bear-leader, his travelling governor. 1846 CLARKE 5n Jrnl. R. Agric. Soc. V I I . 11. 517 T h e 'dead peat,' commonly called " bear's muck.' 1883 Pall Mall G. 14 June, That the university would not degrade itself in the eyes of the visitors by bear-play, 1884 BESANT in Contemp. Rev. Mar. 343 T h e 'bear-warden's fiddle. Χ545 BRINKLOW Complaynt {1874) 80 Turne yourchnuntrics and yourobbetes from the profile of these "berewolues whelpes. 1608 Torsun. Serpents 667 These Caterpillers. . b y reason of their roughnesse and ruggednesse, some call them 'Bear-worms.

C. 1744 Land. Mag. 86 These noisy Devotees were false ones, and in Fact were only Bulls and Bears. 1762 Gentl. Mag. 18 In contracts for tune, he who contracts to sell is called the bear. 1865 Standard 23 Feb., The 1 bear' party at the Paris Bourse plucked up courage to-day. 1881 Chicago Times 30 Apr., T h e bears made a strong fight against an advance. I I I . Comb. Θ . G e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s , c h i e f l y a t t r i b . , a s bear-dante, rfiglit, -hide, -hin, -meat, -ivhelf. rx*30 After. R. 202 pes laste bore hweoJp Is grimmest of alle. Ibid 296 pe deouel is beorekunnes. 1588 SHAKS. Tit. A. iv. i. 96 But if you hunt these Beare-wheipes, then beware: T h e Dam will wake. 1825 SCOTT Betrothed (i860) 349 Streich thyself on the bear-hide, and sleep. 1856 KANE Arct. Exp. II. 311 Bear-meat, seal, walrus. 1859 MASSON Milton l . i v . 1x3 Dancings, bear-fights, cock-fights, etc. 1 0 . Special combinations : + b e a r - a p e , obsolete n a m e o f a n A m e r i c a n a p e (see q u o t . ) ; b e a r - b a i t = BEAR-BAITING ; b e a r - b r a t , c o n t e m p t u o u s e p i t h e t = bear's cub ; b e a r ( ' s ) - b r e e c h , p o p u l a r n a m e o f t h e g e n n s Acanthus, Brank-ursine; b e a r - b u g , v a r i a n t o f BUG-BEAR ; + b e a r - c l a w ( = b e a r ' s b r e e c b ) ; b e a r - d o g · , o n e u s e d in h u n t i n g o r b a i t ing bears ; b e a r ' s - e a r , popular name of the A U RICULA (sense 3 ) ; b e a r ' s - e a r s a n i c l e , h e r b a l i s t s ' n a m e o f Corlnsa matthioli\ + b e a r - f e l l , a bears k i n ; b e a r - g a r d e n , a p l a c e o r i g i n a l l y set apart f o r the baiting o f bears, and used for the exhibition o f o t h e r r o u g h s p o r t s , fig. a s c e n e o f s t r i f e a n d t u m u l t ; b e a r ' s - g a r l i c , p o p u l a r n a m e o f Allium Ursinwn or Ramsons; b e a r ' e - g r e a s e , the l'at o f the b e a r , used e s p . in m e d i c a l a n i l c o s m c t i c

Excerpt 12: Entry bear in OED

80

History and Dictionaries

1.4.9. Conclusion In sum, we get the following picture. While there is no doubt that the whole of Europe was in the sway of historicism in the nineteenth century, still each of these dictionaries is highly idiosyncratic, and each has distinct roots in the cultural tradition of its author and in the needs of the epoch in which it was planned and compiled, as perceived by its author. Grimm, naturally given his time, is the most Romantic lexicographer, because the old language is for him not, as it is for Littre, a yardstick, a means for ascertaining the correctness of the modern form of languages, but it possesses the utmost value per se. However, this Romantiker was at the same time a nationalist who felt it his duty to help establish a modern Standard German or at least to refine it; therefore, he worked into his dictionary a strong component of, sit venia verbo, "language planning" devised to cope with this task: filling lexical gaps, giving normative advice, etc. Littre belongs to a time when Standard French had already been established for a long time, so he did not face the same task as Grimm; true to the French cultural tradition, he tried to preserve the standard and even to improve it by rational and teleological means. History seems to be one of the means, or even the main means, to this purpose; but outside of this purpose, historical data are treated in a positivist way, without any shunning of the occasional clash between the factual and the logical, or reconstructed, history. Both this positivism that sticks to the "facts," or data, themselves, and this teleological rationalism that looks more into the future or into the timeless space of logic than into the past have a self-contained purpose of their own, and per se; therefore, the etymology, the Origo or Point Zero on the line of development, can be, or even must be, relegated to the end of the entry. With Richardson we are in the world of British empiricism, which in his case is more positivistic than positivism: his philosophical basis is the sensualism of John Locke ("concrete senses precede abstract ones"), and his etymology is that of Hörne Tooke (II, 45ff). But in reality, these influences do not extend beyond the short introductory part of each entry, whose bulk is based nearly exhaustively on the tangible principle of the chronological sequence of the contextual attestations from the earliest to the latest without regard to the logical character of their concrete senses. Α positivist decades before positivism, Richardson is also descriptivist a century before descriptivism, admitting no advice or evaluation into the world of 'facts', or data. By my judgement, Home Tooke's type of etymology left no tangible, systematic trace in the OED, irrespective of whether the influence would have been direct or transmitted by Richardson. Naturally, only when the electronic edition of the OED is available will it be possible to check all the etymologies and find out whether one or some of the few wrong ones do not coincide with what we read in either of these sources. On the other hand, I do not perceive any evidence, either, for Hultin's (1986) idea that the OED contains a refutation of Home Tooke's etymological ideas. If we understand the word refutation as "a critical discussion of an idea with a negative conclusion" then certainly the OED does not offer anything like that. After all, when the early volumes of the OED were edited for printing, that is in the 'eighties' and 'nineties' of

History and Dictionaries

81

the last century, the neogrammarian doctrine was the dominating body of ideas in linguistics; why should Murray have tried to kill what had already been dead? With such predecessors, the OED created a successful (and in its day, original) blend of the "factual" history (extended to its full time-span) and of the logical reconstruction of the development of words and their meanings. There was no need to standardize English in the second half of the nineteenth century, so considerations such as those with which Grimm

had to cope were completely unnecessary, and the British educated public, at that point still more tolerant of prescriptive grammar (whose heyday was already past, anyhow) than of prescriptivism in lexicography, would not easily have accepted any teleological or, permitting the anachronism, 'language-planning' advice ά la Littre. So again, a compromise (this time a not-so-original one) was made: descriptive labeling of the status of the entry word (or of its individual senses, types, and cases of usage). There seems to be an interesting distinction here: in those cases where usage (usually by what are called good authors) goes outside of what is the normal range of applications of the word within the respective historical epoch, the usage is labeled as catachrestic; in all other cases, there is no consideration of past history or future development, only a stylistic and sociolinguistic (e.g., "vulgar") synchronic classification, couched not as advice, which the British public might have found obstreperous, pedantic, or supercilious, but as a statement of empirical fact. However, a firm proof of the existence of such a distinction being systematically made in the OED and an assessment of its originality will require a further enquiry. The relation of the OED to Passowian lexicography has already been discussed above. At this juncture a few words need to be said about the Dutch Woordenboek. Professor F. de Tollenaere( 1965) introduces his reflections on the completion of the Deutsches Wörterbuch (and on the plan of its new edition) with the following statement: L'ouvrage des freres Grimm a eu, on le sait, une influence considerable sur la lexicographie historique de XIXC siecle. Presque partout dans les pays de langue germanique, on suivit l'exemple de l'Allemagne: aux Pays-Bas d'abord (1864), ensuite en Angleterre (1884), plus tard encore en Suede (1893) et au Danemark (1919).

Out of these, we have compared the Dutch Woordenboek and the English OED. The Swedish Svenska akademiens ordbok (1893 ff.; see Andreasson 1996) and the Danish Ordbog over det Danske sprog (1919 ff.) are so dissimilar from Grimm that a comparison would be of little interest and usefulness. Indeed it would seem that one has to assume that what Tollenaere means by the "influence considerable" is the inspiration to undertake a similar task as Grimm, not necessarily Grimm's serving as a model for some imitative undertaking. The strongest impression that one gets from all these comparisons is that of Grimm's uniqueness, or rather, idiosyncrasy. As far as his predecessors are concerned, nothing seems to put him into any typological closeness to Richardson. On the contrary, there is a strong similarity between Grimm and Passow in the technique of concatenating the individual, specific senses of a polysemous word by semantic bridges. However, this similarity is rather a similarity of principle, or of intention, not of its implementation. The two methods

82

History and Dictionaries

or techniques are completely different: on the one hand, short adumbrations of semantic bridges, on the other, long, discursive discussions. As far as the dictionaries that chronologically follow Grimm are concerned, we can observe that all of them do have some advisory remarks on usage; that, however, is only a weak feature, because all of them are quite different in style: Grimm has long discussions based on a combination of history and logic, but sometimes simply characterizes something as "undeutsch" (Kühn 1991); Littre has short discussions of prevalently logical and historical character; the Woordenboek has general reflections similar to those of Littre; the OED proceeds by mere labels (see above). Otherwise, this point of similarity that connects Grimm, Littre, and Woordenboek is their concentration on the epoch of language that can be considered as directly continuous with the contemporary idiom; the OED stands here alone with its diachronic span. Older language is also treated in these three dictionaries, but in a more peripheral way; the difference between the three dictionaries consists in the different perspective, or chronological sequence, taken. We have seen that Grimm generally has the sequence that proceeds from past to present, whereas Littre has the reverse one: from present to past. The Woordenboek lacks a unified perspective, in this respect. What sets Grimm completely apart is, of course, his discursive style.

1.4.10. Epilogue The few preceding examples of large monolingual or quasi-bilingual dictionaries of various languages compiled in the last four centuries (sixteenth to nineteenth) have shown us a rich variety of dictionary types and allowed us many glimpses into their development. The Thesaurus Graecae Linguae is a typical dictionary of a dead language, full of philological learnedness. The dictionary of the Crusca can be seen as an attempt to standardize a modern language by relying on the concept of model authors. They were called "good" authors, and later even "authorities;" but in our age, these epithets are hated by some, and their true intention is misunderstood by many, so why not call them "model" authors, since nobody can deny that they effectively were considered and used as such. The dictionary of the Crusca shows the same purely philological method as the Thesaurus - indeed, while the first edition gave Latin translations of the Italian head words, later editions added even Greek ones. The dictionary of the French Academie introduced some quite new elements. On the one hand, the Preface to the dictionary tells us that while it is necessary to go far back, for instance to Demosthenes [384-322 BC] and other ancient authors, if one wishes to have proper models for writing good Greek, one can and must remain in the contemporary world to get acquainted with good French: "our best time is now" is what the academicians do tell the reader, in many more words, of course. The interesting thing is that in a sense they were right: the seventeenth century has always since been considered the Golden Age of French

History and Dictionaries

83

literature. The dictionary of the Academie was, however, not based on the excerption of literary works, contemporary or otherwise, but on the usage in spoken language. In this respect, the Academie imposed a new restriction: instead of the "model," or "good" author, it is the sociolinguistic restriction that forms the basis of the dictionary: the language described is the usage of the honnete homme, i.e., 'the gentleman/ The sycophancy normal in their time (but not only in their time) made the academicians say in the preface that it is the language of the Royal Court at Versailles which is the model, and that ultimately, the final arbiter is the King Himself. In reality, it was the speech of the upper crust of the society that was described. In practical terms, the members of the Academie commented on, completed, or emended, in writing or by debate, drafts of entries prepared by one of them, acting as secretary. One could say with the structuralists that they were the first linguists to act themselves as their own informants; or with the generativists that they used their intuitions as native speakers to grasp their own linguistic competence; unless one wishes to say with Firth that they have completely conflated the language of description with the language under description, handling them both themselves. With all the differences these dictionaries show, they generally stick to similar procedures in the ordering of the senses of polysemous words. They quite naturally tend to consider the etymology or derivation of a word the indication of its original meaning, and they equally naturally tend to glue concrete senses before the abstract and the figurative ones. (That both these methodological principles can lead to misleading results is beside the point in this context.) Given the sensualist character of British empiricism, there is no wonder that both the principles just mentioned found support in the work of John Locke, who combined them into one: the etymon of a word (that is, the element from which the word originated) and the primordial meaning of a word are concrete; the abstract and figurative senses are effected only by later developments. One of Locke's followers, John Home Tooke, then set out to provide as many etymologies of English words as he could; however, living just before a rigorous historical comparative linguistics came into existence, his effort could not be successful. This failure entailed that the etymological effort of Charles Richardson, based as it was on Home Tooke's work, was not successful, either; the more so that his dictionary was published as the rigorous method of etymologizing had already started taking root. Richardson, however, even strengthened the importance of the etymology by the assumption that whatever the (seeming) polysemy of a word may be, the word keeps always the same basic meaning, as revealed by its etymology; therefore, he felt justified in defining the meaning only once for every entryword (with negligible, rare variations in details), because he felt that it sufficed to cover all the polysemous senses and contextual nuances. And it suited his empiricist's preference for the tangible to print the contexts in which the entryword occurs in the chronological sequence of the respective sources. The result is a unique combination of truly positivistic attachment to the factual character of the chronology of manuscripts and books with an attempt to explain the meaning by etymology only, the etymology being based on philosophical reasoning nearly exclusively. In the first part of the nineteenth century, the impact of historical linguistics started

84

History and Dictionaries

being felt. In the work of Franz Passow, this influence had the consequence that he explicitly rejected 'philosophical etymology'. Instead of that, he developed the idea of the Lebensgeschichte des Wortes: a philological attempt to find out when each individual polysemous sense arose and when it disappeared, combined with a linguistic attempt to find out the original meaning by the word's etymology or derivation and to explain the development of the following senses by "semantic bridges." These semantic bridges were most important for the development of historical semantics, usually called Semasiologie later in Germany, and became part and parcel of the method of any etymological dictionary, particularly of the type that is concerned with what the French called so aptly 'histoire des mots'. We were able to perceive how Passowian lexicography reached its peak in Germany and was transferred to England; and how it was later abandoned or weakened, in Germany towards the end of the nineteenth century, in England somewhat later, with the final divorce from it in 1940. The early historical and comparative study of the Indo-European languages (in the early nineteenth century) was still under the influence of Romantic ideas. One impetus towards the creation of this type of linguistics was, of course, Sir William Jones' discovery of Sanskrit in India: the comparative character and the attention paid to the formal side of cross-linguistic comparisons proved to be useful as an efficient brake to far-fetched flights of imagination or fantasy displayed in philosophical etymology. On the other hand, for hatching historical linguistics, the intellectual atmosphere created by Johann Gottfried von Herder's [1744-1803] preference for the ancient over the modern, and by Jean Jacques Rousseau's [1712-1778] favoring the putatively uncouth but sincere, to the supposedly smooth but spoiled by urban civilization was necessary. No wonder, then, that one of the founders of historical comparative linguistics, Jacob Grimm, was still ein Romantiker with a never abandoned preference for the old language and the ancient mores to the modem ones. However, he was able to combine this with powerful attempts to standardize a modern German language in his lexicographic praxis (and with quite radically modernistic views in his politics). Like Richardson, he believed that all the senses of a polysemous word can be reduced to a single, coherent Urbegriff, but his etymologies were, as can be expected, much more acceptable by today's standard than those of Richardson. On the other hand, his way of explaining the coherence of a word's multiple meaning is sometimes much more fanciful than Passow's semantic bridges. In any case, his Urbegriff was not the etymology giving the original meaning, nor a central notion from which all the individual polysemous senses would be derivable, but the sum of the whole multiple meaning of a word. The French dictionary by Littre combines historicism and normativity. Historical considerations are declared to be the basis of normative judgements; but true to the French tradition, Littre is not shy to go against historical data when logical considerations seem to make it mandatory. The Dutch Woordenboek largely uses Littre as its model, but does not allow logic to come into such contrast with history as was the case in Littre. All the three lastly mentioned dictionaries had to cope with the tension of the chronological sequence and of the logical concatenation of the quoted contents. Richardson's example of completely disregarding the polysemy could not be followed. Passow's method is excellent, but one does get the impression that perhaps on the contrary, chronology does not get fully its due. Therefore, all the three dictionaries divide the attested occurrences of an entry word

History and Dictionaries

85

into two chronological groups, one closer to their time, the other more removed. The time limits of the two groups differ from one dictionary to the other and their location in the entry differs as well; but in each of the dictionaries, the chronological arrangement and the degree of detail differ between the two groups. In the OED, Murray succeeded in creating a double articulation of the polysemous entry: semantics governs the primary distribution of the contexts into branches and senses, and within the single branches, the contents are ordered chronologically, the dates starting in each branch "afresh". In particularly extensive entries in which it would be difficult at first glance to grasp in the whole tent what is most relevant for their underlying organization, there is a summative synopsis of the entry's arrangement located at the beginning. There is no grouping of older and more recent contexts: in each semantic "branch," there is only one chronological sequence that usually begins with the oldest enlisting content (within Murray's knowledge) being quoted first. In Murray's time, English already has been a standardized language, so problems such as those with which Grimm had to cope did not arise. Nor is and was the British public so open to normative advice as the French one. Therefore, Murray could avoid some explicit judgements, let alone such that would be followed by the statement of reasons, and could stick to a distinguished tradition of lexicographers who had used labels for various classificatory purposes. Besides other advantages, much space is also saved by the labels. Murray could easily do this, because he knew what his readership would be. He offers no clear statement on this in the dictionary, but there is a source which gives us the information. Clarence Bamhart (1980) published an up to then unknown letter by Murray. A lady asked him about some point of correct pronunciation, to which Murray responded that many words have admissible varieties of pronunciation and that in England such varieties are particularly frequent, and added the remark that "every educated Englishman regards himself as, to a certain extent, the master of his language". Here we have the information that tells us, what we would surmise even without having this proof, namely that "educated" is the key word in the sociolinguistic constraint. While this constraint was quite strong at the end of the last century, it was obviously shared by other lexicographers; only Grimm had expressed his hope that his dictionary will find a broad readership. (In the preface to the dictionary, he gives us an idyllic picture of how on a Sunday the Father takes a volume of the Dictionary, collects his siblings around him, and discusses with them some words and their interesting features, with the mother listening and adding her observations while continuing her work in the kitchen.) In our days, it would seem, the same constraint applies, only the epithet "educated" covers a much broader segment of the population. Murray's points of contact with other lexicographers have already been discussed above. Thus, the nineteenth century was the time when the historical dictionary was considered the dictionary par excellence. In the first half of the twentieth century, the situation remained unchanged: the organization of the entry as a putatively logical-historical sequence of senses was quite normal in large monolingual dictionaries of living languages, even in those without any claim as to their historicity. In this sphere, however, this organizational principle seems to be receding, at least in some languages. Whereas in the first half of our century, only Funk and Wagnall's English dictionary was not based on this principle but on

86

History and Dictionaries

the ordering from the most frequently occurring sense to the least frequent one, a recent analysis by Carla Marello (1982) has shown that out of seven monolingual Italian dictionaries, two organize the sequences of senses on the (putatively) historical-logical principle, two proceed from the direct to the transferred and from the general to the particular senses, and three start with the most common and most frequent sense.41 Thus, it seems that the attractiveness of the logical-historical principle of ordering the entry, or at least of the historical component of it, is diminishing. There is nothing surprising in that: historical considerations are generally less attractive and are considered less important in recent times. Can one dare to think about the future? 42 The modern printing techniques offer the possibility of getting on the market many dictionaries of the same language, specialized by their purpose. The electronic form of information offers even more possibilities of extracting highly specialized information from a rich databank. The problem is not so much in the technicalities of the hardware. The real problem is that in order to get a highly specialized set of data, marked by one or more feature, the data pool in the databank must be tagged, classified for those features. So that the real difficulty will remain where it has been: in developing a system of classificatory categories that could be generally accepted and that could be applied in a more or less identical way by many different persons who will prepare textual material for insertion into the databank, with all the proper tags. But that is another story.

41

Without giving a numerical or perceptual breakdown of the single types, David Gold (1983) discerned seven possible types of ordering, namely 'according to the importance of the senses, in order of their frequency, according to a logical ordering, according to an empirical ordering, following syntactic criteria, following semantic criteria, and in order of historical appearance.1 His preference is for the historical ordering the senses. See also Adrados (1977), Pottier (1978), Heestermans (1979), Geeraerts (1985), Hultin (1986), Schmid (1986) and footnote 25.

42

Concerning a future edition of CCD and its organization, see Lundbladh (1997) andConsidine (1997).

Chapter Two Methods and Trends in Lexiocgraphy

2.1. Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English'

2.1.1. Introduction. Origin of the Term The purpose of this paper is to discuss some connections that exist between pragmatics, lexicography, and selected dictionaries of English. We shall first briefly deal with the development of the term and the notion of pragmatics. Pragmatics ultimately is derived from the Greek wordprägma which means 'deed, act; mental affair, thing'. The plural of this word, prdgmata, means 'circumstances, affair'. While the adjectivepraktikos usually pertains to practical, effective actions,pragmatikos has the meaning 'fit for action, business; statesmanlike'. The noun pragmatike occurs for the first time in the first century BC and is defined as the knowledge of human affairs. From this knowledge of human affairs develops the meaning of the noun pragmatikos 'legal adviser' and the legal term pragmatikos nomos translated into Latin as pragmatica sanctio. It is used in Justinian's code of law (sixth century).

2.1.2. Early History of the Term During the Middle Ages, the term pragmatic sanction referred usually to a decree of the sovereign whose purpose was to serve as a regulative for future action. The eighteenth century still knows the notion in this original meaning. In the Hapsburg territories both in Spain, Western and Central Europe, and then in several successor states after World War I, the reduced term pragmatics referred to various regulations such as civil service rules up to the twentieth century. Besides the Greek legal term, the adjective was used by the Greek Polybius in the important collocation pragmatike' historia, by which he meant 'political history'. It is important to note here that two German philosophers gave the word a somewhat new content. G. W. F. Hegel [1770-1831], writing on the philosophy of history, coined the collocation pragmatische Geschichte. This term was undoubtedly inspired by Polybius but meant a type of historiography that tries to reveal the causes of historic events and their effects. This connection of causes and effects brings the notion of pragmatics very close to * Reprinted from: World Englishes,

Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 2 4 3 - 2 5 3 , 1 9 8 8 a .

88

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English

the perception of purposeful action. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] coined the collocation pragmatisches Denken in order to refer neither to theoretical thinking nor to handling practicalities, but to empirical and purposeful thought based on theory and applying it to experience. It can hardly be doubted that when William James [1842-1910] referred to the American school of philosophical thought, of which he was one of the founders, with the adjective pragmatic, he acted on the basis of this Kantian inspiration. To James, the pragmatic method consisted in trying to interpret each notion by tracing its practical consequences: the attention is focused on the consequences, not on the causes. In this sense pragmatism is concerned with actions and their results. The same attitude can be noticed in another pragmatist, Charles Peirce [1839-1914], for whom "our idea of anything is our idea of its sensible effects": in this quotation, the word sensible must be taken in the meaning of 'observable', 'tangible'. Peirce himself applied pragmatism in his semiotic investigations; the most influential summary of the pragmatic position in semiotics stems, however, from Charles Morris [1903-1979], who in the 1930s distinguished the three branches of linguistics, namely semantics (studying the meaning of linguistic units and patterns), syntax, (studying their combinations), and pragmatics, the study of the problems of what one can do with those units and patterns of language. This division can be considered the foundation of pragmatics as one branch of linguistics. We must also mention here that outside America there was yet another center of similar Neo-Kantian thought, namely the Viennese Circle, of which the physicist Ernst Mach [1838-1916] and the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein [1889-1951] were outstanding members. Strong elements of what we can term pragmatic attitudes can be perceived in the conceptions of the Viennese Circle, which in physics took the point of view that to know how to produce and how to handle substances or "things" is more important than to know their ontological status. This attitude was translated into the logical positivism of Wittgenstein for whom the Sachverhalte, 'states of affairs', were the real object of linguistic reference. This type of philosophy of language went with Wittgenstein to Great Britain and became part and parcel of the teachings of the British logical school of linguistic analysis, philosophy of language, reduction of philosophy to inquiries into everyday speech, or whichever term and name we apply. One of the generationally younger adherents to this school of thought was J. L. Austin [1911-1960], All this prepared the stage for the real emergence of pragmatics, which had two sources. First, the interest transformational grammar gave to the analysis of sentences. We have known since early structuralist days that, while the syntactic pattern of a sentence belongs to what is termed langue, each sentence has strong elements of parole. These elements of parole are largely analyzed as pragmatic components of sentences in our day. The context of situation, the sentence itself making reference to something extralinguistic, its cohesion with the rest of the utterance, the deictic elements which the sentence contains, and its illocutionary and other components of meaning—all these and many other phenomena are not comprised in any analytic type of 'pure' syntax. Therefore an analysis of many concrete sentences—particularly when transformational grammar took into consideration every fine nuance of meaning—necessarily led to the focus being shifted, or channeled, to pragmatic

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

89

aspects of language. The other strong impulse came from the British school or trend of thought. The most important achievement of British linguistic philosophy in this connection was Austin's analysis of the functions of language, in which he was able to add to the functions already discovered, among others, the performative one. This discovery was then further developed by John Searle into the theory of speech acts. Speech acts, with the study of elocutionary and perlocutionary phenomena, became one of the main parts of contemporary pragmatics. Since pragmatics is not yet a branch of linguistics which enjoys a long tradition, it does not have clearly defined boundaries. This is the reason why we occasionally hear criticisms such as that of Nuyts and Verschueren (1987: 4): ... the Anglo-American tradition in pragmatics fully deserved the unflattering label "wastebasket." Its main function was that of repository of whatever did not belong anywhere else in linguistic theories. There may be an element of truth in criticism of this type, but in a general way after perusal of such books as Georgia Green's Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding (1989), or any of the existing published manuals, one can say that the main components of pragmatics are agreed upon. As we have already stated, some of the main components are: speech acts and illocutions (Austin and Searle), deixis (Bar Hillel), presuppositions (Grice), cohesion of text, anaphoricity, cataphoricity, etc. (Dressier, Harweg and Grimes), and some others. In addition to that, particularly in Great Britain, the study of situational context and cultural embedding [e.g., J. R. Firth and Μ. A. K. Halliday; see for further discussion Kachru (1981) and Mitchell (1978)] is taken as belonging to pragmatics or as being close to it. Similar areas of study, all of them concerned with the type of relation to extralinguistic reality and with the mutual relation of the speaker and hearer, are also generally taken as being of pragmatic character. All of these problems and areas of study have old roots, such as the Sophists' study of the functions of language and of the persuasive effectiveness of language. The Stoics' study of semiotics and semantics belongs here, and the rhetorical study of speech forms, figures, and tropes as well. In our day, Kenneth Pike's study of language as embedded in behavior can be seen as verging on pragmatic considerations, and Dell H y m e s ' ethnography of speaking fully belongs to pragmatics. Taken on the whole, today's notion of pragmatics is located more or less exactly in the place where Kant has put it: consideration of empirical consequences, based on theoretical insights. However, the purpose of this paper is not an inquiry into these old traditions but a discussion of several aspects of lexicography where pragmatics makes its influence felt.

2.1.3. Pragmatics and Lexicography Since the dictionary is a text couched in natural language, it possesses pragmatic aspects

90

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English

itself. Some of these so strongly permeate the whole text, i.e. the whole dictionary, that the discussion would require an entire study in itself. One such phenomenon is anaphoricity and cataphoricity. There is no need to emphasize that the whole macrostructure of the dictionary is full of anaphoras and cataphoras, because each cross-reference, each complex entry, is based on them. The dictionary can be and usually is taken by the user as a source of advice, so that we can say with Püschel (1984): "Im Wörterbuch ist alles pragmatisch." On the other hand some, pragmatic aspects are extremely rare; one of them is indexicality. This is because of the abstract character of the dictionary entry, which, unless it is encyclopedic, does not need—and indeed avoids—deixis to a concrete reality. However, occasionally one finds an example of indexicality. The following is an entry from the Greek glossary of Hesychios [sixth century AD], which basically is a dictionary of hard and dialectal words. It is the explanation of the Greek word kraipdle: (which means 'hangover'): kraipäle: he apö te:s khthize:s methe:s kephalalgia. The hard word is explained as the 'headache stemming from yesterday's intoxication.' The word yesterday in the explanation is indexical in spite of the fact that in a non-encyclopedic lexicographic entry there is no today and therefore no yesterday. Naturally, English dictionaries avoid this temporal indexicality and also change the temporal direction in the definition. The key word usually is after-effects of. No doubt that the temporal indexicality is wrong and the definitions in English dictionaries are logically better. However, this example shows us that an adroit use of an indexical expression such as yesterday can add to the easiness of the definition and can even achieve a graphic quality of explanation.

2.1.4. Three Aspects of Pragmatics From among all the possibly relevant topics, we shall choose only three areas for discussion: first, the cultural context and its handling in dictionaries; second, the handling of equivalence in bilingual dictionaries; and third, some problems of definitions in monolingual dictionaries. In each case, only some observations are offered, not an exhaustive discussion. Let us remark, however, that there are two perspectives in these lexicographic matters. On the other hand, there are pragmatic components and effects in the language under description and the various ways that they are treated in dictionaries. Quite another thing is the fact that there are pragmatic components in the language of description: that is, in this case, in the text of the dictionaries. We shall try to concentrate on the second perspective, but the first cannot be completely eliminated.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

91

2.1.4.1. The Cultural Setting In recent years, we can observe that lexicography strongly takes into consideration the culture of the languages described, sometimes in an unprecedented way. For instance, a bilingual dictionary of Zoque (Engel/ de Enge 1987) which has many illustrations, uses them not only to explain peculiarities of Zoque culture to the speakers of Spanish, but also to illustrate cultural items in the other direction. For instance, there is an illustration of a chair, or of a boy buying something in a shop, because objects and situations like these belong not so much to Zoque culture as to the culture surrounding them. Thus, the dictionary not only explains "their" culture to "us," but also "our" culture to 'them': certainly a rather novel attitude in a dictionary of a language of a small, rural group. Welcome as it is, this example is concerned with a rather simple problem that admits of a simple (although novel) solution. Let us turn our attention to a more complicated case. The dictionary of Yolngu-Matha (Zorc 1986) does not contain the words considered sacred by the aboriginal Australian community (in which adult men have the decisive role); these sacred words must not be revealed to women and children under any circumstances. Since the compiler learned these words only on the promise that he would respect the societal restriction, he was faced with a decision: either to follow the descriptive principle of exhaustiveness and relate all his data to scientific investigation, or to keep his word and observe the masculine taboo. It is a sign of respect for foreign culture, stronger nowadays than in previous times, that the compiler chose to keep his promise; the words are listed but enclosed in a sealed envelope (with a warning about this state of affairs) that is deposited in the archives of the School of Australian Linguistics in Batchelor, North Territory. (Communication of Dr. Zorc.) Concerns like this may seem to be pertinent only in the case of cultures we consider exotic, but such an impression is not correct. Cultural considerations play an important role in our society as well. Let us take the case of what Burchfield (1973) called, rightly or wrongly, Guralnikism (coined on the model of Bowdlerism). The reproach of Guralnikism pertains to the circumstance that some dictionaries edited by David Guralnik do not contain entries consisting of racial, ethnic or religious slurs, whereas former dictionaries indicated these words by labeling them with various classificatory and warning labels. The conflict between the descriptive principle of exhaustiveness and respect for cultural values is also present in this situation. Is it to be expected that what is rightly or wrongly called 'Guralnikism' has come to stay or is an ephemeral phenomenon? (In the nineties, the term was forgotten, but certainly not the editorial policy.) The status of four-letter words seems to offer an immediate parallel to this. Not so long ago, four-letter words were not included in the vocabulary of dictionaries because of societal taboo. By now they are present everywhere, with the exception of elementary school dictionaries. This would seem to be a case of the principle of descriptive exhaustiveness taking precedence over taboo; if this is so, then 'Guralnikism' will also evanesce, notwithstanding the taboo. However, it may be that the inclusion of four-letter words in

92

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English

most dictionaries is not so much the triumph of the principle of descriptive exhaustiveness, as a symptom of the societal taboo being dropped. If this is the case, then the editorial policy sometimes called Guralnikism can be expected to stay with us—because that taboo is getting stronger, at least in that part of society which plays a decisive role in our culture.

2.1.4.2. Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary Now to our second topic. The most pragmatically effective equivalent of a word in a bilingual dictionary is a translational one. That is, an equivalent which is the counterpart of the target language lexical unit in all respects: same denotations, same stylistic levels, same collocations, etc. Naturally, cases of such equivalence are few, and a good part of lexicographic theory is concerned with the problem of how to handle partial, incomplete equivalence. Advantageous as the translational equivalent is, it may, however, have problems of its own. The most widely discussed and most noticeable problem is the absence of any equivalent, frequently because of cultural differences. This category comprises not only the so-called culture-bound words, but also differences in the pragmatics and ethnography of speaking; e.g. how to translate French tutoyer into English when thou has been for so long obsolete? There are, however, also other problems of translational equivalence even more anchored in the difference of languages than the preceding case. Let us start with an example. Some lexicographers (Poldauf 1973) maintain, for instance, that since English style is largely based on understatement, a good bilingual dictionary should indicate as equivalents of German gut or French bon not only English good, but also not bad, because of the frequently occurring stylistic litotes. The real problem in this case is posed by the question: shall we indicate functionally identical expressions as equivalents even if their individual parts are not equivalents at all? In several types of lexical units and expressions, this requirement was systematically complied with, at least in some dictionaries. For instance, many dictionaries try to give functional translations of proverbs. The Greek-English dictionary of Liddell-Scott (1940) translates glaukos eis Athenas as 'coals to Newcastle'. By the same token, idiomatic expressions such as kick the bucket are sometimes translated by their idiomatic counterparts in other languages. However, there is a difference in the pragmatics of the lexicographic text: the indication of 'good, not bad' as equivalent of French bon has the advantage that the two English expressions mutually support each other, and 'good' at the same time is a more broadly applicable equivalent. The mere translation 'coals to Newcastle' may be functionally efficient, but it would seem that to inform the user of the dictionary that glaükas eis Athönas literally means 'owls to Athens,' and even more so, to explain to him that the notional meaning is 'to do something superfluous' is at least as important as the indication of the translational equivalence. The whole matter has a certain importance in the context of some approaches to teaching a foreign language. It is sometimes maintained that the Hallidayan principle telling us that

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

93

when we learn a foreign language, we 'learn how to mean in it' is to be taken as an exhortation to induce the student to immerse himself fully in the idiomatic mannerisms of the foreign language and into its whole speech ethnography. While this certainly is correct as the ideal goal of the learning of a foreign language, it would seem that, for the only moderately advanced student, a notional explanation of the more complex lexical units of the language he is learning is as important as the indication of their translational equivalence, because notional understanding gives him more leeway and freedom in his own selection of expressions in the foreign language when he has made greater progress. To stay with proverbs and dicta, both the Latin festina lente 'make haste slowly' and the Greek me:den agan 'don't overdo anything' seem to apply here. One further problem should be mentioned in this context. Comparison of well-translated text is correctly considered a source of good translational equivalents. However, juxtaposing texts, particularly official ones, involves a danger that we shall illustrate by the following example. Railways in Central Europe used to give, and in the un-airconditioned express train coaches still give, the traveller various short instructional texts in several languages. The German text at the windows has always been "Nicht hinauslehnen" (= Do not lean out!). The other languages (e.g., French) expressed the same idea; only Italian says "E pericoloso sporgersi" (= It is dangerous to lean out). The reason for this is clear: for a reasonable Italian, a mere bureaucratic rule is not something to take seriously, let alone obey, so recourse is had to his sense of self-preservation. I think this does not pertain to translation in the usual sense: the functional, communicative equivalence is achieved by using two contexts in two languages as they are used in each of them in identical but non-bilingual situations. Admittedly, to find the boundary between the linguistic equivalence in the narrower sense in its various degrees of freedom and this communicative equivalence is not a simple task. Whatever our attitude to the problem just mentioned, the main thing is to realize that translation is something quite different from comparative lexical semantics.

2.1.4.3. Lexicographic Definitions Let us now talk about what is called the lexicographic definition and what more and more lexicographers are calling the explanation or description of the meaning. Here we shall use the term definition because the terms explanation and description can be taken in a broader way to comprise also examples and other descriptive and explanatory means. We all know that the three main difficulties of lexicographic definitions are: (a) circularity, (b) explaining obscurum per obscurius, and (c) hyperonymic regression. No need to go into details; an example of circularity is given by the following sequence of definitions (the example is taken from a short dictionary for foreigners).

* The text from here to section 2.1.4.3. is adapted from Zgusta 1995a.

94

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English job = work done for money work = a person's job

Some interesting research went into the investigation of circularity, particularly by Nicoletta Calzolari (1977). An investigation of several Italian monolingual dictionaries resulted in ascertaining the average value of steps between the two ends of circularity; a comparison shows that dictionaries differ in the average value of the circularity. Calzolari maintains that circularity ultimately is unavoidable; other investigators think that the only means to avoid circularity is to use restricted vocabulary in definitions: that poses problems of its own into which we do not intend to go. (The main one is the necessity of having undefined primes, or primes defined in non-restricted vocabulary.) An example of explaining what is obscure by something even more obscure is given by the following sequence of definitions: to happen = to take place place = somewhere where something is to take = to get hold of, to carry away The example is taken this time from a dictionary for children, so it is simple; however, in more sophisticated dictionaries the phenomenon frequently occurs as well, only in a more complicated form. Restricted vocabulary is frequently suggested as a remedy for this difficulty. As an example of hyperonymic regression, the following sequence of definitions may be useful: triangle = a polygon having three sides polygon = a closed plane figure bound by straight lines figure = a geometric form (as a line, triangle or sphere) form = the shape and structure of something shape = the visible make-up characteristic of a particular item or kind of items make-up = the way in which the shape or ingredient of something is put together In this type of regression we perceive that the definitions start losing relevance for the original word triangle somewhere between figure and form. This is because the terms triangle, polygon and figure are technical terms within the nomenclature of geometry and are defined within its notional hierarchy; with form, the hyperonyms start belonging to general language and are defined as such. It would be easy to say that the selection of hyperonyms should continue within the notional framework of geometry or mathematics, but that seems not to be possible. The ultimate hyperonyms inevitably are of a general or philosophical nature. Let us imagine (as is undoubtedly the case quite frequently) that a chain of hyperonyms reaches the very high hyperonym matter. For the definition of matter we either have the possibility of a definition like "the substance of which the physical object is composed," which tends to be circular because the physical object will have the hyperonym matter in its own definition, or the chain will continue with

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

95

substance = 'a physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence' and then material = 'the elements, constituents or substances of which something is composed, or can be made',

which is still circular. The other possibility which avoids such an ending in circularity is to define 'matter' as a philosophical term: Matter = the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities;

which is excellent Aristotelian philosophy but tends to be somewhat vague to someone not previously exposed to that type of philosophizing. Another theoretician of lexicography, Josette Rey-Debove (1966), investigated the phenomena connected with this regression and reached the similar conclusion that a series of constantly higher hyperonyms will reach the area of either philosophy (metaphysics) or the realm of general vagueness. One monolingual English dictionary tries to help the user in many of these respects and to make definitions easier for him, namely the Collins COBUILD (1987). For our purposes, it is interesting that many of the means applied in order to achieve this goal are of a pragmatic nature. We shall mention at least some of them in this preliminary analysis of this interesting dictionary. The first area of pragmatic means is an intensive use of indexicality. Let us peruse, for instance, the following definitions: If you build up someone's trust, confidence, etc., you gradually make them more confident and trusting. If you build

up a person or thing, you tell people that the person or thing is very

special or important. To build

someone up also means to cause them to be their normal weight again after

they have been ill. When a piece of land is built up, a lot of houses are built on it.

In the first place, we see from these examples that this type of defining has the great advantage of displaying the syntactic pattern of the entry word immediately in the definition. Also, this type of definition largely avoids the use of hyperonyms, thereby avoiding their difficulties just mentioned. It has been mentioned above that indexicality is rare in most dictionaries. Perhaps the most frequent exception to this general observation consists in the indexical you sometimes used in dictionaries [Stein (1987) has excellent examples from Palsgrave's [d.1554] FrenchEnglish dictionary of 1530]. If we consider the way that the you is used in the above definitions, we cannot avoid the impression that its indexical use establishes a closer contact between the text and the user than is the case with the normal type of definition. There is some intimacy in that you of the same type as that created by yesterday in the definition of

96

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English

'hangover' in Hesychios, as mentioned above. Naturally, the deictic you has its pitfalls. For instance, we read in the entry word rain in the COBUILD dictionary: If you say that it is raining cats and dogs, you mean that it's raining very heavily.

It would seem that if somebody says something, he probably knows what that something means, so the deictic you is addressed to someone who does not need the explanation! If we wish to use that deictic you, the definition should probably say something like "if you hear it said that it's raining cats and dogs, the speaker means..." etc. Another difficulty created by the you is perceivably the area of offensive language. The area the dictionary considers inoffensive, or not indelicate, is rather broad; so, for example, the you is not avoided in the following definition: turn-on.

Something or someone that is a turn-on

makes you feel sexually excited.

However, the you is avoided in definitions of sexual words of a stronger caliber. The same applies to terms of vituperation and abuse. In this area the dictionary also tries to keep up the cozy relation between itself and the user by not using the indexical you·, e.g. if someone calls someone else a bastard they are referring to them or addressing them in an insulting way.

Here we can observe the avoidance of the indexical you but at the same time we see another disadvantage of the indexicality: since the "odious him" etc. is avoided and the asexual plural they/them is preferred, the two identical pronouns are used with different indexical or referential values. Let us follow up this line of thought by having a few more examples of indexical and referential difficulty in definitions of this type. Under the entryword boy, we read the following definition: someone's son whether they are a child or a man can be referred to as their b o y .

Here it probably takes the user of the dictionary a while to disentangle the anaphora of the two pronouns. (Most interestingly, the lexicographer puts the taboo on the 'odious he' even when it is anaphoric to 'son'.) Another example is from the entry for 'turn', under the sixth definition: where a road, path, a river, etc. turns, it has a curve in it.

Again it seems that the identity of the two pronouns will cause some difficulty to the user; after all, COBUILD wishes to be considered a learners' dictionary. Be this as it may, we can generally say that the indexical use of the pronoun you can be understood as a deliberate attempt at establishing a direct, more intimate contact between the dictionary and the user. However, the referential and anaphorical functions of deictic pronouns are sometimes not immediately self-evident, so that the dictionary must rather heavily rely on the user's abilities to interpret the indexicality. Let us now turn our attention to other problems of the definition as we spoke about them above. Let us consider the following sequence of definitions. (The entryword under which

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

97

they are quoted is always located at the beginning of the definition.) If you turn part of a piece of cloth or paper in a particular direction, you fold it. If you fold

something such as a piece of paper or cloth, you bend one part of it so it

covers another part. When you bend something long and thin, or flat, you make a curved or angular shape in it by applying force to it. Angular

directions are directions or movements which are straight but not horizontal or

vertical.

We can see that the dictionary reaches and attains a certain easiness in the wording of definitions by their informality and by avoiding strict hyperonyms in the narrow sense of the term. However, we see that a series of definitions tends to reach a certain vagueness after a few steps, just as in other dictionaries. On the other hand, circularity is avoided with great care. To have a direct comparison with the example discussed above, let us consider the following: Triangle

= a flat shape that has three sides and three angles.

Shape = the shape of a physical object or area is the way that its outside edges join each other, for example, whether they are straight or curved.

It would seem that the informal coziness of this sequence and the avoidance of technical terminology is paid for by a certain inexactitude: or is shape really determined only by the way its edges join? The price which one pays for the easiness of the definition frequently consists in the necessity of coping with less than absolutely exact formulations. So for instance: Infer, if you infer that something is the case you decide that it is true on the basis of information you already have.

This is a definition formulated with the purpose of being easy, but naturally one can do inferential conclusions also with other questions in mind than whether something is true or not; so the easiness of the definition is paid, compensated for by its narrowness. A similar case: Rebuke: If you rebuke someone, you speak severely to them because they have said or done something that you do not approve of, e.g. She often rebuked David for his authoritative attitude to his clients.

Clearly, the example is good, when judged by the standard of this genre of definitions. It is interesting to note, however, that the definition is founded on pragmatic assumptions; namely, on the assumption that the user of the dictionary will have the normal English speaker's presuppositions. This is so because the definition gives as the reason for rebuking what is said or done, whereas the example gives attitude as the reason for rebuking; the user of the dictionary must have the chain of presuppositions which tell him that an attitude

98

Pragmatics, Lexicography and Dictionaries of English

implies things said and done, or their pragmatic equivalent. The dictionary deliberately expects the user to use his knowledge of the language, his knowledge of the world, and his ability to make logical conclusions in order to get over necessary inaccuracies in intentionally easy definitions and similar phenomena. A few other examples: A pyramid is an ancient stone building which was built over the tombs of dead kings and queens, especially in Egypt. Pyramids have triangular walls that slope upwards and inwards to a single point. A building

is a structure with a roof and walls.

A structure

is something that has been built or constructed, especially a large building.

Since a pyramid has no roof, the definition of its hyperonym, building, is wrong, or else pyramid is not a hyponym of building. Let us also note that the word something in the definition of 'structure' is the outcome of the policy to avoid hyperonyms. In short, the dictionary relies on the user's knowledge of the world and on his presuppositions; this reliance is taken as a lesser evil than a bulky, cumbrous definition.

2.1.5. Conclusion All this shows that the COBUILD dictionary is largely based on pragmatics. It is not only the fact that it is the first dictionary whose methodological accompaniment (Sinclair 1987) contains an explicit section on pragmatics in which the user is told how performative verbs, particles, and other pragmatic elements of the language under description (in this case, English) are handled in the dictionary. What we have in mind is rather the fact that this COBUILD dictionary makes a deliberate attempt to be as user-friendly as possible. This user-friendliness is revealed by such policies as, for example, the use of the indexical you in order to create an intimate contact with the user, and in avoiding the 'odious he' in order not to alienate at least a part of the readership, which may put a cultural taboo on it. But above all, this user-friendliness finds its expression particularly in the easy way of defining and exemplifying, of which several examples are given above. I do think that this user-friendliness is possible only because it is a dictionary for an adult who is supposed to have the necessary presuppositions and knowledge of the world, i.e. who has the pragmatics of language as a part of his linguistic competence. Finally, let us mention yet another interesting thing. In past years much effort went into using existing monolingual dictionaries for building thesaurus systems, informational retrieval systems, and knowledge of the world systems, usable for various computationally operated tasks, within the realm of artificial intelligence and similar undertakings [see, for example, Amsler (1984a, b)]. These efforts to use definitions offered by monolingual dictionaries for building such systems were founded on the largely true observation that those definitions with their chains of hyperonyms, synonyms, co-hyponyms, antonyms, and other features

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

99

are structured systems of data in which gaps and other overlappings are unwelcome and presuppositions largely excluded. On the other hand, it would be difficult to use the COBU1LD dictionary for such a purpose, because of the user-friendliness described above and the informality it entails. If the COBUILD style proves attractive and if monolingual dictionaries for human users generally follow this style, we shall have the interesting situation in which dictionaries constructed for the human user will take into consideration human abilities and will therefore allow themselves to be less exact and less explicit, whereas dictionaries constructed for machine use will not be able to allow themselves such licenses. In this way a situation may develop in which dictionaries for computational use will have to be more strictly constructed than the user-friendly dictionaries for human users. Computational handling of pragmatics, or rather, building pragmatic components into computationally operated systems will, at least in my judgment, prove even more difficult than handling semantics.

2.1.6. Epilogue We cannot resist at this juncture of this postprandial presentation to mention the following extraordinary case. In the second paragraph of the entry, triangle is defined as 'a place or object which is shaped like a triangle', and one of the two illustrative examples is: "I met friends in Plac Zamkowy, a cobbled triangle dominated by a statue of King Zigismund."

It is certainly an extraordinary thing to have to know the topography of Cracow (unless my memory fails me and it is Warsaw) to really appreciate the illustrative context—and to have some Polish to understand that Plac Zamkowy = 'Palace Square'.

100

Lexicography and Linguistics

2.2. Lexicography and Linguistics*

2.2.1. Some Branches of Linguistics and Lexicography There are many areas where linguistic research can be useful to lexicography; however, this usefulness is of a different kind and degree in each area. I am purposely talking about linguistic research, not about linguistics - particularly not about what was termed general linguistics and what is now frequently called theoretical linguistics, which largely or even mainly consists in the construction of theories, or models of language that help linguists to better understand its functioning, development, etc. On the contrary, lexicography is typically concerned with the handling of large masses of information. Nevertheless, linguistic theories, or approaches, are important to lexicography: who could deny the usefulness of, for instance, structuralism for modern dictionaries and the resulting improved treatment of semantically related words, because the idea of mutual delimitation was accepted? However, as this example shows, the immediate usefulness of a linguistic theory to lexicography starts when it is applied to large masses of data.

2.2.1.1. Phonetics and Phonology The point should be made that in each case lexicography must handle the data supplied by linguistics in its own way. The simplest illustration of this principle is found in phonetics and phonology. Leaving aside the more theoretical approaches, such as binarity, or underspecification, which either have been abandoned in the meantime or have not yet spread into the applied fields, one can say that there are quite efficient ways of devising spellings and orthographies (either more phonological or more phonetic) in languages not yet reduced to writing, and also of indicating pronunciation. Still, the editors of every new dictionary must make new decisions of their own as to which presentational possibilities to choose; and we all know that these may range, in the area of pronunciation, from the IPA system with its modifications up to imitations of English spelling. The concern for the user (qua consumer or buyer) makes consideration of this type necessary in commercial lexicography. However, the assumed user's preferences and putative abilities should be taken into consideration when the manner of presentation of any type of information in the dictionary is being

* Editorial note: In this article, passages from the following articles have been used: "Probable future developments in lexicography," in Dictionaries: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography, Vol. Ill, 1991c, edited by F. J. Hausmann, Ο. Reichmann, Η. Ε. Wiegand, and Ladislav Zgusta. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 3158-3168; "Lexicography, its theory, and linguistics"; in, Frawley (1992/93), 130-138; "Lexicography for the twenty-first century (paper of guest lecturer)"; in, Sibayan/ Newell 1992/1994, 3-15; and "Some developments in lexicography, past and present: (invited paper read at he Copenhagen Symposium on Lexicography, 1998a.)

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

101

decided. On the other hand, a sequence of dictionaries that use, e.g., IPA for English, can do much for the 'education' of the public, as the example of British dictionaries would seem to show. Far more important problems arise, however, when a language is to be reduced to writing for the first time and orthography is to be established. The methodological foundations of such reductions of languages to writing are usually the traditional ones, as specified particularly by Kenneth Pike (Phonetics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Publications, 1947), sometimes modified in details as made necessary by the various phonological approaches.

2.2.1.2. Morphology The least problematic area of overlap between lexicography and linguistics is probably, in Western linguistics, the description of morphology. Both the regularities and irregularities of inflection have the oldest tradition, paralleled by the equally old tradition of their presentation in dictionaries. By now, even such languages as Eskimo, which are extremely complicated morphophonemically and morphologically, pose no particular problems to linguistics or to lexicography, as examples such as the Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary (Kari 1990), the Analytical Nahuatl Dictionary (Karttunen 1983), or the Concise English and Hopi Lexicon (Albert and Shaul 1985) show. Derivational morphology, however, causes more difficulty, but not so much because of the competition of more abstract (e.g., ΜΓΓ-inspired) models with more concrete, traditional ones. The difficulty is seemingly more pedestrian in its nature, mainly how to present derivational groups, i.e., in straight alphabetical order or in nests? The same problem arises when the derivational processes are based on prefixes; in that case, the straight alphabetical sequence puts the derived entry words at even greater distance from the root.

2.2.1.3. Syntax Considered from the point of view of lexicographic needs, syntax has been developing extremely well lately (particularly since the Generative Semantics of McCawley and his associates of the late sixties and early seventies [e.g., McCawley 1968]). As in the day of Apollonius Dyscolus and in the philology of the 19th century, syntax by now is studied not only as abstract patterns of sentences, as mere Satzbaupläne, reflecting the logic and semantics of what is to be said; but also, in connection with the lexicon, the idea of subcategorization of lexical units is of paramount importance in any type of contemporary syntax, whether of the Government and Binding, the Generalized Phrase Structure, or the Functional types, although the terms may vary from one creed to another. This is the

102

Lexicography and Linguistics

development on this side of the Atlantic; in Europe, the theory of valences and other linguistic approaches have never allowed a complete dissociation of the lexicon from syntax. In any case, it is the lexicographer who decides how much of the body of knowledge gained by a new linguistic approach, and in what form of presentation, will go into the dictionary. Thus, we see that there is no sharp line between linguistics and lexicography. A symbiosis or at least cooperation of the two is necessary, and not only in one direction; there is no doubt that a good dictionary supplies information that an individual native speaker's intuition may be lacking or would be slow to supply. In some areas, the symbiosis is so intimate that it would be hard to pinpoint where the dividing line is. One such area is the creation and maintenance of huge lexicographic databases. Indeed, the excerption of sources, whether automatic or not, and the classification, storage, and retrieval of the material are typically lexicographical enterprises. However, for one to be really successful as a computational lexicographer, it is necessary also to be a linguist, to be able to find new subcategories of the material and their intersections. Establishing and tagging such new subcategories (and not only the lexico-syntactic ones) generates more new information to be possibly used in the dictionaries derived from that database, rather than merely endlessly amassing further attestations of what already is well known. All aspects of the areas normally represented by labels of all kinds belong here.

2.2.1.4. Sociolinguistics To what extent can sociolinguistics be useful to lexicography? The main achievement on the linguistic side is the establishment of rich parameters of variation and the correlation of some of them to societal differences. However, that the lexicographer must make his own selection out of this repertoire of classifications is even more obvious here than in the other fields, because the type of dictionary planned, its purpose, and its supposed readership have a prime influence on these decisions. Also, society changes constantly and so do linguistic categories correlated to society. To this it must be added that stylistic and similar judgments are more personal than many other ones. In sum, I do not believe that a creative lexicographer who writes a new dictionary (which excludes the many compilations that come into existence by, for instance, a quick, mechanical reduction of a larger dictionary into a smaller one) could simply take over diatopic, diastratic, diaphatic, and similar classifications from a (socio)linguistic investigation and apply them without any further ado. As a consequence, a linguist interested in lexicography and the lexicographer are not and should not be locked in adversarial positions, but on the contrary, in positions of mutual support. Sometimes the two have a symbiotic existence in one Janus-faced body: who will split, e.g., Igor Mel'cuk into a linguist on one side and into a lexicographer on the other? Nor should an achievement in one of the two fields be valued more highly than in the other. To take an outstanding example, was the Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia (Whitney and Smith 1911) a lower caliber achievement than Whitney's A Sanskrit Grammar ... (1879)? (True, the latter is still used whereas the former is not, but that testifies more to the

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

103

slower progress of the knowledge of a dead language and to the absence of change in it.) Naturally, there are less-than-outstanding, imitative, epigonous persons and works in lexicography. But so are there also in linguistics.

2.2.2. Some Linguistic Schools of Thought Up to now we have discussed some branches or subdivisions of linguistics, and their relations to lexicography. Let us now turn our attention to some linguistic methodological approaches, or schools of thought.

2.2.2.1. Historicism Lexicography entered the twentieth century under the sway of historicism, which had prevailed during the greater part of the nineteenth century. Some of the voluminous dictionaries which had been started in the nineteenth century were finished only in the twentieth; this was the case with, e.g., Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch (1854 et seqq.), Murray's New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, usually called the Oxford English Dictionary (1884 et seqq.), and a number of others. Historicism prevailed, however, not only in lexicography. For instance, even a scholar not primarily interested in historical linguistics such as J.O.H. Jespersen [1860-1943] conceived of his monumental English grammar (1909) as based on the historical development of English. The dominant position of historicism was strengthened by the circumstance that where real historical knowledge was absent, either completely, because texts written in the older forms of the language in question were unknown or not yet interpreted, or partially, because some lexical units of the language had no known occurrence in old texts, there the lexicographers tried to present what the sense of logic suggested as the most probable development of the entryword's individual meanings. This method is used to this very day. No doubt John Locke's doctrine concerning the development of abstract senses from concrete ones added weight to this method; but it can be shown that the method itself, which we can call historico-logical, was already used long before Locke by earlier lexicographers such as Henricus Stephanus (1572), and continues in use down to our times, particularly where a gap in textual attestations creates a silence that can be bridged over only by analytical reasoning and logical deliberations. The historico-logical method of arranging the senses within the entry of a polysemous entryword can be traced back to the first dictionaries (mostly bilingual) that offer a rich documentation of the entryword's senses and their occurrences, for example, the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (Henricus Stephanus, 1572). This method received its philosophical background, if not its ideological character, from John Locke', who changed it into an explicit, well-argued philosophical concept.

104

Lexicography and Linguistics

2.2.2.2. Structuralism One would expect structuralism to have exercised an influence on lexicography: after all, the general notion that a language as a whole forms a system whose every component is connected to the whole system, and in particular the Saussurean notion of valeur, that is, the idea that every component of language (e.g., the word) is delimited by its next adjacent paradigmatic neighbors would be easily grasped in structuralist terms. (So, for instance, in a group of synonyms, the meaning and stylistic value of each is delimited by the rest of them.) In reality, partial studies of synonyms from this point of view came only with the lexicological research of Jost Trier (1931,1973). The fact that compilation of important, original dictionaries is an undertaking that requires considerable time before their fruition is one reason for the delay in the structuralist impact on lexicography. On the other hand, it is also true that de Saussure's [1857-1913] Cours was published in 1916, when scholarly contacts were much hampered by World War I. There were some additional circumstances. It is well known that the linguistic school of Kazan developed ideas of a strongly structuralist character even before that. For instance, one member of the Kazan school, Jean Baudouin de Courtenay, developed an approximate understanding of what was later called by N.S. Trubetzkoy [ 1890-1938] (1939) phonology, in such a way that he came very close to the notion of the phoneme in de Saussure's sense. In addition, this scholar was not just interested in lexicography, but indeed was a practicing lexicographer: he reworked the Russian dictionary (1903) of Dal' [1801-1872]. Again, he undertook this project on the basis of principles that can be considered structuralist, such as his striving to present a description of the whole Russian lexicon, with all the stylistic and social variants. This brought him onto a collision course with the Russian authorities, because Russian dictionaries did not admit any words considered substandard. When at the end of World War I Baudouin de Courtenay, being of Polish origin, returned to reconstituted Poland, his lexicographic efforts met with the same objections as in Russia, along with a few additional ones (e.g., his intention to involve Yiddish in his lexicography was not welcome). De Courtenay's main trouble consisted, to put it bluntly, in his defying an important, if unenlightened, sector of the society, Russian and Polish, of his time, which did not wish to have obscenities and vulgarities included in dictionaries, or foreign expressions and borrowings for that matter, even if they were frequently used in spoken language. This societal taboo has been broken and abandoned by now; indeed it can be expected that dictionaries that will contain most of the vocabulary present in the belles-lettres of the seventies and eighties will be more than saturated with highly descriptive sexual terms on all levels of style and emotionality, and with similar lexical material. However, a new societal taboo seems to be developing, namely the ban on ethnic and racial slurs. The parallel of the earlier sexual taboo seems to tell us that the reasonable thing to do is to include these expressions according to the frequency of their use, but to use suitable labels and comments to inform 1

About a possible influence exercised by John Wilkins on the development of the historico-logical method, see Dolezal 1995 .

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

105

and warn the user of the dictionary. The problem of so-called politically correct language is broader; it will probably be reasonable to wait and see whether the mostly euphemistic expressions like intellectually challenged instead of retarded or ungifted, visually challenged instead of blind, and young lady/woman instead of girl will take root in general language. Owing to the circumstances described above, Saussurean structuralism had some influence on lexicography only when the Prague School, mainly through the work of its one-time member Roman Jakobson, succeeded in spreading a holistic or systemic view of language (unfavorable to a total ban on nonliterary words), accompanied by a weakening of the puristic attitudes. In Prague itself, these ideas were applied in concrete lexicographic projects only after World War II.

2.2.2.3. Danish Structuralism The second main branch of European structuralism met with similar difficulties: the English translation of the main work, Prolegomena to a theory of language (1961), of the founder of the school, Louis Hjelmslev [1899-1965], was published as late as the post-World War II era, so it was only with the works of Bernard Pottier (1978), Jean Dubois (1971), Alain Rey (1965), Josette Rey-Debove (1971), and Bernard Quemada (1968) that Hjelmslev's ideas took root and exercised a strong influence on lexicography in France. Since works concerning the theory of lexicography were considered to be of lexicological character, the first journal that systematically deals with lexicographic problems and allots most of its pages to them is called Cahiers de lexicologie.

2.2.2.4. Valences, Collocations Lucien Tesniöre [1893-1954] was a French linguist who was close to the Hjelmslevian ideas. He was not in the field of lexicography, but his theory of syntax (1953, 1959) was relevant to it. As is well known, his is the notion of valences, the obligatory and optional syntactic accompaniments of the verb in a sentence. An example of obligatory valences involves the verb to put: *He puts the book. *He puts on the table. *He puts the book every day. These sentences are ungrammatical. However, He puts the book on the table. is grammatical. Hence, the verb to put requires the direct object and the adverbium loci as obligatory accompaniments.

106

Lexicography and Linguistics

This type of study is, of course, the nucleus of the syntactic patterns as they are indicated in modem dictionaries, particularly those with pedagogical purposes, and of the contemporary study of what is called subcategorizations — not to mention that it serves as direct inspiration to the harvest of German Valenzwörterbücher, the most recent of which is Sommerfeldt & Schreiber (1996). The type of lexicography inspired by Igor Mel'Suk (1974), Mel'cuk et. al. (1984), and Mel'cuk & Zolkovsky (1984) is to date the greatest refinement of the theory and praxis of valences. J.R. Firth [1890-1960], a British linguist who was not attached to any contemporary school of thought, pursued a similar line of thinking. He called the syntactic relations obtaining among the individual components of a sentence colligations. While this idea and term had many competitors, his other term, collocation, became one of the main components of any theory of lexicography (1968).

2.2.2.5. Frequency of Occurrence If we cross the Atlantic to look for important lexicographic innovations, we probably have to stop first at the unabridged edition2 of Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1928). The innovation introduced in this dictionary is that the sequence of senses in the entry is not of the historical and logical character mentioned above, but is based on the frequency of occurrences of the word in the respective senses. This is an important innovation, particularly for the bilingual dictionary, because the notion of the most frequently occurring sense of a word clearly overlaps with the notion of the dominant sense; in any case, these are the meanings the users of bilingual dictionaries are probably seeking most frequently. (Probably, we say, because there are no empirical quantitative data.) No wonder that Carla Marello's (1989) research has shown that during the 20th century, the proportion of dictionaries organized in this way has been on a constant increase. Still, there are some aspects of this organizational principle that need to be considered. For instance, it must be noticed that there are nouns and verbs in various languages whose forms do not much differ from one another; in English, many such pairs have an identical form. In many English dictionaries, particularly the smaller ones, such pairs are treated in conflated entries. (The COBUILD dictionary [1987] is a particularly appropriate example of this procedure.) However, the dominant senses of the two members of the pair are sometimes 2

The term unabridged in the titles of some American English dictionaries is frequently misconstrued as if it were the dictionary's aim to comprise all the words of the language. In reality, the term asserts that the edition thus described has not been produced by abridgement of a larger one. For instance, if we consider the Oxford English Dictionary, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, only the OED is 'unabridged' in this sense of the word, all the other editions having come into existence through abridgement, irrespective of textual changes, and inserted additions and supplements, sometimes quite extensive.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

107

different; e.g., comfort (noun) has the dominant sense of 'well-being', whereas the verb refers rather to consolation.

2.2.2.6. American Structuralism

American structuralism did not have much interest in the lexicon, not to mention lexicography: like syntax, the lexicon is too unruly an area of language to be attractive to scholars who are mostly interested in regular patterns. This characterization pertains to the mainstream of American structuralism as represented by figures such as Leonard Bloomfield [ 1887-1949], Bernard Bloch [1907-1965], Charles C. Fries, and Zelig Harris. However, structuralism never was a unified body of thought, so it comes as no surprise that the disciples of Kenneth Pike [1912-2000], mostly associated with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (an institution attending to the linguistic education of future missionaries and Bible translators), went their own way and constantly published dictionaries of Amerindian and other languages. This divergence notwithstanding, the attitude of mainstream American structuralism was as described in the first sentence of this paragraph. This attitude was, if not shattered, certainly modified by the conference that took place in 1960, the papers from which were published by Householder & Saporta (1962). The most important upshot of the conference, it may be claimed, was the principle, firmly anchored in lexicography ever since, that every dictionary — and particularly those prepared for use (any use) by the nonnative speaker — must contain grammatical information. This conclusion was reached particularly because most American structuralists had some experience in the study of Amerindian and other similarly poorly known languages, cases in which one could not presuppose some minimal knowledge of grammar at the user's disposal.

2.2.2.7. Pedagogical Dictionaries

The same epoch, the late forties and fifties, brought the first principled restriction of dictionaries for pedagogical purposes: the important researcher in the area of the psychology of learning Edward L. Thorndike [1874-1949] undertook statistical studies of the growth of the vocabulary of children in different grades of school, which were the basis of various dictionaries for use at different ages in school, some of which were published with the cooperation of, or independently by, Clarence Barnhart [1900-1993]. The best known product of this type of approach is the College Dictionary (Barnhart 1997). This dictionary, whose intended user level is indicated in the title, was published in several editions. One of the latest works that continue this tradition of dictionaries aimed at native speakers, and that contain a particularly great number of hard words and some encyclopedic information, is Webster's ... New Collegiate Dictionary, a product of Merriam-Webster in Springfield, Massachusetts. The blank space in the title is to be filled in with the number of the edition;

108

Lexicography and Linguistics

mine is the ninth (Mish 1983), but there is already a tenth edition, and certainly more will follow. Naturally, there existed at the same time dictionaries in other languages that displayed a similar focussing on a certain purpose. For instance, any edition of the Petit Larousse Illustre (1973, e.g.) shows a close typological similarity to the American collegiate dictionary. However, the distinctive difference marking the American dictionaries consisted in their being based, if in some cases only remotely, on empirical studies of the growing vocabulary of a student who is a native speaker of the language. While the main concern of this type of dictionary was the appropriate selection of vocabulary, the British initiative of A.S. Hornby turned attention to the nonnative learner of English and his need to obtain information about grammar, particularly about the entry word's syntactic patterns (colligations, as J.R. Firth would call them) and its collocations, as we have already mentioned above. His Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Hornby 1963) was constructed for this purpose, to offer this information. We are all aware of the success of Hornby's idea, gauged by the new editions of his dictionary, by the number of dictionaries pursuing the same purpose, and by the fact that the main collocation in its title has become the generic term for the new type of dictionary. With this development, a certain cycle is closed. It was one of the tenets of American structuralism that regularities, i.e. regular properties and regular behavior of words, belong to grammar, whereas the idiosyncrasies of lexical units belong to the dictionary. This was a remote outgrowth of Aristotelian syntax, which was based on, or at least intimately connected with, logic: the grammatical syntactic pattern was understood as corresponding to the structure of the logical proposition, and words were conceived of as fillers of the slots. But Apollonius Dyscolus already in the 2nd century A.D. knew that the distinction is blurred, that the selection of one syntactic pattern from among several competing for the same purpose can in itself be an idiosyncratic property of one of the crucial words in the sentence. This development is perhaps best observable in American post-structuralist dictionaries not belonging to the learner's dictionary type, such as Karttunen's (1983) dictionary of Nahuatl, Matisoff's (1988) dictionary of Lahu, Kari's (1990) dictionary of Ahtna, and Newell's (1993) dictionary of Batadlfugao, to name only a few most recent ones. They all contain copious grammatical information, mostly both in the front matter and within the entries.

2.2.2.8. Post-structuralism Post-structuralist American linguistics has been dominated by what is called transformational grammar, which later itself was transformed into quite a number of various schools of related but strongly differentiated thought. The cycle through which American structuralism passed seems to have been repeated once more: at first, research concentrated on syntax and phonology only, but already in the sixties there was a body of research called Generative Semantics (James McCawley, as mentioned above, being the principal figure in the development), whose main interest is expressed in the name. Generative Semantics tried to

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

109

"generate" the lexical meaning of, say, "kill" from "to cause" and "not live"; or "murder" from "kill" (i.e. "to cause" and "not live") and "intentionally". In the dendrophile fashion of early Transformational grammar, the relations of such constituent elements were indicated by a generative tree. Such were the modest beginnings; attention, however, later turned to the syntagmatic properties of words. Today, any student of syntax will do research in what is usually called subcategorizations (Grimshaw 1992), which are something like valences, i.e. richly developed descriptions of the syntactic and collocational properties of individual words. Useful as this research is for our purposes qua lexicographers, it carries all the characteristics of post-structuralist linguistics, of which the one most awkward to the lexicographer is the absence of works exploring a broader area of language, not a few words only. The fact also seems to be ignored that many a feature of various subcategorizations could quite easily be found in any better, modern dictionary. And Thomas Kuhn (1962) has made such an impression on many a scholar belonging to this trend that they usually fail to take cognizance of publications not originating within their group (which is usually delimited pretty narrowly); hence the frequent talk about differing paradigms. However, the mere fact that this semantic interest has developed is highly welcome. Among the pertinent publications, broader areas of the lexicon are covered in a penetrating way in the works of Carl Pollard & Ivan Sag (1987, 1994) and Ray Jackendoff (1977, 1987, 1990, 1992). Of great value for lexicography is frame theory, particularly as developed by Charles Fillmore. The theory, among other things, conceives of the meanings of words or the senses of their multiple meanings, as anchored in - and, therefore, also disambiguated by - not only semantically related words, but also the elements of the situations in which (or in reference to which) they are used. See particularly Fillmore (1977) and the general survey by Wegner (1989).

2.2.3. Some Contemporary Achievements and Trends We shall now discuss several dictionaries and theoretical works that are important in the line of thought presented here.

2.2.3.1. The COBUILD Dictionary The arrival of the learners' dictionary brought about what one could call the user-friendly definition. We all know that as of now, the COBUILD dictionary embodies the greatest effort at definitional user-friendliness. I have discussed elsewhere (Zgusta 1988a) the individual features of this user-friendliness. The one feature of the COBUILD style that most obviously leaps to the eye is the indexicality of the text, which, among other things, involves the reader as if in direct discourse. When we write in Latin, this style is quite normal; one says, for instance, 'si tabulam acutissimis oculis tuis inspicis, doctissime lector, non te fugiet...',

110

Lexicography and Linguistics

that is, 'if you look at the map with your very sharp eyes, most learned reader, you will not fail to see...'. In English, however, one would say, in a highly impersonal way, something like, "a detailed examination of the map will show...". The you of the Latin text, the direct addressing of the reader, suggests something like a direct contact with him. COBUILD does exactly the same thing in the definitions offered (only in twentieth-century English, it is somewhat unusual). For instance: for the entryword scold the morphological forms scolds, scolding, scolded and the following definition are indicated: "If you scold someone, you speak angrily to them because they have done something wrong." We know that the lexicographer can a) represent the meaning of the entryword as a continuum, that is, he can try to represent the polysemy as a coherent range of meaning; or b) the entry can be compartmentalized, with a strong indication and polarization of the individual senses; or c) a middle way between these two extremes can be taken. This is not the place to discuss the relative advantages of these approaches; for our purpose, it is enough to say that COBUILD treats polysemous meaning in as coherent a way as possible: the individual senses are polarized, certainly, but they are presented as a coherent whole. Let us take a few examples of some entries (greatly reduced and simplified here). For the entryword murmur, the following morphological forms are indicated: murmurs, murmuring, murmured. There is the following sequence of definitions: "1 If you murmur or murmur something, you say it very quietly, so that not many people can hear it. 2 A murmur is 2.1 a statement ... which can hardly be heard; 2.2 a continuous...sound; 2.3 a quiet complaint; 2.4 an abnormal sound which is made by the heart ...3 If you murmur, you complain gently about something." The definitions (and the examples, omitted here) show several things: First, that the form murmurs has a double value, standing both for the 3rd pers. sing. pres. of the verb and for the plural of the noun. Second, that the presentation of meaning disregards the morphological differences and tries to present the polysemy in the most coherent way; in this case, first the general meaning, then the more technical one. This is a short entry with coherent senses. However, the dictionary opts for the same procedure also in cases where no real coherence can be found in the senses themselves. For example: cow, forms cows, cowing, cowed. Definitions (strongly reduced): "1 A cow is ... (there follows a list of different animal species for which cow is used for the female). 2 If you describe a woman as a cow, you mean that she is very unpleasant (an evaluative gloss follows). 3 If someone is cowed they are made afraid ... 4 If you say that you could do something till the cows come home, you mean that you could keep doing it ..." Clearly sense #3 has nothing to do with the rest of the entry. (I do not discuss the different etymologies, because COBUILD is a strictly synchronic dictionary.) While I find this confusing, this is still a short entry, easy to survey. However, the entry for fit stretches over nearly two columns, having the following arrangement: fit, forms fits, fitting, fitted; fitter, fittest·, the sequence of senses is: #1 - 2 verb, "something fits in size or shape." #3 "If something is a good fit ... (noun). #4 If you are fitted for a particular piece of clothing ..." #5 - 11 various senses of the verb. #12 "Someone or something that is fit ..." (adjective). #13 "If you fit someone for a particular role ..." (verb). #14 "Someone who sees fit or thinks fit ..." (phrasal verb). #15 "If you say that someone is fit to do something..." (adjective). #16 "Someone who is fit is healthy ..." (adjective). #17 "If

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

111

someone has a fit they suddenly lose consciousness ..." (noun). #18 - 20 other senses with fit 'spasm'. Again, completely disparate senses are presented as a continuum (the suture runs between #16 and 17). As already stated, the etymological consideration (fit #1 - 16 and fit # 1 7 - 2 0 are completely different as to their origin, just as cow # 1 , 2 , 4 and cow #3) is or can be considered irrelevant in the case of a completely synchronic dictionary. The real point is that when one checks users' reaction to this arrangement, as I did with students, they find the arrangement confusing. The excellent and outstanding way in which the grammatical subcategorization of each of these senses is presented seems not to redeem the awkward microstructural arrangement. On the style of COBUILD definitions, see above 2.1.4.3. To my mind, it is these grammatical indications of syntactic patterns and the detailed indications of stylistic levels that are eminently good in COBUILD. Whether its definitional and presentational style will find followers outside the area of pedagogical dictionaries for children and young students remains to be seen; I should not be surprised if the adage qui bene distinguit, bene docet ('He who makes good distinctions teaches well') prevails. If, however, the COBUILD style does find many followers, it will start, as it has already been said, a trend that will dissociate "lexicography for human consumption" from "lexicography for the computer". (Mind that I am not talking here about the computer as the lexicographer's helper in the compilation of dictionaries, but about lexicography as a helper in the handling of information by the computer.)

2.2.3.2. Prototype Theory Another important development that will prove useful to lexicography is prototype theory. The notion of the prototype was introduced into psycholinguistics and cognitive science by Eleanor Rosch (1977, 1983). For speakers of, at least, the European and many African and Asian languages, the "normal" typical building does indeed have walls and a roof; examples of buildings such as hangars of corrugated iron in the form of a semicircular half of a cylinder are not what occurs to the speaker when a building is mentioned, because they are not prototypical but are somehow on the periphery of the notion. The COBUILD definition of "building" quoted above is based on this prototypical understanding. It is necessary to realize that the basic tenet of prototype theory leads to the understanding that concepts internalized in speakers' minds do differ from concepts as conceived by classical logic. The most important difference between prototype theory and classical logic seems to be as follows: in the latter (as represented by John Stuart Mill), both the extension and the intension are identical for the whole concept as used by all the speakers of the same language; that means that if we view a concept as a class, or set, of possible referents, we can say that in classical logic, all the members of the set have the same intention (i.e., the repertoire of the distinctive markers) and that their extension (i.e., the class of referents) is clearly demarcated for all members of the class, or set. That is, everything that can be called a bird has the same set of characteristics, distinctive, defining features, and for any object, it

112

Lexicography and Linguistics

is possible to make a yes-or-no decision whether it is a bird or no. In a language closer to the ordinary one, things are more complicated, in the first line because such decisions can not always be reached with sufficient clarity. There are cultural differences and there are also differences between the popular understanding and the scientific one. It goes without saying that while the term prototype and its exact positioning within the framework of a theory are new, the notion itself has not been unknown to lexicographers: any dictionary will give as examples of a bird: a sparrow, a hawk, a hummingbird, but hardly any dictionary would indicate a turkey; it does not fly, so it is not prototypical. (Naturally, the whole notion is culture-bound: I know from my students from South Africa that for them, the ostrich also is a prototypical bird; a prototype, strongly bound to a culture, is usually called a "stereotype", a terminological usage started by Hilary Putnam.) However this may be, it is of great advantage to lexicography that the study of prototypicality attracts attention, because it can be highly useful. As an example, we can indicate the work done by Margaret McKeown (1991) in which she discusses, with good examples, possible improvements of lexicographic definitions. For instance, it would not be good to define the word meticulous as "extremely or excessively careful about small details", because the word careful prototypically associates with cautiousness about danger; hence, it would be better to define meticulous as "extremely or excessively neat and careful about small details", because the word neat blocks the association with danger. Another example: it is not so good to define shrewd as "having a sharp mind; showing a keen wit; clever; keen; sharp"; a better definition is "able to size up a situation quickly and use it to get what you want", because this formulation explicates the prototypical advantage-oriented component of the meaning of shrewd. It is not wrong to define typical as "combining or showing the special characteristics of a group or kind", but a definition like "describes something that is a good example of a person or thing because it shows what that person or thing is usually like" is said to be better, because it makes the meaning accessible. (User-friendliness again!) The purpose here is not to go into the details of the definitions criticized and proposed, or into the realities of the lexicographic treatment. One can say in general that good dictionaries largely avoid the pitfalls demarcated. True, Webster's Second has in its definition of meticulous the wording "unduly or excessively careful...", but Gove (1961) in Webster's Third avoided the pitfall with the definition "marked by extreme painstaking care..."; Mish in Webster's Ninth follows suit with "marked by extreme or excessive care..." Morris in American Heritage (1969) also avoids misunderstanding by defining "1. Extremely careful and precise. 2. excessively concerned with details; overscrupulous." "Precise" in definition 1 eliminates, it would seem, the possibility of wrong association; the entry is even followed by a paragraph in which synonyms are discriminated and where such a possibility is made even more impossible. Soukhanov in American Heritage (1992) gives practically the same information. COBU1LD has for meticulous "A meticulous person does things very carefully and with great attention to detail", where "attention to detail" seems to take care of the danger. No need to go into the details of all the examples; the dictionaries stand the test well. For instance, the user-friendliness implied in McKeown's suggested definition of typical is echoed or rather preceded by the, as usual, user-friendly COBUILD where the

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

113

motif of a "good example" already occurs: "Something that is typical shows the most usual characteristics of a particular type of person or thing, and is therefore a good example of that type." Within prototype theory, nominal phrases are taken as sums or intersections of either the extensional or the intensional meaning of the nouns and attributes combined. For instance: if (in the terms of John Stuart Mill's logic) the extension of the notion of British is the whole class of all the people and things that can be called British, and the extension of the notion of sportsman the whole class of people who are sportsmen, then the meaning of British sportsmen is the intersection of those two classes: people who are both British and sportsmen. If the intensional meaning of British is the bundle of criterial features that determine the Britishness of a person or thing, and the intensional meaning of sportsman the corresponding bundle of features that determine whether a person is a sportsman, the intensional meaning of the nominal phrase British sportsmen is the sum of the two bundles of criterial features. Within this approach, it is frequently felt that phrases such as a hand wound and a gun wound cause problems for or are even beyond the scope of prototype theory, because neither their meaning as the sum of their intensionality nor as a sum of their extensionality can capture the difference between a hand wound being a wound in the hand whereas a gun wound is a wound caused by a gun (Hampton 1991). This apprehension is not necessarily correct, at least not in my judgement, if we apply the notion of prototypicality in a flexible way: if we understand the ability of inflicting wounds as part of the prototype of gun, then certainly this understanding of prototypicality can play a role in determining the meaning of gun wound. That is, associations of a notion, such as in this case its purpose, do belong to the prototype. Another problem for prototype theory is sometimes seen in a similar difficulty consisting in the difference between nominal phrases such as criminal act, which denotes an act that is criminal, and phrases such as criminal lawyer, denoting a person who (in the usual understanding) is not (necessarily) a criminal (Shoben 1991). Again, one can observe that language has a mechanism called lexicalization, which stabilizes one meaning of a lexical unit at the expense of several possible ones, but not necessarily to the exclusion of the other possible meanings: a criminal lawyer can specialize in criminal processes, and be a criminal at the same time. Although a phrase like a criminal criminal lawyer is unusual, a slight re-wording shows its possibility: a veritably, truly criminal criminal lawyer. Also, a sentence like "He truly is a criminal lawyer" is ambiguous, by any standard, depending on the situational context. Nominal phrases such as flu virus, heat rash, picture book, lemon peel are so normal that one does not realize how different the logical relations of their members are: virus that causes flu, rash that is caused by heat, a book that contains pictures, peel from or of a lemon; obviously, language tolerates homonymy not only in lexical meaning but also in the structure of patterns. Among today's lexicographers, it is Dirk Geeraerts (1983, 1984, 1985a,b, 1987, 1989) who most strongly recommends prototypicality and related notions as a useful tool for lexicography. He very reasonably discerns several types of lexicography and their relative foci of interest. According to him, encyclopedic and terminological dictionaries are focussed on the extensional meaning; general monolingual dictionaries on the stereotype; and

114

Lexicography and Linguistics

scientifically linguistic, above all historical dictionaries, on the prototype. The general correctness of this distribution and of the whole conception leaps to the eye, of course. At least two things, however, should not be forgotten. First, it has already been stated above that the traditional lexicographic treatment of meaning, particularly as presented in modern dictionaries, is not mutually exclusive with the theory of prototypicality. It probably has not escaped the reader that the notion of the prototype is similar to that of the dominant sense. More than that: Swanepoel (1991) has shown that quite persuasively in a detailed study in which he meticulously contrasted, and found compatible, the advice, or approach, preconized in my Manual (Zgusta 1971) with the components of the theory of prototypicality. Second, not only the types of dictionaries, but also the individual notions of prototype theory have fuzzy boundaries. (For the critique of the notion itself, see Anna Wierzbicka 1985, p. 340 ff. on "The many senses of the notion 'prototype'"; see also p. 59 ff., 158 ff and passim; 1990.) Certainly, the encyclopedia and the terminological dictionary will be interested not so much in the narrow prototype of a notion, but rather in its full extension; both of these types of dictionaries must try to delimit the denotative class. However, they do not do it so much by taxative enumeration of the members of the class, but rather by the attempt to establish the notion's intension, by finding the decisive criterial features. Historical dictionaries certainly are mostly interested in the prototypes prevailing in the respective epochs; for instance, the Roman prototype of virtus can be seen in the collocation bellica virtus 'the v. of war,' whereas the Christian prototype of the same word is seen in the collocation virtutes theologicae 'the theological v.' However, since every word, hence also its prototype, is embedded in culture, every prototype can be considered a stereotype at the same time. Also, one should consider that one of the main trends of semantic development of standard languages of our day is the increasingly strong terminologization of the lexicon: more and more lexical units are endowed with a terminological, defined meaning. Sometimes, the same expression can have a defined meaning in a technical language, and a general, perhaps prototypical, meaning in general language. For example, the expressions crime, misdemeanor, and felony can be used in a general, approximate, perhaps prototypical way; but they also have an exactly defined meaning in the language of criminology; in the same way, if it is said of someone: "His condition is serious", the meaning of serious will differ depending on whether the speaker is a layman or a physician. And it is the terminological use that encroaches on the general one, not the other way around: for instance, when we have to deal with a possibly underinflated tire, God forbid that we should go by some notions of prototypicality; that may serve as a first warning, but the real decision must be based on the definition of underinflatedness as established in relation to that specific tire. These can be deemed minor considerations, however, if our main interest is not in the construction or critique of prototype theory, but rather in the assessment of how it can be useful to lexicography. If the latter is the case, the capital thing is that if one considers these approaches in a broad-minded way, without unnecessary carping at details, there is no doubt that the freshness of this approach and its interest for psychological and cognitive research cannot fail to draw the welcome attention of a new phalanx of researchers to topics that perhaps have not been ignored, but that can be usefully studied from a new perspective.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

115

Hence, prototype theory promises to be of great usefulness to lexicography.

2.2.4. Compatibility of Theories Australia is developing into a strong center of lexicographic activity, as testified, among other things, by the recent foundation of Australex, the Australian lexicographic society. This is only natural, given the plethora of aboriginal languages in Australia and adjacent areas. Apart from this, important theoretical developments are taking place there as well. For instance, Laughren and Nash (1983) developed a project of a dictionary of Warlpiri, an aboriginal language, in which meaning was described in a quite abstract way, and with indication of the cases in which the individual actants occur. As examples, one can give the following: Kipi-rni

(tV): xERG [= an actant in the ergative case] causes yABS [= another actant in

the absolute case] (small particles, as seeds, stones) to come to be distributed in some desired arrangement by manipulating some entity (zINSTR, e.g., ... piece of bark, basket) in which y is located in such a way that y moves along a circular path beginning and ending in said entity. (Laughren & Nash, 1983, p. 111.) paka-rni[sense

1]: ... xERG produces concussion of surface of yABS, by coming into

contact with y (e.g., "The little boy tried to hit the dog with a stick"). (Ibid., 120.) - " - [sense 2]: xERG cuts ... yABS, typically wood, tree, by manipulating some instrument (zINSTR), typically an axe: to chop, cut, hack. (Ibid., 121.) - " - [sense 5]: xERG, a being, looks for... and kills yABS, being found by χ to hunt, kill, hunt and kill. (Ibid., 122.) larra-parnka-mi:

xABS comes to have a linear separation in its material integrity: to

split, crack, be split, be cracked. ( I bid., 124.) mapa-rni:

xERG causes some adhering substance (typically fat, ochre, charcoal) to

come to be thinly distributed over some area of the surface of y and manipulating said substance in such a way that, at the area of contact, said substance transfers from χ to y • along a path (zPERL/LOC) coincident with said area on the surface of y. (Ibid., 126).

Wierzbicka (p. 137) objects to this by asking the reader to imagine the reaction of an average dictionary user, such as a school teacher or a high school student, to a definition like this, which undoubtedly one can easily imagine. However, we probably have here another case of different goals pursued by different projects. Laughren and Nash hardly had a high school student in mind when they constructed their model: this is typical MIT stuff, ridiculous if imagined in situational contexts such as those mentioned by Wierzbicka, but moving on a straight trajectory towards a model of definitions that may one day be handled

116

Lexicography and Linguistics

automatically by a computer program. Also, Warlpiri is a language that may be extinct in some relatively short time; let us hope that it will not, but the danger is clearly real. In such a situation, the more explicit and detailed the description is, the better. Wierzbicka (1985) also offers a coherent discussion of her ideas concerning conceptual analysis, in which she proposes a type of definition which is couched in everyday language and based on the understanding of an average speaker of the language. In this way, she clearly steers away from formalized models. However, if the complexity of language is to be captured and described, even the most informal model must offer highly refined detailed information. For instance, to get the difference between cups and mugs, it is necessary to compare them as to their purpose, as to the material they are made of, as to their appearance (at top and bottom, on their sides, in their proportions, in respect to their handles), as to their size, as to how they are used, in their relation to saucers, and similarly for other features. Each such analysis would be longer than one printed page, at least, and sometimes much more, and would consist of many descriptive statements. Prototypicality appears to be useful for the analyses, since they are based on the general understanding of the average speaker. In the case of a language like Warlpiri (and the respective culture), there is every reason to be afraid that the investigators could use their own ideas of prototypicality, not Warlpiri ones. Wierzbicka's objections pertain mainly to the wording of definitions: what is printed in capitals are abbreviations for the obligatory cases, and the x's and y ' s stand, of course, for the nouns that accompany the verb. So far so good; however, the really difficult part of definition is its wording. In (1983) p. 136, she objects to the wording of definitions such as: akarn-lawa-rni

— xERG causes some outer part of yABS to be separated from y by

striking with a missile liji-yirra-rrti — xABS is desirous of having yDAT (p.136) Presumably, one could use in the second definition the more frequent synonym wishes for is desirous; but I am not quite sure, because wishes to my mind hints at a more focussed feeling than does is desirous. However, if we think about "striking with a missile" in the first definition, we cannot say that a less hard word would be better than missile: if a Warlpiri man can use, e.g., a stone, or a spear, or an arrow, or a boomerang for this type of striking, one would be hard put to find an easier hyperonym. It would seem that this type of highly logically oriented dictionary requires the use of hyperonyms, not a taxative or even only exemplary enumeration; and Rey-Debove (1966) has well shown that in any ascending chain of hyperonyms there comes a point at which it is impossible to find a concrete or well circumscribed expression for the next higher hyperonym and the following ones. Usually a philosophical category is substituted, or synonyms (near-synonyms) are indicated instead of co-hyponyms, or else circularity occurs: Calzolari (1977) has calculated the normal (average) number of steps that lead to circularity. Wierzbicka herself has developed (1985) a descriptive technique of her own; the two main features of her system are the absence of any hard words (indeed, she operates with a strictly

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

117

limited inventory of words allowed in definitions) and the analysis of the word's meaning into components, by means of what she calls scenarios. Each sense of a strongly polysemous word has a scenario of its own. For instance, the English verb to punish is treated by this scenario: X punished Y [for Z] (a) [Y did Z] (b) X thought something like this: (c) Y did something bad [Z] (d) I want Y to feel something bad because of this (e) it will be good if Y feels something bad because of this ( 0 it will be good if I do something to Y because of this (g) X did something to Y because of this

For comparison, the concept 'revenge' is portrayed by this scenario a) someone (X) did something bad to someone (Y) (b) because of this, Y felt something bad (c) after this, Y thought something like this: (d) this person (X) did something bad to me (e) I want to do the same to this person (X) (f) because of this, Y did something bad to X

There is no need to consider every detail of these scenarios (such as, in revenge (e), whether the person Y necessarily wishes to do the same thing to X, or only something bad. Also, let us disregard the absence of syntactic and other information in these scenarios. The important thing is the whole conception of such scenarios. When we consider them from this point of view, we can say that to print them in a dictionary would not be too dissimilar to what Laughren and Nash have to offer. The wording of the scenarios is simpler both in the vocabulary and in the shortness of the less convoluted sentences, but the detailed analysis into the individual elements of meaning and the explicitness of formulation renders the impression of wordiness by the attempt at accuracy. After Philip Gove [1902-1972] published his Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Springfield 1961), a considerable number of users were dissatisfied with Gove's style of definitions. The main objections maintained that there is a certain awkwardness and too many details in his formulations. One of the Paradebeispiele, or best examples, was the definition of hotel, senses 2a and b: hotel

... [2a] a house licensed to provide lodging and usu. meals, entertainment, and

various personal services for the public hotel...

[2b] a building of many rooms chiefly for overnight accommodation of transients

and several floors served by elevators, usu. with a large street-level lobby containing easy chairs, with a variety of compartments for eating, drinking, dancing, exhibitions, and group meetings (as of salesmen or convention attendants), its shops having both

118

Lexicography and Linguistics inside and street entrances and offering for sales items (as clothes, gifts, candy, theater tickets, travel tickets) of particular interest to a traveler, or providing personal services (as hair-dressing, shoe shining), and with telephone booths, writing tables, and washrooms freely available.

This, however, is an extreme case of encyclopedicity; the awkwardness caused by the length of the description is compounded by the impossibility of drawing a sharp line between a (small) hotel normally used for a longer stay, and the big establishment for "transients." Also, even if we do not wish to go into a syntactic analysis, it is clear that the length of the sentence is unusual in modern English. A so-to-say normal, average definition in the same dictionary goes as follows: hunt...

[la] to follow or search for (game or prey) for the purpose and with the means

for capturing or killing; pursue (game or prey) for food or in sport; esp. to pursue with weapons and often with trained animals. If we compare the corresponding definitions in COBUILD, we find the following: hotel ... a building where people stay, usually for a few nights, paying for their rooms and meals. hunt ... when people or animals hunt, they chase wild animals in order to kill them, either for food or as a form of sport. We immediately see that while Gove's definitions are too long, they are not complete: the difference between the short term and the long-term hotel is not well expressed (e.g., there are long-term roomers in big hotels, not only in smaller ones); the absence of an indication of the subject or agent of hunting induces a user to forget about animals which hunt, especially a user who would not be sensitive enough to take a hint from the object prey; and, likewise the wording 'means for capturing or killing' could lead the reader to consider only a human agent. On the other hand, COBUILD has bad omissions as well: to say in the definition of hotel that people usually stay there for a few nights obviously has the purpose of excluding long-term renters of apartments in tenement houses, nursing homes, etc.; but even granted that, the wording leaves the impression that one night in a hotel is somehow not comprised under the definition; and the definition of hunt does not suggest the capturing of animals as a possible purpose of hunting. However, there is yet another reason why users may find Gove's definition clumsy and the MIT-type of definitional style awkward: we know at least since Aristotle that we do not think in rigorous, formally accurate syllogisms, but in shortcuts, enthymemes. Similarly, any treatment of any natural language by logic ä la Reichenbach, or by the logic underlying Montague grammar, consists largely in disentangling, or making explicit, those shortcuts, those implications, ellipses, etc., that are omnipresent in speech, even of the most formal sort. Furthermore, when we speak, our minds simultaneously (as it would seem) deal with syntax, lexical choices, morphology, pragmatic, observation of the interlocutor's reaction during our speech, watching for mistakes in the form, and errors and traps in the content, etc. No wonder that a bi-dimensional, algorithmic representation of a short sentence can take

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

119

half a page of complicated graphs, graphs in which many components of real speech and real communication are necessarily omitted to make the description, or analysis, possible at all. It is not different with lexical meaning. If it is to be explicitly described, its representation is awkwardly complicated for general users, who do not realize all the individual points implied, just as they usually do not need syllogisms or symbolic logic. In sum, the mind of any normal speaker has such power that its product, speech, seems to flow easily, quickly, and in a simple way; in contrast the reduction of the multi-dimensionality of thinking to the bi-dimensionality of our algorithms and the filling out of all the "shortcuts" in thinking and in natural language by explicit statements of each detail give the impression of unnecessary awkwardness. This brings us to the consideration that while linguistics can and does offer lexicography much useful information, there is an area of study at least as important and much less understood, which could be at least as important to lexicography as linguistics is: the understanding of how we learn, how we acquire knowledge. For our purposes, there is no need to go into the philosophical bases of the problem, the more so since we notice that some 24 centuries after Plato, Chomsky offers basically a very similar answer. (Plato: the soul brings into the body of the individual its memory of "things" beyond the material world to which the body belongs. Chomsky: the genes endow the body with the genetic heritage of the past generations of the biological species, that is, with information coming from outside the individual himself.) Closer, more immediate questions are more important in this context. How is it that even an imperfect definition brings useful information? Why is it that the user of the dictionary can project much knowledge of his own into the etc.'s, e.g.'s, and such as'es that leave classes open? How does the learner of a foreign language develop this categorial knowledge? How do the equivalents in a bilingual dictionary elicit in us other, sometimes better ones? Why is a presentation of meaning that is compartmentalized into many senses sometimes more useful than the indiscriminate presentation of the generality of meaning (but sometimes vice versa)? When does the one or the other alternative apply? If we start learning a foreign language in a culturally diverse setting and then go on to build a knowledge of the foreign elements, starting from the intersection where the two cultures overlap (Nida 1964), how does this process actually work? No need to go on, as there is no end to such questions. Some important research on the learner's dictionary and its problems that is relevant to these questions is reported in Bejoint and Moulin (1987) and Bejoint (1989); however, granted the importance of this research, it deals only with a fraction of the whole area that needs to be studied. Let's return now to the comparison of the Australian ΜΓΓ-inspired dictionary with Wierzbicka's scenarios. The consequences of the human mind working in short-cuts, that is, in enthymemes, is that when talking, we take so much knowledge of the world and of the language for granted, that to make explicit all that knowledge with all its implications, presuppositions, etc. causes the resulting description to seem unnatural, because we are not accustomed to such explicitness. However, the scientific requirement of the day is to be as detailed, explicit, and accurate as possible. I do not think that the requirement is produced exclusively by the need to have explicit algorithms for automatic handling of data by an apparatus that knows nothing and can do nothing but handle data by operational rules; it

120

Lexicography and Linguistics

would seem that the logic of the research in itself pushes the researcher in the direction of constantly increasing detailedness, because much is already known, and the area and finesse of knowledge keep increasing. In any case, it is interesting to see that the introduction of everyday language with limited vocabulary into the description of meaning does not necessarily entail its simplification. We have mentioned above that two seemingly different approaches have been found compatible by Swanepoel. In the case of the MIT linguists and Wierzbicka, the situation seems to be similar. The two approaches use different descriptive techniques, but quite naturally, both must concentrate on the attempt to establish the criterial features, as we call them, i.e., the semantically most relevant components of the lexical meaning.

2.2.5. Theoreticians and Practitioners All these and similar developments show how welcome it is and how fruitful it will prove to be that the theory of lexicography is being expanded by a constantly increasing number of scholars; their differences are not necessarily detrimental — quite to the contrary, since they render the repertoire of possible approaches richer. Naturally, the practicing lexicographer knows the various necessities and limitations of his profession and art better than anybody else. These are caused to some extent by commercial demands (or rather budgetary constraints, since even the resources of universities and similar institutions are not inexhaustible) that put a premium on the time spent. There are other necessary considerations; however, the main pressures are produced by the need to deal with a huge number of items in an identically formatted style, and by the uncertainties about what one can suppose that the user will need, understand, etc. Between the colleagues who compile dictionaries and those colleagues who are perceived as dealing with theory only, a certain tension arises from the differences in the work conditions between the two groups and in the final products of their work. A most illuminating case of a discussion of the mutual problems of the two camps can be found in a forum organized and edited by Frawley (ed. 1992/93). The theoreticians were represented by Wierzbicka, the practitioners chiefly by B.T.S. Atkins, Patrick Hanks, Sidney I. Landau, and James D. McCawley (all in Frawley ed. 1992/93); this is an insightful reading as regards both perspectives. Another theory of lexicography is being constructed by Wiegand in a multitude of his articles and papers (Wiegand 1989 a,b,c, among many others). Wiegand has now undertaken the creation of a unified version of his theory in his Wörterbuchforschung (1998). This is the first volume of a work that will consist of at first two volumes. The present one contains deliberations on the structure of the whole area of lexicography and typology of dictionaries, and the research connected with it; and a particularly thorough section entitled 'Wörterbuchbenutzungsforschung', i.e. research into how dictionaries are used. (The German version of the title conveys a broader meaning than the English translation.) The particular strength of this section is in developing the author's own method of such research that

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

121

consists in the user writing a protocol about how, why, and with what result a dictionary was consulted. The Wiegand theory is a construction of great systematicity and a strong definitional rigor, in which every statement is based on a thorough discussion of the ontological and gnoseological background of its reference. The work will certainly have a great impact on the lexicographer's practice, because the breadth of its coverage and the exact and interlocking treatment of the individual topics will render possible the devising of specific algorithms (sit venia verbo) for the organization of work on dictionaries of different types. Generally speaking, constructing an encompassing theory of lexicography is difficult for many reasons. That the only accessible manifestation of language exists in concrete speech acts of individual speakers poses perhaps one of the greatest difficulties. Speech reacts to and is caused by the necessities of life. The individual components of, and circumstances of, life are endlessly varied; few of them are "identical," even if they are recurrent or repetitive. Hence, speech entails minute changes of meaning, extensions to new referents, and imperceptible metonymies that create an aura of vagueness in any accumulation of tokens of a word. These are some of the mechanisms that we do not yet grasp by a rigorous method. However, the best practitioners among us are those lexicographers who have the ability to cope with what is, or theoretically should be, intractable. This probably is why lexicography sometimes is called an art. Still, even the best presentation of the multiple meaning of a frequently used word is based on, so to say, the "peaks" of the senses, that is, the semantically most differentiated groups of contexts. The "transition belts" or overlapping, indiscriminate areas between the peaks are not presented; and they do not have to be presented, because the users of the dictionary can cope with those areas of the word's meaning by their (as of now, unexplored) ability to understand and to interpret creatively, which is a part of their ability to use language in the first place. Let us now summarize some points of the discussion quoted above. Atkins (see above) undoubtedly is right when she insists on the specificity of the lexicographer's work. I would even say that she is more right than she herself realizes when she stresses the situation of commercial lexicography, because the specificity stretches beyond the area where commercial considerations are paramount. Naturally, most lexicographers must deal with huge masses of data under severe time and budget constraints, without the possibility of studying each detail in depth. But problems of categorization like the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph are as well known to the lexicographers who have been compiling the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae for nearly a century without having yet finished, as they are to commercial lexicographers. The line dividing "academic" and "commercial" lexicography is not a strongly divisive one, and, in some cases, such as Webster's Third or some dictionaries of the Robert family, it is not clearly drawn. If all this is true, then 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). But it is (1) the study of specifically lexicographic methods and their problems, (2) the selection of those results of linguistic (and computational, psychological, cognitive, etc.) research potentially useful to lexicography, and (3) the transformation of these results into useful components of lexicographic practice. All these should be studied

122

Lexicography and Linguistics

not only from the purely linguistic point of view, but also in respect to the needs of the users of various types of dictionaries.

2.2.6. Computational Linguistics Concerning the developments in computer science that one can reasonably expect in the near future, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said on other occasions. Nor would it be reasonable to discuss the computer programs either specifically developed for the lexicographer's use, or those developed for other purposes but useful to the lexicographer; those programs proliferate so quickly that before this will be printed, new programs can be confidently expected. It may suffice to say that, on the one hand, the computer will not, at any foreseeable time, replace human participation in editorial activities such as distributing the senses of polysemous words, formulating definitions, thoughtfully condensing quoted examples, handling metaphorical and other similar expressions, etc. On the other hand, the computer's present usefulness in many other respects will grow exponentially, and new areas of application of computer programs will be found. Within the last decade or two, we have observed a huge increase in the number of different types of dictionaries (the emergence of the learner's dictionary being probably the most outstanding case), differentiated by the supposed readership, its level of education, and its purposes in buying the dictionary. This proliferation was largely made possible by the computer, which renders it possible to select subsets of lexical material contained in the database (provided that the individual entries in the database are tagged for the respective marker that constitutes the desired subset). Given a database, not necessarily a huge one, but one that corresponds to or was created in the process of preparing a large dictionary, smaller, specialized dictionaries can be created out of it by the extraction of the respective subsets of data. A further development of this specialization of the dictionaries will require not only a very detailed classification of data in the database being planned and tagged with all imaginable markers, but also a deeper inquiry into the needs and purposes of the various sets of readership. Another field of inquiry, at least as important as the one just mentioned, is research into the effectiveness of different presentational styles in offering information. It can already be observed that there are users, particularly students, who prefer a more formal presentation of information to a style that relies more on exemplification; e.g., they prefer a rather abstract presentation of syntactic patterns. On the other hand, there are users, also among students, who prefer a more discursive presentation of information. One can imagine that a variety of preferences will lead to a modularly constructed on-line or high-capacity personal dictionary, in which the user will be able to select the presentational style. (Let us mention that a huge step in the direction towards such modularity in presentation was taken by the COBUILD dictionary, in spite of its being a printed book, not a computerized dictionary: the user can either gather the grammatical information from the informal, user-friendly wording of the definitions, or he can study the formulaic descriptions of the respective patterns of each sense of a polysemous word printed in the margin of the

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

123

columns; or he can, in some cases, study the more elaborate grammatical advice offered in separate boxes of information that are inserted in the proper places of the text.) Once the principle of modularity is introduced, there is no reason why it should not pertain to other areas as well: the user should have the possibility to request specifically grammatical, or stylistic, or historical, or encyclopedic, or any other similar information in great detail by selecting the proper module. The solution of all the problems connected with such tasks is largely within the purview of the software and perhaps even hardware specialists. For the lexicographer proper, the main task is to anticipate the many future needs for specialized information and to introduce the necessary classification of the lexical material at the beginning of work on the database. A particularly difficult task will be the setting up of a database that will be more useful for the preparation of bilingual dictionaries than is usually the case now. In addition to all the classifications mentioned above which are necessary for, for instance, the comparison of the stylistic level of the source-language expression and the possible target-language equivalent, there is always the primary task of comparing the denotational equivalence or partial equivalence. If the computer is to be useful in that task, it will be necessary to feed into it information about the minutest components of the respective lexical unit's meaning. The value of the completely explicit analyses and descriptions of the lexical meaning, some of which were mentioned above, will then become even more apparent than it is now. Ultimately, one can imagine that lexical units will not be compared between two languages, but that the analysis of a huge number of lexical units in many languages will yield a notional grid which will be used for comparisons of any pair of languages. That this may be quite a distant task if intended to cover the whole lexicon is quite clear; however, if we contemplate this kind of analysis for only some segments, or subsets, of the total lexicon, namely those belonging to the technical and similar registers, the task is not so overwhelming. Lexicography can be expected to provide help in all the adjacent fields of human endeavor where information processing plays a crucial role, whether it is information classification and storage or any other task. One of the ultimate tasks is what is traditionally called machine translation. In this area, what has been said above about metaphoricity is equally valid: within the foreseeable future, there is no expectation that there could be a computer program for dealing with any sort of creative language, be it the coinage of (morphologically or semantically) irregular neologisms, metaphoricity, allegory, poetic language, dark hints, complicated conversational implicatures, uncodified slang, puns, etc. On the other hand, there is no reason why one should not expect machine translation, or at least automatically aided translation, of texts couched in a limited set of syntactic patterns and consisting of defined or, at least, well described words, and with equivalence between the languages in question established, to be operative quite soon. A typical case in question is bureaucratic regulatory language, including normalization of industrial and business procedures; and the most pressing contemporary case is, of course, the European Community with its many official, equal-status languages. Indeed, relatively rapid progress in this area can be safely expected; machine translation of communications in the area of the sciences may follow in the not-too-distant future. All that has been said above about subcategorization is of immediate usefulness for this task, as a means for disambiguating polysemy, for establishing

124

Lexicography and Linguistics

lexical equivalence, and for recognizing the syntactic pattern in the source language and selecting the proper syntactic pattern in the target language. A more ambitious task is, of course, not the creation of a program for bilateral machine translation, but of a system similar to the grid for the analysis and comparison of lexical meaning mentioned above; that is, a system of translation from one natural language into a formalized notional language of a more universal character, and hence into any other language comprised in the system. That may be a more remote goal, but one which will be, as I believe, reached in the not-too-distant future. I would think in the first quarter of the next century, at least for the limited tasks described above. In any case, in all these activities, lexicography will play a crucial role. Finally, I would like to mention a relatively recent development. While using computer programs for collection of huge quantities of lexical material, both in the form of types and of tokens (preferably accompanied by their contexts), has by now a modest tradition of its own since the days when Father Busa started using punch-cards for that purpose, using the computer for more qualitative tasks is less frequent. Yet in the last few years, computational linguistics has registered an intensified activity in the research into problems far more complicated than the ones mentioned above. If we take the volume Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, edited by J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (1991), we find there a plethora of highly interesting papers, such as Thomason (1991) on the representation of knowledge and its connection with the knowledge of words, Sowa (1991) on the logical structure of the lexicon, Martin (1991) on metaphor and its presence in and influence on the lexicon, and the paper by Martha Evens et al. (1991) on enriching the lexicon with many types of information. There are also in this volume articles by European researchers, such as Calzolari (1991), the excellent scholar from Pisa, Italy, who writes about the best way of first acquiring and then representing semantic information in a lexical knowledge base (notice that she does not talk merely about a semantic base); the Dutch scholars Meijs and Vossen (1991), who write about how knowledge is tied to lexical representations; and Germans Peter Gerstl (1991), writing about the determination of word meaning being effected through the interaction of lexical and nonlexical knowledge, and Stephen Helmreich (1991), who in his article "Interpretation without semantics" takes the position that the link between lexical items and world knowledge should be treated as a pragmatic rather than semantic relationship. This is only a small sample of the articles published in the volume. Another most interesting volume was edited by Nancy Ide and Jean Veronis as a special issue of the journal Computational Linguistics on word sense disambiguation (Ide and Veronis 1998), which, of course, is one of the main tasks for both the lexicographic excerptor and for the author of the respective entry. One can easily imagine what a help in dictionary-making it would be to get the contexts presorted by the computer, and this with a greater finesse than is now possible. The editors introduce the volume with an excellent text surveying the state of the art (1998, Iff). The individual articles by Karov andEdelman (1998), Chen and Chang, Schütze (1998), Towell and Voorhees (1998), and Leacock et al. (1998) approach the problem/task by different routes: by the formal similarity of the words, by topical clustering in techniques used in information retrieval, by corpus statistics, by formal relations, and by other methods. This collection is difficult, but highly interesting reading.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

125

It is, however, not only such planned, purposefully edited volumes that contain articles of immediate interest to us linguists (without any attributive specification). For instance, what a help it would be if there were a program for the computer that would allow it to recognize collocations in contexts and presort those contexts accordingly. A random selection, not a focussed search, from recent literature in the field brings us the following examples: Alshawi and Carter (1994) deliberate on using for the task a combination taking into consideration the polysemy of both collocating words in the light of the statistical probabilities of the occurrence of the individual senses. Dagan and Itai (1994) also use statistical probabilities, but they compare monolingual corpora of two languages. Justeson and Katz (1995) prefer categorization to statistical probabilities: belonging to the same category is a more important argument in favor of the two words collocating than the statistical probabilities of their occurrence. McRoy (1992) experiments with disambiguation operated by what she calls a "multiple knowledge source." The basic idea is that if a program recognizes that a sentence such as The agreement reached between the state and the EPA provides for the safe storage of the waste belongs to a certain topic and register (i.e. administrative and legal), it will select suitable meanings for the polysemous words (agreement = concurrence, reach = achieve not extend an arm, state = government body not form of existence). All these are relatively simple tasks for us, for our human intelligence, but quite difficult for a program. If we wish to reach goals such as those described or mentioned above, it is necessary to increase the intensity of research in the application of the computer to what I called the qualitative tasks. Luckily, the study of computational linguistics is by now de rigueur for most young lexicographers.

126

Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity

2.3. Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity*

In 1952, when Structuralism occupied the dominant position in American linguistics, Fred Householder, Professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, wrote a review of Zellig Harris' book Methods in structural linguistics, published in 1951 (Householder 1952). It can be maintained that Harris' book was the last really methodologically important book written in structuralist terms; Harris himself was a teacher of Noam Chomsky, and the notion of 'transformation' belonged to his methodological apparatus. Householder wrote his review in structuralist terms as well. In the fifties, sixties and even later, it was quite fashionable among American linguists to be facetious both in the selection of examples and their discussion. It was perhaps because of this fashion that Householder in his review had the interesting and hilarious idea of identifying among linguists two extreme positions, namely that of what he called "God's Truth Linguistics" and "Hocus Pocus Linguistics." A God's Truth Linguist assumes - if we allow ourselves some simplification - that language has a structure which it is his duty to describe, although his approaches toward that goal may usually be of approximate character only. On the other hand, a Hocus Pocus Linguist assumes that he is faced with a corpus of data upon which it is his task to impose the descriptively most efficient structure; but he is not surprised if there are several possible equally efficient descriptions, or solutions to a problem. We all know that Hjelmslev's empirical principle was an attempt at answering the question of how to determine which, if any, of such competing solutions or descriptions should be preferred. Over a period of some 25 years of offering courses in the history of linguistics, I always found it was useful to classify linguists and their methods by this simple grid (among other classificatory grids), and I believe it may be of some interest to discuss as well several - naturally, only a few aspects of lexicography from this point of view. It would seem that in lexicography all the so-called factual information should pertain to the domain of God's Truth, whereas all the explanations are ripe candidates for Hocus Pocus status, even if they attempt to acquire, or pretend that they bear, the hallmark of God's Truth. Let us consider a few areas of lexicography from this point of view. If we consider monolingual dictionaries, synchronic or historical and diachronic, we could be tempted to believe that these types of dictionaries belong to the area where God's Truth prevails, because the former, the synchronic ones, mostly try to present, for instance, the polysemy of the entryword as it is stored in the speakers' memory. However, we all know the differences that obtain among individual speakers, and not only with respect to polysemy. The same can be said about the historical dictionaries, which, in the strict typological classification, are synchronic descriptions of older historical epochs. The diachronic dictionaries try to unravel, among other things, the development of the entryword's polysemy. It would seem that for this type of dictionary, there is a rich factual substratum in the chronology of the contextual examples collected from dated texts; but the vagaries of chance are such that Abbreviated version of "The lexicographer's creativity". (Plenary speech). In: Martin Gellerstam et al. (ed.) Euralex '96, Proceedings I—II. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 1996, pp. 323-336.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

127

sometimes, or frequently, the chronological sequence of the occurrence of individual senses of the entry word does not yield a logically acceptable chain of developments. All this has been discussed above. Some of the differences in style observable from one dictionary to another are connected with the purpose of the respective dictionary. So for instance, many particularities of the monolingual learners' dictionaries are caused by their specific purpose. On the other hand, if we consider, as an example, the style of definitions, we see how strong the element of personal choice, of the lexicographer's hocus pocus is, varying from COBUILD's highly personal style to the completely impersonal Webster's Third. All this variation is present even more strongly in bilingual dictionaries. The element of purpose is even stronger in this type of dictionary, such as, for instance, those dictionaries helping in the task of understanding texts couched in a foreign language, or those helping the user to express himself in it. But again, so many decisions are fully dependent on the lexicographer's preference - the number of equivalents, how they are glossed, how much grammar is comprised in the entry, to mention just a few examples. The contextual examples which supply the lexicographer with a good part or perhaps with the majority of his information about the language he is dealing with, have always been considered a highly factual, and perhaps even the most factual source, the solid base of his entries. In the last years, the application of the computer has made possible the collection of vast contextual corpora in a fast and relatively cheap way. Thus, the COBUILD dictionary, e.g., is reportedly based only on the contents of such a corpus. Since a corpus by definition contains only what has actually been written or (in fewer cases) said, the factual component of the dictionary, the element of its God's Truth, is increased. However, do those attested contexts always convey God's Truth; or, in other words, can we always recognize what that truth is? Over the years, I have collected interesting contexts in various languages, while simply reading texts, preferably not always written by classical authors, but texts which probably were printed without much editing, so that they are closer to everyday speech. In what follows, only English examples are used. The reason for this restriction is that English will be understood by most people present here. The disadvantage of this choice of language is that frequently we shall have to imagine that English is not a well-known language, or that it is a language without a stabilized standard or such. One further disadvantage is, of course, that I am not a specialist in English; however, nearly all of the examples here considered were discussed in several American classes, and many of them with English linguists. What's more, I have yet to be present at a lecture dealing with English in which a part of the audience has not maintained that in their dialect, matters are quite different from what the speaker maintains. And last but not least, the more disagreement there is over my interpretation of these examples, the better for the point I intend to make. 1) In an interview, a professor at the University of Illinois explains what reasons the U.S. has had for subsidizing wool production: "We could export wool much cheaper from Australia and New Zealand. But during World War II, we could not get wool from abroad because of submarines." (News Gazette, 15

128

Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity

Nov. 1992.) No doubt a slip, either on the part of the professor or of the reporter. However, cf. that immigrate has, among others, not only the meaning 'to come here as an immigrant from somewhere else,' but also the meaning 'to send as immigrants from here to somewhere else' (verb transitive) as well, so directional confusions are possible. However, without many more such attestations of export in such a possible sense, nobody would feel justified in listing this meaning in a dictionary; nevertheless, it would be good to have it in a database for future reference. 2) A report on the French presidential elections in 1988 (News Gazette, 8 May 1988) has a caption "Candidates," which gives the names of Frangois Mitterand and Jacques Chirac, and then the caption "Who is eligible" informing the reader with the answer: "38.3 million voters, including those in French territories...." Eligible here is clearly a slip, caused by the concern to have the section headings as short as possible. (The next headings are "The system" and "The issues.") My decision would be to put this context into the database but not into the dictionary, or perhaps not even into the database, unless completeness is the goal. 3) A trustee of an institution, discussing finances, is reported to have opposed some expenditures (News Gazette, 10 Feb. 1990) by saying: "Is this the appropriate time to buy these expensive items in lieu of recent events?" Clearly a malapropism pure and simple. I would treat it as in (2). 4) There is an article about Howard Cosell in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat (12 Sept. 1986). One of the sentences begins: "Cosell, who teached a course called 'Big-time sports in contemporary America' at Yale " Again this is a slip. However, a slip such as eligible in the sense of 'endowed with the right' is a merely occasional mistake. By contrast, given the many nonstandard forms that one can find in the sports pages of provincial newspapers and the many strong verbs used as weak ones in some varieties of language, one cannot be sure whether teached here is merely a performance error, or rather a case of code-mixing, a slip into nonstandard language, or at least a systemic error that approaches that status. Here the perennial question raises here its ugly head: how many times does a mistake have to be repeated before it is accepted at least as a variant, perhaps a stylistic one? Or are there yet other, qualitative or systemic considerations? 5) A character in a novel by Elizabeth Peters (1987, 48) is admiring a creche in the Bavarian Alps. The description contains this context: "... the Virgin's rich blue robe, the scarlet mantle of the second Magi, the crimson-and-gold brocade tunic of the third King." The easy way out of trouble here would be to suppose that the printer left out between second and Magi, but such a surmise would probably be wrong: the whole book is quite well edited. I think the collocation the three Magi is the only context in which the form Magi occurs with this meaning. All the dictionaries that I know of put this Latin plural form under the Latin singular magus, which is correct from the point of view of Latin morphology. However, I doubt that the form magus has ever been attested with the meaning

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

129

'one of the three Magi'; normally it means 'a member of a priestly class in ancient Persia" or 'sorcerer.' This semantic difference prevents an association of magus and Magi in the speaker's mind. Seeking similar cases, one cannot fail to notice that, e.g., data is by now treated in most dictionaries as an entry of its own, separate from datum, but usually with the remark 'used with either a plural or singular verb'; the semantic difference between datum and data is not great, because there is a certain overlap, at least for some speakers, but the plural has nevertheless been effectively dissociated from the singular. Another example: one cannot help but notice that in letters a sentence such as "Please find enclosed my vitae" is encountered with increasing frequency today, and far from assuming that the correspondent is able to supply information not only about his present life, but also about several of his previous incarnations, one automatically supposes that the writer does not know Latin. To sum up: given the occurrence of the form Magi as singular in a text by an educated person who frequently writes on classical and generally ancient topics, and given the consideration that there is a sharp semantic distinction between magus and the three Magi, I would be inclined to give the collocation a separate entry. The difference between this case and teached consists in the fact that we do not insist on the conformity of the Latin forms as strongly as we do in the case of domestic English words. How many English lexicographers (if the hypallage is pardoned) would agree with me? I would not be surprised if none agreed. Hocus pocus, obviously, both ways. 6) Patrick Fermor (1977, 250) writes: "there are several instances of defenestration in Czech history, and it has continued into modern times. The Martyrdom of St. Joannes is the only case of depontication, but it must be part of the same Tarpeian tendency." The italicized word here is a true nonce, a genuine hapax. Defenestration is used in reference to throwing someone out of the window, usually with the intention to kill him. Indeed, Prague can boast some famous cases of this type of political assassination; St. John the Nepomucene was assassinated by being thrown from a bridge to drown in the river, hence depontication. Can this word ever make it to a dictionary? I can imagine only two possibilities, both rather remote. Either Patrick Fermor achieves the status of a venerable, classical author, whose style and language will be studied with fervor and presented in special dictionaries, or the doctrine of my friend Braj Kachru, who advocates the existence of many more-or-less independent varieties of English in countries where it is spoken as a second or as the first foreign language (such as Indian English, East African English, etc.) will help to establish a variety called 'Prague English,' with someone undertaking to compile a dictionary of that variety; in such a dictionary, of course, defenestration and depontication would be what we can call Paradebeispiele. In such a dictionary even defenestration would be listed with a somewhat idiosyncratic meaning of its own: in this putative Prague English, the word can only have the meaning that I gave above-that of a (usually political) attentate. By contrast, in American classes there were students for whom the word referred simply to the act of throwing something out of a window, for whatever purpose. This use of the term would tend to show a difference between general English and what we have called its hypothetical Prague variety; however, I have always suspected that those students did not know the word at all and were only using the etymology to guess at

130

Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity

the meaning. 7) Father Tim Gollob (Texas Catholic, 29 Aug. 1986) gives us a description of his visits as a boy in a workshop: "I recall the joy of going down to the shop where my dad worked. There was the smell of well-oiled machinery. There was the din of metal being antagonized into farm equipment." It is possible that this is again a case of a simple malapropism, but it seems more probable that it is quite an original metaphorical application of the word in a sense which is easily comprehensible and which I find quite graphic: the hardness of the metal makes for its resistance to the effort of molding it into the desired form. In this application the word is, I believe, nonce. What would be its chances of getting into a dictionary (as opposed to a database)? Again Father Gollob would have to develop into an important author, and even then, one single occurrence would probably not be sufficient. The other possibility is, of course, that Mr. Urdang will one day harness one of his computers for the task of giving us a dictionary of novel expressions; in that case, assuming that Mr. Urdang's word hunters cared to scan the Texas Catholic, Father Gollob's original expression might be preserved for posterity. Again, everything depends on the lexicographer's decision as to what type of dictionary should be prepared and how the vocabulary comprised in it should be limited. 8) In a master's thesis (Dept. of Speech and Hearing Science, U. of 111.) dealing with the treatment of stuttering children through interviews with their parents, one reads: "Although parental counseling has its advantages, it is not deprived of drawbacks." The general usage undoubtedly is that one can be deprived of some positive value, not a negative one. The interesting thing, however, is that in several classes there were a few students who found the context quoted completely acceptable. Clearly a case of diminished criteriality for some speakers. No lexicographer, I think, would put this sense into the dictionary, particularly not into a smaller one, or one with a didactic purpose, but if the number and, more specifically, the frequency of its occurrences increase with time, this sense may find its way there some day. After all, there is a parallel in the phrase thanks to, which Webster's Third has accepted as completely synonymous with owing to. The example in Webster's Third is: "It took us a couple of days to get there thanks to fog." Also a case of diminished criteriality. 9) A headline (News Gazette 18 May 1989) informs the reader: "Exercise reduces blood fat despite diet." The meaning is clarified by the opening sentence of the article: "Regardless of diet or weight loss, exercise reduces levels of fat in the bloodstream. ..." Here we seem to have a case of generalization similar to that apparent in the sentence "Thanks to a sudden illness, we could not leave for our vacation yesterday." It was interesting to find out that a number of students did not find anything extraordinary about the sentence quoted. Some students would have been happier had the sentence read "exercise reduces blood fat in spite of diet," an example disclosing a complete loss of the original restriction. The decision here concerning possible inclusion in a dictionary will be the same as in the preceding case, although the loss of the original restriction in meaning here seems to have proceeded further. Naturally, if

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

131

the dictionary being compiled were not limited to what is considered standard language, but aimed to include other varieties as well, this item's candidacy for inclusion would be even stronger. And lastly, (10). The News Gazette (7 May 1989) reports that " ... a psychologist believes violence is commonplace ... and made mundane by repetitive violent images in the media." It would seem that there is nothing extraordinary in this application of the word mundane·, all dictionaries have it in the sense of 'ordinary' or 'commonplace.' What is surprising is that a small group of students and one professor of linguistics (all of them native speakers of English) found this usage unacceptable. The case shows that disagreement among speakers over usage is even more widespread than one would have thought. This example runs contrary to the two preceding ones, because in this case, a group of native speakers is more restrictive than the general usage. The lexicographer's attitude toward this case will most probably be the same as in the preceding ones. This short discussion has allowed us to touch on only a few aspects of lexicography. Vast areas beset with problems have gone unmentioned, as, e.g., practical bilingual lexicography, learner's dictionaries with their problems so specific to the theory of learning and more generally, of the acquiring of knowledge, or even dictionaries for automatic handling of linguistic material. Still, even with these restrictions, we were able to perceive that there is what Householder would likely call Hocus Pocus in the lexicographer's work. That is strongly suggested by the fact that the entry for one and the same word can be organized in completely different ways without losing its verisimilitude; or that entries patch together information pertaining to different idiolects (since nobody knows all the words and all their meanings). Furthermore, we have seen that each of those endless molecular problems concerning one word or one context is in reality a microcosm of decisions reflecting the macrocosm of the lexicographer's cultural, societal, and even philosophical stances. Still, one cannot deny that there is in language what Householder would call God's Truth, in the sense that there is a structure and meaning shared by speakers; yet one must accept that this God's Truth consists of many sub-Truths, one at least for each idiolect, dialect, variety, jargon, or whatever. How the sum of these or some mixed combinations of them are organized is a question which Uriel Weinreich [ 1926-1967] already discovered to be quite difficult to answer, when he posed the question "Is structural dialectology possible?" However, lexicography is a pragmatically oriented activity, so the fact that we can communicate and that our dictionaries are demonstrably useful for that communication will probably be taken by most of us as a sufficient proof that there is some reality in our descriptions of how lexical elements of that communication function. That is our God's Truth. Questions such as whether communication can be exact or whether it is necessarily distorted by unavoidable differences between the encoder and the decoder, or even whether the ability to communicate is built up through a learning process or consists in activating a part of what older philosophers, such as the adherents of Leibniz, called harmonia praestabilita and what moderns term genetic endowment, are a step or two removed from our field of activities. For instance, if there is a difference between the encoder and the decoder, whether necessary or

132

Hocus Pocus vs. God's Truth or The Lexicographer's Creativity

avoidable, our prime task is to pin it down and try to explain it. Some schools of thought in contemporary philology and mainly literary criticism stress what is sometimes called the heteroglossia of language; that is, they stress roughly what de Saussure already knew, namely, that every speaker of any language has his own idiolect, as some examples quoted above tend to show. The difference is that for de Saussure, the idiolect was an individual system, whereas the notion of heteroglossia verges on, and sometimes comprises, the idea of a diversity within the speech habits of an individual. In any case, at least some idiolects have been lexicographically treated in the form of dictionaries of some outstanding individual authors. In any case, the element of Hocus Pocus in Householder's sense - that is, the possible coexistence of two or more equally good descriptions of a structure, large or small - is certainly present in lexicography. Each of us knows any number of parallel entries dealing with the same entry word in a radically different way. However, in many - perhaps in most - cases of different descriptions of the same structure, it is not a matter of Hocus Pocus; it is rather adaptation to the purpose of the dictionary, and consideration of such matters as the intended user for whom the work is designed, the specific purpose, the nature of the data to be dealt with, and so on, as we are all aware. These adaptations to the purposes pursued by the dictionary being compiled are not free variation in the presentation of data, in the sense of Householder; it will be far better to perceive them as a manifestation of the lexicographer's creativity in pursuing various aims by suitable means. Far from being a mechanical occupation, lexicography is a highly creative activity. We have seen that a context in itself is, no doubt, an incontestable fact; however, it is useful only when it is interpreted within the framework of all those considerations and decisions. Porzig in his day asserted very aptly "Bis auf die Artikulation ist die Sprache Geist" (= with the exception of articulation, language is an activity of intellect). By the same token, one could contend that "with the exception of the contexts, lexicography is a creative activity of the intellect."

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

133

2.4. Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow Or, Vaticinations on the Learner's Dictionary (Asatyakosyam)*

The time span between the date I returned from a trip and actually received the invitation to write this paper, and the date the manuscript would have to be sent was just a few weeks weeks more than full of other obligations, busy with the merry-go-round of the end of the term, and so on. Consequently, the decision had to be faced: either write nothing, or write a text not adorned with footnotes, references, and other paraphernalia of solid scholarship, that is, a paper containing only opinions and ideas, if not perhaps illusions. I decided for the latter possibility: to write a paper containing purely personal impressions (not results of lege artis performed enquiries), and some vague vaticinations (not well-argued judgements and conclusions based on exhaustive searches in bibliographies). In short, this paper will discuss some possible prognoses concerning the possible and desirable future development of the learner's dictionary - prognoses that in some respects merely anticipate, without developing the technical details.1 In other words, my intention is to write a futuristic article. And why not? If 'science fiction' is an accepted branch of literature (and Webster's Ninth tells me that the collocation dates from 1851), why should we not indulge in lexi-fiction, particularly for a celebratory purpose like the present one? So let this be an exercise in futuristic lexi-fiction. However, how could a humanistic scholar like myself start talking about the future except through an excursus into the past? Otherwise, an abomination indeed. It may be a matter of general consensus that the first specimen of a contemporary learner's dictionary was A. S. Hornby's Advanced Learner's Dictionary, published by Oxford University Press in 1948 (1st edition), and that the most important innovation of this dictionary consisted in the systematic and explicit indication of syntactic patterns in which English verbs occur. Considered from a strictly theoretical point of view, this is not a great novelty in lexicographic tradition, at least outside the realm of English; after all, since at least the early nineteenth century, any Greek or Latin dictionary (which were the two languages most frequently and intensively taught in European schools at that time, perhaps up to the First World War) indicated the verbs' syntactic patterns. The only difference between the practice of those dictionaries and Hornby (but a capital one) was that both Latin and Greek are inflected languages, so that the most prominent features of a verb's syntactic pattern is the case it governs, i.e., the case in which the verb's object or complement etc. must stand: Lat. bibo. -ere 'drink' governs the Accusative; utor. -i 'use' the Ablative; Gr. hepomai, -esthai 'follow' the Dative, etc. There is no need to mention that the mere indication of the case as it was given in the old Reprinted from: Learners' Dictionaries: State of the Art. Edited by Makhan L. Tickoo, Anthology Series 23, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 1989d. The first part of the title is inspired by Jerome K. Jerome. 1

Besides the titles cited in the text, the reader will find rich references in Herbst (1990) and Zgusta, (1988c).

134

Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

dictionaries is not sufficient, if not for another reason than because frequently it is also necessary to know which preposition joins the verb with its complement; but even with this limitation, the indication of the case was quite a powerful descriptive means. The model of these inflected classical languages dominated the treatment of other languages for a long time; it is not so long ago that children were taught in school to call the nominal prepositional phrase with of the Genitive, that with to the Dative, the direct object and forms like me, him, whom the Accusative. However, this transfer of grammatical terms did not entail the transfer of the lexicographic practice: to my knowledge, even in the heyday of traditional grammar, no English dictionary indicated the verbs' syntactic patterns by the terminology of the inflectional cases. After all, it would be awkward to say that, e.g., demand governs Accusative + Ablative (something from someone); and then, there are more prepositional phrases in English than cases in Latin, so one would have to use the model of then unheard-of-languages that have many cases, like Finnish, to get all the necessary cases ('to cut with' = Instrumental, but 'to talk with' = Comitative). Thus, it is quite natural that verb trans, and intrans. were the basic, and usually the only, descriptors used in English dictionaries. Modern descriptive grammar, inspired above all by structuralism, not only put an end to transfers of traditional terms such as the designations of cases to formally different if (at least partly) functionally similar forms and patterns, but stressed the necessity of studying syntactic patterns not only as strings of all the objects and complements, with their prepositions, that accompany the verbs, but also with a broader perspective (best represented by Firth's British and Tesniere's French schools); namely, that of various collocability requirements and restrictions. It was the genius of Hornby that perceived the fruitfulness of all these insights for a practical purpose, namely, their usefulness to the learner and the possibility of encapsulating such descriptions of this new type in a dictionary. An increased interest in typical collocations was the logical accompaniment of the indication of the syntactic patterns themselves. What followed after Hornby's breakthrough was an ever-increasing amount of information, both that made available by linguistic research, and that actually put into the learner's dictionary. (The two sets largely overlap but are neither identical nor included one in the other.) The main areas of increase of information are, in particular: First, syntactic patterns themselves, whose study is strongly fostered by what is called, mostly in France and Germany, the study of valences, and is by now so refined, at least in some spheres of the vocabulary, that it overflows into the realm of the second area of rapid increase of information, namely, that of collocability restrictions by semantic classes or by idiosyncrasy of the respective lexical unit. This is naturally connected with the third area, that of set phrases and expressions. While one can safely expect the amount of information of these types to continue increasing, growth of research has already started in other areas as well. Most of them belong to what is by now usually called pragmatics; this notion is, however, so broad that it will be useful to mention the more important individual areas that belong here.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

135

The study of discourse and of speech acts has rejuvenated the studies of style and of the various functions of language. Mastery of a (foreign) language is measured not only by the grammaticality of the sentences produced by the learner, but also by their functional appropriateness. That is a vast field of study which extends into the remote spheres of the ethnography of speaking (habits and manners to be observed in discourse and conversation), of the stratification of society as reflected in discourse (e.g., the degrees of honorific and other styles, so important for many languages of Asia), of the different style-levels normal in various languages (e.g., the English proclivity to understatement), and other similar areas. However, since language is embedded in culture, cultural data are important to the learner not only for steering his linguistic behavior, but frequently for choosing the correct lexical equivalent. Such cultural information can be understood in a broad way, so that it can pertain to political and administrative realities of the country or countries whose language is being learned, and so on. Undoubtedly, a good part of this information is of encyclopedic character; be this as it may, this information belongs to what the learner has to acquire. Another possible source of encyclopedicity are the technical terms that penetrate into the generally used vocabulary in ever-increasing numbers. It is true that special-language dictionaries, not the learner's dictionary are the proper places to handle such nomenclature; but it is, on the other hand, also true that many such terms are used in general language in a 'debased', i.e., not strictly technical, less precise or slightly different, meaning, which sometimes requires an encyclopedic gloss, and that many of them are, and more of them will have to be, included in learner's dictionaries (e.g., Longman Active Study Dictionary of English (1983a) has for instance, cholesterol, laser, libido, paternalism). At the same time, pedagogical practice has shown how important and useful it is to keep making the learner aware of the paradigmatic relations of lexical units; in consequence, it would be useful to indicate synonyms (preferably with meaning discriminations), antonyms, co-hyponyms, etc. This in its turn makes even stronger the requirement of the lexicographic methodology that related lexical units, particularly sets of nomenclature and terms, be treated as groups, as onomasiological pockets, in an alphabetically organized learner's dictionary, e.g., in separate paragraphs or in "boxes". As the amount of information put into dictionaries increases, the expectations of the public, i.e., of the buyer, can be expected to rise as well; and this may be particularly true in respect to learner's dictionaries: the buyer of a learner's dictionary (or the teacher advising him) will expect it to be as refined as the modern methodology of a linguistic laboratory is. So on the one hand, there is development which leads to constant increase in the amount of information of various types, and to a constant refinement of the way in which it is presented. On the other hand, various buyers or users of dictionaries have various specific needs. Even if we restrict ourselves to learners, we see that there are many recognizable groups of users that can be identified and correlated to what they need; for instance, there is a clear covariation of age groups and ways of explanation of the entry words' meaning to be used in different types of dictionaries. Other groups of learners are those whose endeavor to master a

136

Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

language is targeted at a limited goal; e.g., the ability to read and understand scientific prose, or the ability to discuss scientific topics. Other groups of learners are defined by the type of their previous education. However, even with all these and similar more-or-less clearly indicated groups, the majority of learners is probably still a large, somewhat amorphous population, whose members usually range from late-adolescent to early middle-age, usually with some education either already acquired or in the process of being acquired, normally from high school (in American terminology), or college, or some professional school. Therefore, we are caught in the following impasse. Each successful or attempted improvement of the learner's dictionary will probably be accompanied by an increase in information offered by the dictionary. However, adding all the information available would make the dictionary too large; therefore, either methods of selective reduction must be found, an option which is not easy and requires enquiries of its own, or the information must be given in a form so succinct that it may become difficult to grasp. (Usually, the lexicographer proceeds by a combination of both methods.) Naturally, there are ways to cope with this impasse. One of them is the prolific production of highly specialized dictionaries, a task made easy by the computer. This specialization of dictionaries covaries with, or is governed by the specific needs of, the various groups mentioned above. Another type of specialization has its fundamentum divisionis in the categories of linguistic (and other) phenomena themselves; there are dictionaries of "grammatical" (morphological, syntactic) difficulties, of collocations, of idioms, etc. However, specialization cannot be a panacea; there is a limited number of dictionaries the 'normal' user, or learner, is willing to buy. And apart from that consideration, it can be said that if the learner were supposed to buy a series of specialized dictionaries, the effect on the total outlay of money and on the unwieldiness of the series of books would not be smaller than that of one large but comprehensive book. The other way to cope with the impasse described consists in empirical studies of what the users of dictionaries really seek, how they understand what they are told, etc. Such empirical studies have proliferated in recent times; they have brought and undoubtedly will keep bringing much improvement in the format of dictionaries in all its aspects. The reduction of the bulk of the dictionary is (or should or will be), then, a selective process based on what the empirical studies have established as the type(s) of information most sought in dictionaries and as the most efficient ways of presenting it. However, efficient and useful as all these methods of improvement and all the research connected with them are, they can hardly cope with all the idiosyncratic preferences of the individual users (or learners). Teaching a language is not my field, so my experience with learners is severely limited; however, in spite of this limitation, I have known students who prefer the formulaic representations of syntactic patterns as in Longman, but also other students who prefer discursive explanations; I have known students who like informal definitions of the COBU1LD type, but also some that felt repulsed, disgusted, and confused by them; the exemplification could continue. Also, learners use the dictionary both for understanding a text in the foreign language and for producing one; while they usually would be unwilling to buy two dictionaries for these

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

137

purposes; they need different information for them. And again, the users' expectations are not fully predictable on the basis of their task, because of their idiosyncratic preferences. For instance, I have known students who found typical collocations more useful for the understanding of a foreign text but abstract syntactic patterns for its production, but there were some who preferred collocations for both tasks. As far as hard-core learning, or memorizing goes, there again one can observe differences in the students: ome seem to have a more abstract memory, so they remember best the formulaic patterns, which they then enrich by collocations; on the other hand, some begin with a verb's typical collocation or collocations, of which the pattern then is the more abstract representation, but some never seem really to understand the formulae. All of this variation can be described with a much greater degree of finesse: there are, e.g., students who prefer Longman's style of formulae to that of Hornby, and vice versa; no need, however, to belabor the point. Naturally, one can imagine, particularly in a futuristic article, that the specialization of dictionaries mentioned above will continue. Even today, one can buy Benson-Benson-Ilson (1986) if one wishes to concentrate on collocations; one buys Cowie's dictionaries for the study of phrasal verbs; one does not have to buy COBUILD if one prefers formal definitions to the COBUILD style; one buys, say, Webster's Ninth if one has to cope with hard words, etc. Consequently, one can imagine that at some point of time in the future, the user, or the learner, will have the possibility of buying according to his preference and choice, e.g., a dictionary easy on patterns, rich in typical collocations, not burdened by idioms, with only approximate but easy definitions, and with numerous pictorial illustrations particularly in the field of, say, architecture. (Such specializations are already coming into existence: Jacqueline Kubczak (1980) reports on a project of a German learner's dictionary for foreign university students: no "easy" words, full valences of verbs, "hard" words from student life and scientific discourse.) Possible as such specialization into many various types will soon be, it, however, it does not give a solution to the impasse: first, because the learner must himself use the dictionary for some considerable time before he can find out what suits him best, and nobody can give him really specific, precise advice in different situations: he may need only the barest outline of information in many situations, but the need may and does arise for a more detailed treatment of a problem. (The variety of the possible tasks has already been mentioned above.) We have seen above that a series or group of books is not a good answer to these variegated needs, nor is a single printed book, simply because of its physical limitations: the print cannot be smaller beyond the point of readability, and the paper cannot be thinner beyond the point of usability and durability. Therefore, a printed, traditional book's bulk necessarily grows with additional information. Also, in spite of rigid distribution of different types of information into different slots of the entry, the longer the entry, the more difficult to grasp it as a whole or to select, or abstract, out of it what is concretely needed in the given situation. The more comprehensive the formulae and concise the symbols (in order to save space), the more difficult to understand and remember them.

138

Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

The finesse of linguistic description is already such that, e.g., English phrasal verbs need special dictionaries of their own, specifically prepared for the learner. The valences of a few hundred German verbs make a dictionary of their own. With continued linguistic research, the amount of information of all types will keep increasing; at the same time, the learner will need a comprehensive digest of all that information, because one can confidently expect that the ratio of the learner's time spent in a laboratory in the company of a machine, to the time spent in class with a teacher will not change in favor of the latter. The day when I had the attention and help of a Miss Trembath, or Mme Oriez, or Gosp. Kopylov (and God bless their patient souls!) exclusively for myself (several times a week) is gone, and as well for the majority of learners: they will more and more have to ask the machine, not the teacher. A remark is necessary at this juncture: this whole discussion is focused not on children, particularly not the more privileged ones; nor on those learners who wish to acquire only some minimal proficiency or can be expected to learn languages by exposure to native speakers either at home or abroad; nor is it concerned with the fragmentary type of language learning that results from milling around abroad in the backpackers' way; nor does it take into consideration the reasonable assumption that machine translation of simple scientific and technical texts written in standardized style, using defined terminology and avoiding metaphoricity of any sort will be possible, for the more important languages, in the not-too-distant future.) The answer to these multifarious needs I would seek in what I would call a 'modular dictionary with variable density of information', stored in and activated by a computer. The dictionary could be termed modular because I envisage the different types of grammatical, pragmatic, cultural, and encyclopedic information to form coherent blocks; some overlapping would be necessary (e.g., no presentation of grammatical or syntactic patterns, even the most general one, can be completely free of a sprinkling of collocational examples), but basically the organization would be such that the learner could concentrate on grammar, or on idioms, or on some strange collocations in a text he reads, on synonyms, on an onomasiological group, or on any pragmatic or encyclopedic type of information. This is not much different from the situation in a printed book, where, as we said, the types of information usually are rigidly distributed into always the same slots in the same sequence; the difference, however, consists in the circumstances that the different length of entries in a printed book causes the same functional slot to be situated in different positions on the page, so to locate a slot, the eye must at least cursorily run through the entry, whereas in a computer program the same command will call up the same functional slot immediately. More important, however, is the other qualification of the dictionary that we have in mind, namely, with variable density of information. The idea is that the learner could start with elementary information, say, with the most general formulation of a pattern, most typical collocations, etc., and could proceed from there toward more specific, refined, detailed information; or he could start midway and not go any further in his search; or he could immediately go to rarely occurring idioms, if he hits some strange passage; or he could call up some general encyclopedic information about a term, or on the contrary, a more technical one.

Methods and Trends in Lexicography

139

Much research (irrespective of whether such a 'modular dictionary' is constructed or not) will have to be invested in finding out what difference obtains between the type of information and the format of its presentation that is particularly useful in translating foreign texts and in producing them. Some things have been known since time immemorial: for instance, that the latter situation requires information about typical collocations, whereas the former also requires some information about collocational and other rarities and even nonces occurring in important texts. However, infinitely much more will have to be found out. The degrees of increasing density of information will have to be established with greater clarity than that reached in our days; preferably, the degrees should be numerous and the gradual differences between pairs of sequentially adjacent degrees small. There should also be the possibility of creating subsets of information included in different blocks and conflating them with a set overlapping with two or several blocks; say, e.g., a set of collocations that show a syntactic feature and are pragmatically (i.e., culturally or stylistically, etc.) marked. The repertory of such sets should not be fixed, but the learner should have the possibility of creating them in a tentative way by attempting to combine subsets from different blocks; it goes without saying that he would occasionally, if not frequently, create an empty set: as long as the emptiness of the set reflects the situation in the language, and not a lacuna in the data or the program, no harm in that - quite to the contrary. Indeed, this putative flexibility of the program (accompanied, of course, by an appropriate marking of data in the database) in the creation of new such sets can be seen as the learner's opportunity to ask questions whose answers must draw on information in different blocks. It is this flexibility that would give such a computerized modular dictionary as envisaged here the definite advantage over the printed book, because of the speed with which such subsets can be collected and conflated into the required set. The other important advantage would be the following: the variable density of information would allow the learner to use the same modular dictionary from an elementary stage of his knowledge of the foreign language to a high degree of proficiency in that language, so that he would become thoroughly familiar with the whole program and could exploit everything it offers, whereas few learners (at least to my knowledge) use, say, Longman (1978) long enough really to appreciate and make full use of what Procter's patterns offer. On the whole, one would think that the computational part of the task in the construction of such a dictionary is easier to cope with than the linguistic component. As far as hardware is concerned, today's computers would, I think, allow the construction of a program such as discussed here; in a futuristic context, one would, however, like the learner to have the whole program in a portable apparatus, so that he could learn anywhere, not only where a language laboratory or a telephone outlet connected with it allows. This should be no particular difficulty, seeing the rapid progress the whole field has been making: both a storage of more information in a smaller space than today and cordless communication with the database are easily imaginable, and other possibilities may develop. Again, the development of already existing computerized dictionaries, primitive and limited as they still are, has been so rapid, and such dictionaries, whether orthographic, or synonymic, or bilingual, are so efficient when built as part (integral or optional) of various text-processing machines (word processors, typewriters) or when used a separate apparatus, that it bodes well for

140

Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

further development of computerized dictionaries of a much more sophisticated character. It goes without saying that future users will know 'how to push the buttons,' so to say, a teneris unguibus, that is, very early in life. The linguistic - partly pedagogical, partly lexicographic - task, would seem to be more difficult, both because of the sheer mass of data to be handled and because of the at least partial absence of a unified notional framework in which to handle it. But again, the progress made since the Second World War has been so remarkable that it permits the assumption that a project or idea of something like the 'modular dictionary with variable density of information' futuristic though it may be, is not impossible.

Chapter Three Dictionaries and the Lexicon

3.1. The Lexicon and Dictionaries: Some Theoretical and Historical Observations* Far back, nearly at the beginning of the lexicographic traditions, we hear the charming tale (related by Katre 1980) about the king of the Indian pantheon, the God Indra, who, aided by his divine preceptor Brhaspati, devoted one thousand years to the attempt to count all the words of Sanskrit. Not surprisingly, if sadly, he failed in his effort. The moral of the tale is clear: if a divine effort failed, it would be hubris on the part of a mere mortal to attempt the same. We all know at least one reason why this is so: neologisms come into existence constantly and more of them could be coined, at any time, than really appear. Thus if the lexicon of a language has ways of becoming enriched (we are reluctant to say "of enriching itself' lest we hypostasize language too strongly), it can be considered the linguist's duty to indicate the rules (and those colleagues who wish to do so may insert here, instead of rules, any other suitable term such as laws or tendencies or combinational possibilities or productive means, etc.) by which the new expressions come into existence. Whether or not we postulate for this task a separate branch of linguistics, say, what is frequently called word formation, is immaterial; in any case, lexicography will be concerned with the results of such a study. The important thing is that lexicographers have largely recognized this and have tried to give at least some pertinent indications: most noteworthy are the majority of English, French, and recently, also German dictionaries, which indicate the strongly productive morphemes in separate entries, even if they themselves occur only in combinations, not independently, such as, e.g., anti-, pseudo-, etc. Le Robert Methodique (1982) is completely based on this principle. In spite of this admittedly modest, if useful, attempt, the theoretical question remains intact: is it possible to compile and present the totality of the lexicon including all the neologisms, nonces, jocose occasionalities and at least adumbrate, at the same time, all such yet unattested but possible coinages? It is only logical that the school of linguistic thought that purports to generate all the future possible but only the grammatical sentences of a language by stating the rules of grammar necessary for their production, also purports to generate compounds and derivations, attested and potential, by similar rules. Of course, transformational grammar is not the first attempt in this direction; e.g., Jacobi (1897) already tried to establish such rules. Transformational grammar has the most detailed notional apparatus for such an attempt, and what is even more important, takes into *Reprinted from: Papers in Linguistics, International Journal of Human Communication. Advances in Lexicography, Special Section Editors William Frawley & Roger Steiner, Boreal Scholarly Publishers & Distributors Ltd., U S A , 1986b, 6 7 - 8 1 .

142

The Lexicon and Dictionaries

consideration the nonfinite character of the lexicon. Laudable as this attempt is, however, it does not yield results that would be, in their totality, of direct and immediate use to the practical lexicographer. I shall not repeat what I said on the subject in Zgusta (1973) and in Zgusta (1980a), nor shall I survey the transformational works mentioned there. May it suffice to say that the frequent idiosyncrasies of meaning, unpredictable by the word formation rules, still form an obstacle to the smooth functioning of such a generative apparatus. This is why the last extensive work that tries to establish such a generative apparatus (Beard 1981) must proceed through what can be considered tiers: the absolutely regular derivations, predictable both in form and meaning, are treated by rules whose locus is the speaker's competence. However, derivations with unpredictable characteristics are assumed to take place, or reside, in the speaker's performance or even in his general memory. However, we can say that whatever the merits or demerits of this approach to the theory of transformational grammar may be, the lexicographer is still faced with the idiosyncrasies and unpredictability of many derivations. Other pertinent works, such as Wasow (1977), Mallinson (1979), Muysken (1981), or Haider (1983) do not change this result, as far as the lexicographer is concerned. On the contrary, there seems to be no lack of publications, such as Schindler (1972), Coseriu (1981), Simone (1983), or Seriani (1983), which gave good cases of such unpredictability with their underlying reasons, or Vennemann (1974), which pleads for separate storage of each derivational and inflexional form in the speaker's memory. (See also Werner (1980-1981), and Dressier (1981), for interesting insights.) It should be noted that in all this discussion, we have not yet mentioned the fact that many new terms come into existence simply by a change of meaning of an already existing expression. Nor have we mentioned the idiomatic and slangy expressions and phrases that constantly keep coming into existence, if sometimes only ephemerally, all of which tend to be highly idiosyncratic in their meaning. As far as changes of meaning are concerned, not even transformational grammar claims to possess some rules that would yield largely predictable results. Therefore, considered from this point of view, the lexicon presents itself to the lexicographer as consisting of three main categories of items: 1. the attested, stabilized lexical units, either (a) synchronically transparent (derivable) or (b) opaque, some of them obsolete and/or opaque; 2. the attested ephemera] expressions and nonces; 3. productive morphemes and rules for generating new words, with an area of possible, potential words and expressions in their background.

Needless to say, there is a broad area of overlapping among these categories, and the decision as to whether a unit belongs to (1) or (2) is not always objectively quantifiable, based on, or resulting in a general consensus. Languages differ as to their ratios of these individual categories. For instance, a language with a rich morphology, including processes of word formation, and at the same time a high degree of formal and semantic regularity and only infrequent morphophonological changes

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

143

(see Eilers 1975), can afford dictionary entries that are based on root morphemes, with the derived forms treated as subentries. Thus, an Arabic dictionary gives by its total organization at least a hint of what further, yet unattested coinages there might be and what they might mean. On the contrary, a dictionary of a poly synthetic or similar language, such as Papago (Mathiot 1973), Visayan (Wolff 1972), or Ngizim (Schuh 1981), must heavily rely on what we termed above as category (3), because so many morphemes whose equivalents would be independent words or particles in other languages combine with other morphemes to form words and sometimes undergo strong morphophonological changes in the process. In all such cases, one can wonder whether the approach of transformational grammar would not fare better if it were based on languages like these; but such an expectation would be only partly confirmed, since the individual derivations in these languages also show idiosyncrasies of their own. Proposals to base the dictionaries of all languages on the morphemes also belong to this area of problems; however, one of the most important proposals, Makkai (1980), has the theoretical foundation not of transformational, but of stratificational grammar. Be this as it may, if we observe the monolingual dictionaries of modern European languages in general and of English in particular, we see that most of their entries belong to category (1), and that with full justification. It is true that category (3) — strongly productive morphemes—is not poorly represented in them; it suffices to check in the by-now-classic Oxford English Dictionary to see how well treated are elements like anti-; still, the number of such entries is small. Category (2)—nonces—is well represented only in the largest dictionaries, say, in the Oxford English Dictionary, particularly if they, like the OED, try to be historically and philologically exhaustive. The so-called unabridged dictionaries that have no claim to be historical, such as Webster's Third New International Dictionary,contain far fewer nonces. Generally speaking, ephemeral and occasional expressions and nonces normally find refuge in philological dictionaries and in special dictionaries of neologisms. Consequently, when we discuss the relation between the lexicon and dictionaries, it is mostly category (1) —stabilized expressions, transparent or opaque—which we have to consider if we have in mind general dictionaries. The question is then, which parts of a language's total lexical stock belonging to this category do general monolingual dictionaries include and why? The first historical case in our cultural area that we can analyze is that of Greece. In that country, lexicography evolved from the collection and explanation of 'hard words.' The 'hard words' and their explanations were called gldssai, hence our 'glossary.' These glosses were of different origins: obsolete words occurring in authors such as Homer that were already centuries old in classical antiquity; dialectal words occurring in various authors; and poetic and similar marked expressions. Although the glossaries that we know, such as the Lexikon of Hesychios, come only from the first centuries A.D., they are based on much older glossaries that date back to a time several centuries B.C. This was the main thrust of old Greek lexicography, sometimes accompanied by an interest in etymology, or derivation, going back to the classical age.

144

The Lexicon and Dictionaries

Mostly in the third and later centuries A.D., we can observe the development of the other type of Greek lexicography, namely the prescriptivist or prohibitive type. As can be expected, the Greek language changed considerably between the classical age (that is, the 5th and the 4th centuries B.C.) and the 3rd century A.D. However, beginning with the 2nd century A.D., it was highly fashionable, and in some literary genres rather compulsory, to imitate in writing (and later on even, to some extent, in speaking) the language of the classical age. It is no small task to imitate an archaic language in all its morphology and syntax, and to limit oneself to the old lexis; no wonder, then, that a new type of dictionary came into existence, as, e.g., that of Phrynichos (2nd or 3rd century A.D.). These dictionaries contained the words and expressions, hard or everyday, attested in the classical authors, particularly if they differed from the current colloquial ones. Some of these dictionaries had as their entiywords current colloquial expressions, followed by classical terms which were to be used instead. This is, then, how European lexicography started: first, with the explanation of 'hard words'; then, when diglossia came to Greece, with the indications of classical expressions to use instead of the current ones. The purpose of these latter dictionaries was to help in the creation of an admittedly artificial and archaic literary (or standard) language. This pattern is, at least partially, repeated in more recent languages. For instance, older English lexicography is largely concerned with hard words. Cawdrey [ca 1538-?] (1604), Bullokar [d.1622] (1616), Phillips [1630-1696?] (1658), and Coles [1640?-1680] (1676) are all mainly concerned with hard words, and naturally so; the reader of texts wishes to understand these words. Examples of hard words are authenticall, autumne, axiome, bankerupt, barbarian. One of these lexicographers, Cockeram, [d. 1650] went so far that he, not unlike the later Greek lexicographers, offered also a reversed glossary, in which the hard words were indicated as desirable equivalents for the more current entrywords, e.g.: 'to awake one, expergesce, exuscitate; to babble, deblaterate,' etc. Some of these hard words probably never belonged to what we have called Category (1): e.g., Cockeram's acersecomicke, 'one whose hair was never cut,' undoubtedly was just an occasional borrowing from Greek, subservient to the fashion of the day. However, quite another type of 'hard words,' namely what can be considered terms belonging to different technical registers, such as axillary, 'belonging to the arm-hole,' axillary vein, axillary artery; azimuths; and similar words are present as well. Already Blount [1618-1679] (1656) wrote in his title that his Dictionary contained '... also the terms of divinity, law, physick, mathematick, heraldry, anatomy, war, musick, architecture; and of several arts and sciences ...' and this trend kept gaining momentum until it reached its peak in Bailey [: dl742] (1730), in whose title "hard and technical words or terms of art" were distinguished as two separate categories. A third category of entrywords that were present in all the dictionaries of the time were those that headed encyclopedic entries. Such entries were usually interspersed in the alphabetic sequence of all the entrywords; sometimes (as in Cockeram 1623) they were given in a separate appendix. In any case, various words like azymes 'a solemnity ... among the Iewes,' Baal, Babel, Babylon, Bacchanals, and Golgotha can be found in all the dictionaries of the time. Naturally, Cawdrey (1604) has not too many of them, but Bailey (1730) again

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

145

offers a large number of them. Thus, English lexicography reached the 18th century with the three categories of hard words, technical terms, and encyclopedic expressions as entrywords. In the meantime, however, an important development took place: J. K. (1702) and Kersey [1616-1690] (1708) (probably both written by the same author) introduced the everyday or "easy" words into the dictionary. This was something new compared to, e.g., Bullokar [d.1622] (1616), who says explicitly in his preface: "If a word bee of different significations, the one easie, the other more difficult, I only speake of interpretation of the hardest." And Bullokar is true to his word: We read in his dictionary the entry 'Girle. A roe bucke of two years.' Dolezal (1986) has made a strong point that the real instigator of this policy was Bishop Wilkins, and Dolezal has pursued this line of development. Therefore, we shall not repeat that and shall turn elsewhere. One of the main lexicographic developments on the continent was the publication of the Dictionary of the French Academy, Le Dictionnaire de VAcademie, in 1694. Up to that time, French lexicography followed, broadly speaking, the same development as its English counterpart. Still in the late 17th century Richelet [ 1626-1698] (1680) and Furetiere (1690) state in their titles that their dictionaries contain "les mots et les choses ... avec les termes les plus connus des arts et des sciences" and "tous les mots f r a n ^ i s tant vieux que modernes, et les termes de toutes les sciences et des arts," respectively. In contradistinction to this, the Dictionary of the French Academy does not list obsolete and archaic words and technical terms; it does not give encyclopedic information nor does it indicate nonces and ephemeral expressions. Furthermore, it does not indicate etymologies. We have not mentioned the fact above because it is somewhat extraneous to our discussion, but most of the older dictionaries do attempt etymological explanations. The Dictionary of the French Academy does not do so. It is a dictionary which describes the speech of the educated upper classes of French society; and it has the explicit intention of exercising a prohibitive and prescriptive influence. When we judge this dictionary purely on its strength as a description of French, we may occasionally find it wanting. There is, however, no doubt that as a model of a method it has proved to be influential. Most subsequent Continental dictionaries followed suit in many respects: most of them do not indicate etymologies and reject or strongly reduce the encyclopedic information. Obsolete and archaic words are reduced to those occurring in the canon of the still-read older authors. The only point in which most, or perhaps all, Continental dictionaries do not follow the French model is that whereas the French Academy refused to give concrete quotations of contexts from authors, subsequent dictionaries of other languages (and many French ones as well) do give such concrete examples, either as collocations or as sentences. This, then, is the complete reversal of the earlier situation: from the exclusive indication of hard words to the exclusive indication of easy words, of current usage. If we speculate as to what may have produced this change, we find several reasons, such as the urge for completeness, easily observable in the development of any discipline; or, specifically, the fact that many slots in Wilkins' at least partly aprioristically constructed system could not

146

The Lexicon and Dictionaries

be filled except with expressions of current usage. Osselton (1979) seeks the source of J. K.'s easy words in bilingual dictionaries. There is, however, one reason that I wish particularly to stress: in a situation where the standard national language, as these languages developed in Europe in the centuries that preceded the Dictionary of the French Academy, is not the native dialect of many of its users, many seemingly easy words of such a standard language are hard words for such non-native users of it, so that many of the users seek advice in the dictionary. We could take an even stronger position and say that even a native speaker of a colloquial variety of the standard language or of a dialect closely related to it will occasionally need advice as to some details of its literary variety. In short, it would seem that here we have the root of the fact that the user of a dictionary of a modern standard language usually or at least frequently seeks information in order to get advice. Time does not allow us to pursue this discussion any further (for a survey of French developments, see Quemada (1967); a short synopsis of the German developments is given by Stotzel 1970). We cannot describe how Johnson (1755) struck a middle way by his massive acceptance of the current usage terms and his strong reduction of the hard words, technical terms, and encyclopedic information while, however, sticking to the principle of quotation from authors and not rejecting etymology. We cannot describe here how technical terminology found its way back into dictionaries, even into the later edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy. We cannot describe how the American tradition stuck to the pre-Johnson and pre-Academy model of a dictionary, with the encyclopedic information, etymology, hard words, and quotations from authors nearly always included. It would be interesting to know whether this American tradition is a direct descendant of the Nathan Bailey model or not, but that must be the object of another study. In conclusion, let us say the following at least. If we leave aside encyclopedic information and etymology, whose presence in or absence from a dictionary is largely a matter of tradition and which is somewhat extraneous to the topic of this talk, which is specifically the relation between the lexicon and the dictionary, and if we disregard the problems related to poetic diction and other marked items of the lexicon, we may see that the entiywords in the general synchronic monolingual dictionaries largely fall into one of the following three categories. (1) Hard words, that is, learned and sometimes more or less diglottic expressions, in English usually of Latin, Latinate, or Greek origin. Any reader of, e.g., Time magazine will have no trouble identifying this category of very, let us say, self-conscious words. (2) Technical terms. This category is sometimes hard to distinguish from the first and has the additional difficulty that it brings in the encyclopedic element, sometimes against the wishes of the editor of the dictionary. The component of technical terminology keeps increasing in modern dictionaries. One can pursue this development simply in the individual editions of the Dictionary of the French Academy: 1694: no or nearly no technical terms; 1762: some terms accepted; 1877: some 2000 terms added; 1932: this edition was delayed because of the sharply increasing number of technical terms and their "brusque penetration ... dans le parier." Indeed, coping with technical terminology and the lexis of special registers (law, etc.) quickly develops into a major problem of contemporary lexicography. (3) Easy words, which is as we have seen, a fallacious designation of the general expressions of everyday, unspecified registers and styles. In this area, we can observe that dictionaries do

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

147

offer more and more information, particularly of the syntactic, phraseological, and generally collocational type. This is very good and the trend should be continued, if for no other reason than because the scientific purpose of description coincides in this point with the users' interest in getting some information new to them. Few things are as irritating as a dictionary that tells nothing. This circumstance does not surface so strongly in English, where spelling, pronunciation, and division of words are so unpredictable, particularly to the very numerous non-native speakers of this language, that even mere lists of words render good service to typists and others. But to use a small German dictionary like that of Wahrig (1978) is to be frequently irritated, because it happens too often that one does not find there what one really wishes to know or to check, such as the preposition required by a verb and so on. Therefore, let us not forget that a dictionary must not be too drastically reduced, but also that we, as linguists, compile dictionaries for the sake of our discipline. Users buy them in order to get new information and advice, and so all indications of syntagmatic character (in the old Saussurean, pre-Ballyan meaning of the term) are most useful. In this regard, the so-called 'sociology of the user' corroborates what certainly is a personal experience for each of us. The (shall we say) mixture of these three components of the dictionary's vocabulary, their ratio, and treatment depends, of course, on the decision of the editor, his plans, and his expected public.

148

Onomasiological Change

3.2. Onomasiological Change: Sachen-Change Reflected by Wörter*

Whereas semantics studies the problems of meaning, with linguistic phenomena being the starting point of the investigation, onomasiology proceeds from the "things" to the expressions that denote them. This statement immediately shows one of the strong limitations of onomasiology: it is restricted to the study of lexical phenomena (sentences, texts, speech acts, etc., are not studied) and it usually focuses on expressions with a denotative or representational function, preferably of fully or at least semi-terminological character. Nor does it ever reach the philosophical or psychological depth of interpretation frequently attained in semantic studies. It can be conceived of as a rather applied and sometimes immediately practical branch of linguistics which investigates naming within coherent segments of reality; for instance, agricultural terminology, the names of diseases, words relating to sports activities, etc. In a more theoretical understanding, it can be perceived as based either on the Saussurean idea that a (lexical) unit's valeur is determined by its relation to the adjacent (lexical) units, or on philosophical and/or scientific considerations of the relation between 'things' and their taxonomies, and words. Considered from this point of view, an "onomasiological lexical change" is caused by changes in the denoted things, which can belong to any of the following three categories: 1) new things come into existence or are discovered; 2) things cease to exist and/or fall into oblivion; 3) things change.

3.2.1. New things Come Into Existence Or Are Discovered When a new thing comes into existence, is invented, discovered, or taken cognizance of, usually a new expression denoting it comes into existence as well. Such an addition to the lexicon clearly must be considered lexical change. The most frequent sources of such new expressions are the following: a) An already existing word is endowed with a new meaning, frequently in addition to its older senses. For instance, with the arrival of various mechanical gadgets and a widespread use of metallic screws, the word nut developed a new sense, that of the thing which fits around and secures a screw. Any of the changes of lexical meaning known in semantics — narrowing of the sense, metaphor, metonymy, etc. — can take place in this situation. b) A word that had existed in the language but became obsolete or was lost, is revived and endowed with the new sense. For instance, turnpike road, usually shortened to turnpike, was an obsolete word denoting something archaic by the late nineteenth century; however, it

* Reprinted from: Research Guide on Language Change. Ed. by Edgar C. Polome. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 48. Ed. by Werner Winter. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1990a, pp. 389 - 398.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

149

was revived with the construction of expressways in the United States, some of which are financed by toll. c) A new word comes into existence by any word-formational process the respective language has (most frequently it is derivation and composition), or a collocation is lexically stabilized to yield the necessary multiword lexical unit (or composite lexeme); for instance, derivations like Amer. French calumet 'Indian pipe' (from Picardian calumeau, French chalumeau 'straw'); compounds like railway, multiword lexical units like express train, French pomme de terre. Such collocations tend to be of descriptive character. d) The newly coined descriptive multiword lexical unit is frequently abbreviated, namely 1) by ellipsis (e.g., turnpike road > turnpike·, French chemin de fer metropolitan, the official designation of the Paris subway > metropolitain; Czech Röntgenovy paprsky 'R's rays' = 'X-rays' > röntgen, rentgen 'X-rays'); 2) by truncation (e.g., preparatory school > prep in informal language, which involves both ellipsis and truncation; confidence man 'professional swindler', first attested by the Oxford English Dictionary in 1884, soon truncated into con man\ the best example is, however, French metropolitain > metro 'subway', because there is no doubt as to the onomasiological novelty of the thing in the late nineteenth century'; or 3) by acronymy (e.g., radio detecting and ranging > radar). Some of the portmanteau and other similar words also belong here. e) A word is borrowed, usually from the language of the people through whom acquaintance with the thing was made. For instance, potato, tomahawk come from languages of the American Indians. f) The necessary word is sometimes not borrowed but loan-translated (or calqued); that is, its morpheme-to-morpheme translation is endowed with the overall lexical meaning it has in the source language. For instance, Fr. pomme de terre 'apple of the soil' = 'potato' > Germ. Erdapfel 'soil apple' = 'potato'. These loan-translations frequently are only partial, combined with some indigenous word-formational material, or the source language serves as a model only. For instance, Engl, railway, Fr. chemin defer 'way of iron' = 'railway' (rail is the model for fer) > Germ. Eisenbahn 'iron way' = 'railway' (exact calquing) > Czech zeleznice 'railway' (zelezo 'iron' + -ni-ce, indigenous derivational suffixes). Sometimes the source language is the model for the development of a new sense: for instance, Greek ptosis 'fall; case (gram.)' > Lat. casus 'fall' and later 'case (gram.)'. g) Proper names are a frequent source of new expressions. Typically, we have cases of naming from the place of origin (e.g., china, denim < de Nimes, jeans < Genoese), from the inventor (Röntgen's rays — see above [d]), or for purely honorific purposes (polonium for Poland; volt for Count Volta). h) The new expression is coined on the basis of existing linguistic material, but without regard for the normal derivational processes. For instance, the Czech playwright Karel Capek created the word robot around 1920; it is inspired by Czech robota 'heavy, compulsory 1

Interestingly, both forms were borrowed into Russian. In everyday language, spoken and written, 'subway' is metro·, in more official texts it is metropolian (with the non-palatalizing e, here spelt as e). Metro has been borrowed into a number of other languages; the full version of the French multiword lexical unit has never been borrowed anywhere else.

150

Onomasiological Change

work', but cannot be regularly derived from it. (From Czech, it went into English and other languages as a borrowing.) Gas was invented by van Helmont in the seventeenth century, its inspiration being Greek chaos. i) It seems to happen only infrequently that a new word is coined quite freely, without a graspable source. The brand name Kodak, which by now approaches the status of a general noun (at least in some languages into which it has been borrowed), is said to be such a free creation. What onomatopoeic, sound-symbolic, or synesthetic stimuli might have influenced such a coinage remain mostly unknown. Although the coining of new words and expressions can be observed, given sufficient data, in any language in any space of time, there are two situations in which new coinages are extremely frequent. The first of them obtains when a cultural community comes into sudden and extensive contact with another, radically different culture. The study of the resulting acculturation process in the lexicon is one of the important tasks of anthropological linguistics. The second situation obtains when some areas of human activity, particularly scientific enquiry and technology, expand rapidly, with many discoveries and inventions being made constantly. This latter situation entails the increased importance of terminology. This word can be used either in reference to a set or sets of defined technical terms, or to their study. The former form an important membership class in the lexicon of a language; the latter is an important branch of applied linguistics. It has some particulars of its own: it is so strongly normative that some states create authoritative bodies endowed with the exclusive right to coin and define technical terms whose use is obligatory in that state; and it is concerned not only with terms already existing, but also with normative rules of how to coin new terms in the future. Scientific terminology has particulars of its own. For instance, in many European languages, Greek and Latin morphemes are frequently used for terminological purposes. The two situations where new coinages are frequent often overlap, typically in states which were emancipated from the political rule of other states and which try to introduce their own language as the medium of administration, culture, and all the other registers. In such cases, another branch of applied linguistics is involved, namely, language planning. Considered from this point of view, the respective goal — namely, the modernization of language in general, and more specifically, the introduction of the necessary new terms — can be conceived of as a change planned for the future. A branch of applied linguistics adjacent to terminology is the study of brand names and their coinage. Brand names are sometimes closer to proper names (e.g., the detergent Ajax) and less often to a general noun {xerox: Greek xeros 'dry'), so that their study tends to belong instead to onomastics. However, the coinage of brand names for artifacts like medications has onomasiological aspects. It may go without saying that the "new things" referred to above can be immaterial, i.e., abstract. Such "abstract new things" again can be received from another culture. For instance, with the spread of Christianity, many words and expressions referring to notions like transubstantiation, misericordia, eucharistia were either borrowed or loan-translated into many other languages.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

151

However, "new abstract things" or notions also do develop within a culture. Typically, they have to do with new conceptualizations, i.e., with the realization that some phenomena and their underlying principles belong together, form a whole. For instance, while the differences between the literary and the colloquial variants of Greek, Arabic, and other languages had been known since time immemorial, it was Charles Ferguson [1921-1998] who conceptualized them as a whole, calling them "diglossia". Or they have to do with a conceptualization of existing phenomena combined with new ones: thus was "cybernetics" established and named by N. Wiener [1894-1964]. The terminological coinage may, however, come late after the conceptualization. For instance, the problem of why an almighty and supremely loving God should allow the existence of evil has been known to Christian theologians since antiquity, with extensive discussions in such important and widely-read authors as St. Augustine [354-430] (and St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274], but the terminological coinage came only with Leibniz's French treatise on theodicee (borrowed in English as theodicy), a word which he coined from Greek theos 'god' and dike 'justice' = 'justification of God'. Naturally, it is impossible to prove whether the conceptualization came only with the word or whether it was reached before it; however, the discussions of the problem are as coherent and as exhaustive before the coinage as afterwards, so that it would seem that at least the unified relation of the phenomena, their forming a whole, was grasped. Sometimes, very concrete "things" have to wait for a unified term as well. For instance, the type of highway constructed for the exclusive use of motorcars, which is called It. autostrada, Germ. Autobahn, Fr. autoroute, Brit. Eng. motorway, has no unified term in American English: it is called freeway, expressway, limited access highway, or interstate {highway). Whether the lack of a unique, precise term testifies to the lack of a unified concept is a moot point. One more remark. A new conceptualization and terminological coinage does not necessarily have to have serious sources, or motives: In 1754, when Horace Walpole [1717-1797] conceptualized as a unified property the ability of the three fabular Princes of Ceylon (= obsol. Serendip) to keep making lucky and unexpected discoveries by accident and called it serendipity, he was hardly engaging in scientific enquiry. Whether, however, the artificial coinage of a word like absquatulate 'to get away' (from abscond and/or 'go and squat somewhere else') also belongs here, is a moot question: on the one hand, the word refers to no "new thing"; on the other hand, one could perhaps conceive of the desire to express oneself jocularly (for which purpose the word seems to have been coined) as an onomasiological force of its own.

3.2.2. Things Cease to Exist The opposite phenomenon consists of the fact that things, concrete or abstract, cease to exist and the respective words become obsolete. In antiquity, wax tablets were a frequently-used material for writing; in Old English, they were called aestel. However, the use of these

152

Onomasiological Change

tablets and consequently also of the word was later discontinued. Many other names of garments, dishes, weapons, but also of institutions, beliefs, superstitions are lost when culture changes. Such lexical loss has, however, various degrees. Nobody will organize an old-style auto-da-fe in our days, and so the words denoting the garments of the condemned, sambenito and samarra, originally borrowed from Spanish, are lost from today's language, both in Spanish and in English; however, they occur in recent texts which, in contrast to Old English, can be read by a person without special linguistic training, and so they still belong to the passive vocabulary of some speakers of Modern English. There is also the following difference: a knowledgeable person who talks about auto-da-fe to other experts will not hesitate to use the words sambenito and samarra when referring to the garments, thereby reviving them for the purpose of discourse in that register. On the other hand, no expert on Old English realia will use aestel for reference; he will speak about the "wax tablets" or use some other descriptive phrase, and if he mentions aestel at all, then it is only to inform his hearers as to what the old word was, not for direct reference in his discourse. This example shows that the "loss" of the thing is not a sufficient condition for the total loss of the word; the intelligibility of the language of the respective texts as a whole seems to be another decisive factor. But in each of these cases, one must realize that, at least theoretically, any old word can be revived by the process illustrated above in lb). Also, it may happen that an author of, say, a historical novel will use such forgotten words in his text to give it the proper "atmosphere"; we know several such cases from the works of Sir Walter Scott. Such a word is then present at least in the passive lexicons of the readers of those texts. One more remark: sometimes only one of the senses of a polysemous word is lost. For instance, with the disappearance of the steam locomotive, one of the senses of tender, namely, 'railroad car attached to the locomotive and designed to carry fuel' is becoming obsolete and may eventually be lost.

3.2.3. Change in the Denoted Thing The third type of onomasiological change is caused by a change in the denoted thing. For instance, the word car referred during the entire nineteenth century either exclusively or prevalently to a vehicle normally driven by animals, but in the twentieth century its nearly exclusive reference is a motorcar. The horn originally was a musical instrument made from animal horns, but today is made from metallic alloys only. This type of change is frequently called substitution. Many linguists hesitate to accept it as an onomasiological change. Indeed, if we take the meaning of the word car to be 'vehicle for transportation of persons, animals, and goods', then no change of the meaning occurred at all. Similarly, if horn is 'a sort of trumpet with a certain color of sound', nothing happened. Note that in both cases the broader definition captures the unchanging function, or purpose, of the thing, whereas the narrower definitions seem to deal with accidentals. This is why, without compunction, we sail on ships propelled by motors. Still, there is, at least historically, a

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

153

slight difference, because horn is derivationally tied to that part of the animal's body, whereas car lacks any derivational motivation. Yet derivational motivation usually gets lost (as in to sail), so that one can suppose that the substitution involved in horn also took place after speakers had lost awareness of the derivation. Such a loss of derivational motivation is itself a phenomenon sometimes related to the substitution. The smallest particle of matter was called by the Greek philosophers dtomos, the morphemes of which suggest the meaning 'indivisible', and this term was borrowed into modern physics. The atom was split at an age when most scientists knew Greek, but the term remained, and today not even a Greek scholar feels a sense of contradiction in the collocation subatomic particle. Sometimes, however, the motivation is not lost, and if there is a change in the thing, the word changes as well. An example from our days: to save some expense with typesetting, the numbered notes that accompany the text of a paper, the footnotes of more affluent times, are frequently set at the end of the article, chapter, or book. In some editions, they pass as footnotes (loss of derivational motivation), but in some they already are called endnotes (a new word, derivationally motivated). Most examples mentioned in the preceding survey are drawn from English and other modem languages. However, it would be easy to find examples for la), b), c), e), f), 2), and 3) in many other — if not all — languages, the frequency of the individual types depending both on cultural developments and on the structure of the individual languages. It might prove difficult to find examples for Id), g), and h) in old languages and in some modern ones; but, for instance, the technical terminology of ancient native Sanskrit linguistics abounds with such coinages.

154

Deverborum

3.3. De verborum in etymologiis constituendis examinandisque significatu*

Saepissime e dictis scriptisque tuis didici, sapientissime Hypenoris fili, in cuiuslibet vocis etymologia perscrutanda ad duas res, pariter gravis momenti ambas, animum advertendum esse, ad vocis nempe formam atque significatum quae duae uniuscuiusque etymologiae partes paris momenti sed imparis difficultatis sunt, quia formarum et praesertim sonorum sive (sit venia verbo) phonematum mutationes ad regulas satis strictas explicari possunt, et nisi ad regulam propriam cadunt non accipiuntur immo non probatae reiciuntur, cum significatuum mutationes ad constantiam regulae cuiusdam examinari nequeant. Itaque constantes et omnes singulas mutationes complexae regulae si absunt, per solas aliarum significatus mutationum vel in eadem lingua vel in alteris Unguis notarum analogias procedendum est. Haec analogiae recentiore voce semanticae dictae ita notae sunt, ut solum paucissima exempla ostendere oporteat. Vocem Hethaeam kutruwa- 'testis' ad Indo-Europaeam vocem *k"etwor- 'quattuor' pertinere planissime apparet si Latinam vocem testis in Indo-Europaeo *treis 'tres' originem habere memoria tenemus: duo sunt litigantes, tertius qui testimonium dabit, ita res iudici apparet; attamen alteri, cuius lis sub iudice non est homini, ita res apparet duos esse litigantes, tertium iudicem, qui testimonium dabit quartum. [Ad praecedentem paragraphum totam confer sis, benevolentissime lector, quae apud Lignarium doctissimum (Tischler 1983,681 sq.) leguntur: magnam virorum doctorum etymologiam supra narratam non probantium turmam enumerat etymologus Hethaeus.] Analogiam in eadem lingua occurrentem eodem modo ad etymologiam corroborandam adhibere possumus. Exempli gratia Anglicam vocem lord 'vir nobilis' in vetere lingua hläford 'domus dominus, gubernator, praepositus' e duabus vocibus hläf 'panis' et weard 'custos, tutor' compositis quin orta sit si quis dubitet, vocis lady 'femina nobilis' hlcefdige 'domus domina' ex eodem hläf 'panis' et dig- 'depsere' compositae analogia etymologiam bene constitutam esse praeter dubium ei probaret. Licet tales analogiae accuratae non sint, tamen in opinionibus approbandis multum valent. Lexicon Graeco-Anglicum a doctissimis viris Liddell, Scott, Jones, McKenzie (1940) conditum duas voces Graecas ε σ μ ό ς (sub uno lemmate) indicat, unam a verbo ε ζ ο μ α ι 'sedere' deductam, i.e. ε σ μ ό ς 'examen' (e.g., examen apium) < 'quod considit', alteram vocem a νημι 'mittere' deductam, i.e. ε σ μ ό ς 'proiectio'; attamen Latina voce examen < *ex-ag-men sive *ex-ag-s-men, quae a radice verbi agere deducitur, comparata unicam vocis Graecae εσμός 'quo exigitur' 'examen, proiectio' originem assumendam esse plane apparet.... (De qua re etiam quae E.R. Doddsius, vir clarissimus atque Baccharum editor, ad versum 7 1 0 commentatus est legas sis, benevolentissime lector.) Absente analogia mutatio significatus ratione nostra facile comprehendenda et intelligenda * Reprinted from: De verborum in etymologiis constituendis examinandisque significatu (scripsit Archicles Apolochmius qui et Ecgeumas). In: Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums: Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Frank Heidermanns, Helmut Rix and Elmar Seebold. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, 1993, pp. 4 8 3 - 4 9 2 .

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

155

est: nisi mutationis cursum, eius rationem, causam, directionem, eius modum metaphoricum, metonymicum vel alium mente amplecti et nisi mutationis totius singulos ut ita dicam gradus sive passus a significatione primordiali (plerumque solum proposita) ad significationem posteriorem investigantes singillatim intelligere possumus, mutationem ipsam probabilem esse non aestimamus. Quae res notissima est, ita ut longo de ea sermone tempus perdere nolimus; satis esto dicere primum virum doctum, qui ad quemcumque casum, in quo tales mutationes explicare et necesse erat et licebat, hanc methodum diligentissime in lexico toto adhibebat, dictionarii Graeco-Theudisci (1831) scriptorem Franciscum Passowium fuisse, qui singularum vocis cuiusdam significationum nexum semper indicare studebat. Exempli gratia, vox Graeca τέλος praeter alias etiam has tres significationes fert (1 'finis, exitus, effectus' (2) '(exercitus) turma, agmen', (3) 'dignitas, magistratus'; quas significationes hoc modo Theudisce Passowius doctissimus reddidit: '(1) Ende, Ziel, Zweck ...; (2) eine Schar Krieger, wahrscheinlich]] von bestimmter Anzahl, obgleich diese nirgends angegeben ist, (3) der höchste Stand im bürgerlichen Leben, das äußerste Ziel bürgerlicher Ehre, dahfer] obrigkeitliches Amt, obrigk[eitliche] Würde etc.' Quae verba Theudisca perpendicularibus typis expressa sunt, non vocis τέλος significationes singulas sed eorum nexum describunt. In toto lexico suo hanc typorum differentiam cuius ope ex una parte significationes vere seu proprie dictae, altera ex parte significationum nexus bene distinguuntur, diligentissime faciebat Passowius, vir non solum inter eos qui tunc florebant sed inter omnes lexicographos eminens. Quae significationum explicatio et typorum distinctio utilissima post Passowium sapientissimum a discipulis eius in nova Lexici eius editione fiebat (de quibus sis legas, benevolentissime lector, quae anno 1987 scripsi), sed postea oblivione obruta est, ita ut nostris temporibus rarissime in lexicis inveniatur, quod certissime crassa Minerva evenit, ut infra videbimus. In omni etymologia proponenda significationis a posteriore voce latae cum vocis sive radicis antiquioris significatu nexus aut claris verbis ostendendus aut tacite vi propositionis in mente assumendus est: quae propositionis assumptio lectori veri similis debet videri si etymologiae auctor ut sibi credatur operam navat. Eodem modo viri docti in plurium vocum cognatarum etymologia constituenda procedunt. Tales etymologiae plerumque singulas singularum linguarum voces non unam ab altera derivatas, sed omnes voces cognatas ex uno quasi fonte, ex uno etymo ortas esse demonstrant et earum significationes eodem modo ex unius significatus primordio deducunt. Vocum Scr. panthdh1,via', Arm. hun 'vadum', Gr. π ό ν τ ο ς 'mare', Lat. pons, pontis, Vet. Sla\.pqtb 'via, iter' etymon Indo-Europaeum formam *pont-os, *pont-is vel sim. et significatum 'via' habuisse nemo est quin videat; attamen etsi singularum significationum nexus facillime comprehenditur, nihilo minus Iulius Pokorny (1959-1969), lexici Indo-Europaei auctor notissimus, vocis Armenicae significationes 'Furt, Weg', vocis Latinae significationem 'Prügelweg durch Sümpfe, Brücke', vocis Graecae significationem 'Meerespfad, Meer' fuisse indicavit (p.808) additamentis suis nexum significationum adumbrare conatus. Melius sine dubio fecerat Passowius eminens, qui typis differentibus res diversas, vocis significationes veras una es parte et nexum coniciendum altera ex parte dico, indicans; et multo melius fecit Hjalmar Friskius, lexici Graeci etymologici auctor doctissimus sapientissimusque, qui nexum ut ita dicam semanticum non solum verbis dilucidis 'als ursprüngliche] Bed[eutung]

156

De verborum

ist "ungebahnter, durch Gelände, Wasser usw. führender Weg" anzusetzen ...; π ό ν τ ο ς somit eig[entlich] "Fahrwasser"' non solum bene explicat, sed etiam eum phrasi Homerica ύ γ ρ ά κελευθα bene adducta Aemilium Benveniste, virum clarissimum, sequens optime corroboravit. Quo nomine originis Iudaeohispanicae sed re vera Franco-Gallico allato et celeberrimi, perspicacissimique etymologiarum antiquarum earumque rationum indagatoris mentione facta haud scio an opus sit ut opera eius ad has quaestiones pertinentia uberius describam: antiquarum vocum ex diversis Unguis notarum earumque etymorum significatus optime explicavit Benveniste, vir doctissimus et acerrimus, frequenter etymi significatum in primordio alium fuisse quam eum, qui in singulis linguis occurrit, eloquentissime demonstrans et etiam omnia Synonyma, paronyma et alia aliis modis quoad significationem relata nomina adhibenda esse docens. Doctrina exemplaque eius notissima sunt, itaque exempli gratia solum in memoriam redigamus vocis Latinae pater aliarumque vocum cognatarum etymon Indo-Europaeum *patSr comparato nomine paene synonymo Latino genitor (Scr. janitar-, Gr. γενέτωρ etc.) et adhibita phrasi paterfamilias certissime in primordio patrem, sed non quod ad liberos procreandos sed quod ad familiam, domum, gentem regendam attinet significavisse secundum Benvenisteum celeberrimum. Neque in Theudisca neque in aliis recentioribus linguis vernaculis vox praesto est, quae hunc significatum ferat; similior sola Theudisca vox composita Familienhaupt, nihilominus et ea diversa est: non est magni momenti quod nostris temporibus vox ilia iam obsolescit, multo gravioris ponderis est, quod significatus eius a 'patre' discrepat, cum vox ipsa etiam ad matrem viduam aut ad liberorum orborum tutorem quendam crudelem, suavissime Hypenoris fili, pertinere possit. Maximi autem quod ad rem quam perscrutamur pertinet momenti et semper memoria tenendum est, vocis, cuius ope etymon bene transferatur in linguam (non de qua sed) in qua lexicon etymologicum scriptum est et in quam etyma vertuntur, absentiam nullo modo a nobis pro argumento teneri posse, ut etymi significatum ad solum indagatoris libidinem fictum teneamus: in recentioris aetatis societatibus quibus deest talis 'patris quoad familiam regendam' consuetudo etiam vox ad earn pertinens abest, sed in vetere (sit venia verbo) societate Indo-Europaea praesente institutione etiam vox significatum bene definitum ferens praesto erat. Quae omnia ad etymorum significatus accuratius describendos et Theudisca seu alia lingua vernacula exprimendos certe valent. Optime etiam Franciscus R. Adrados (1991a), vir de doctrina optime meritus, nos docet, etymorum significatus librorum vetustissimorum investigationis philologicae ope melius quem aliqua mentis exercitatione patefaciendos esse, quia tales libri nonnumquam veterum significationurp vestigia continent. Quibus aptissime dictis duos significationum indicatarum modos differentes bene distinguit vir doctissimus, qui una es parte etymorum, quae instar vocum formam morphologicam exhibent, significatus exactos et definitos accurate quaerendos, altera ex parte radicum, quae multarum vocum fons sunt, solas significationes indefinitas et a verbis de unaquaque radice pendentibus deductas quaeri posse docet. Rectissime ita dictum esse et cogitationes nostras in has quaestiones denuo conferendas esse plane apparet. Voces Gr. φώρ 'fur' et L a t . f u r (quod nomen pro cognato habemus; attamen in argumento nostro nullius est momenti si non cognatum sed e Graeca lingua mutuatum est) in Indo-Europaea radice *bher- originem habere neminem fallere potest, quia fur furtum furtim

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

157

aufert; si cum Hoffmannio doctissimo methodum Benvenistianam adhibemus, / e r r e et agere (licet non semper de furto solo usurpetur) vetustissimam formulam fuisse videmus. Attamen Gr. φόρος 'vectigal' etiam in eadem radice *bher- originem habere planissime apparet, quia vectigal in fiscum aut in aerarium infertur. In hoc exemplo diversas voces a radice quidem una, attamen a diversis eius significationibus deductas esse plane videmus; nihilominus unus radicis *bher- 'ferre' significatus in lemmate lexici etymologici indicatus sufficere potest, ut ambae significationes 'inferre' et 'auferre' comprehendantur. Attamen ad vocem examen revertamur. Una ex parte habemus 'examen apium' et hinc 'examen servorum etc.'; altera ex parte etiam significationem alteram 'examen librae' negligere non possumus, quae ad indicem metallicum refertur, quo par seu impar in duabus lancibus pondus indicatur, aut (ut J. B. Hofmann [1886-1954] vir clarissimus supra iam laudatus vult) librae brachium metallicum cum sola lance dependente connexum, quod pondere parvo in varias positiones pulso magnitudinem materiae in lance ponderatae indicat; quam secundam significationem ('index') a significatione prima ('turba') deduci non posse fallet neminem. Cum vox examen non iam in vetere (proto)lingua Indo-Europaea sed posteriore tempore formata esse videatur, radicem eius in specie Latina ag- indicemus. Quod ad significationem pertinet, facile est percipi, quo modo apes agant, agantur, exigantur, neque est difficile percipi, quo modo librae index metallicus maiore unius ambarum lancum pondere agatur nec non quo modo pondus parvulum supra brachium metallicum in varias positiones agi possit, similiter ut gladius apud Valerium Maximun (3.2 ext. 2), telum apud Vergilium (Aen. 7,498; v. OLD) agitur. (Si secunda interpretatio et ea Hofmanniana pro vera habenda est, pondus parvulum agitur et significatio per synecdochen ad brachium metallicum totum translata est.) Denuo videmus unum solum radicis significatum in lexico etymologico indicari posse, attamen necesse esse ut tota eius quae recentiore voce appellatur polysemia in tali significatu mente nostra comprehendatur. Quibus praemissis de variis modis quibus radicum etymorumque propositorum significatus in Iulii Pokorny, viri clarissimi, Lexico Indo-Europaeo indicantur aliquot observationes facere nobis liceat; quae observationes non ad etymologiarum rationem veram aut falsam, sed solam ad methodum, qua lemmatum significationes exprimuntur, pertinent. Nonnumquam ad radicis significationem ultimam, quae in vocibus notis non invenitur, reconstructionis ut ita dicam semanticae ope Iulius Pokorny audacter pervenire conatur. Adducamus exempli gratia ex pag. 183: "1. dei- [etc.] 'hell glänzen, schimmern, scheinen' (älter '*Strahlen werfen'?)". Asterisco addito sine dubio significatio primordialis et assumpta notatur. Similiter in p. 390 legimus: "ger- [etc.l 'morsch, reif werden, altern', auch, besonders] in Bildungen mit Formans -no- 'Korn, Kern' ...; die älteste Bed[eutung] scheint 'reiben' ... gewesen zu sein ...": significationis assumptae 'terere' ope significationes 'granum' et 'senescere' ut ita dicam coniungere vult lexicographus noster. Eodem studio ductus nonnumquam signifcationem quasi generalem indicat, et earn talem ut ab ea omnes singularum vocum cognatarum significatus deduci possint; cuius rei exemplo secundum etymon per (p. 810-18) adducere volumus: in octo lexici paginis variae ab hoc etymo derivatae voces earumque significationes enumerantur, attamen etymi ipsius significatio verbis satis vacuis 'das Hinausführen über' adumbrata est. Haec Theudisca vocabula sine dubio ita selecta sunt, ut notionem ut ita dicam generalem exprimerent, a qua singuli

158

De verborum

significatus omnium seu paene omnium vocum deduci possent. Simillimo modo etymi arqu- (p. 67) significatio Theudisca voce 'Gebogenes' indicata est: notionem et generalem et vacuam significatui definito lexicographus noster praefert, quod minus quam in etymi per exemplo nobis placet, cum voces ab hoc etymo in singulis Unguis pendentes non numerosae sint. In praecedenti exemplo vox ipsa Theudisca lectorem monet, notionem eius ope expressam a significatibus vocum in singulis linguis notarum deductam atque generalem, nec definitam nec ad amussim exactam esse. Sed vocis Theudiscae forma non semper tale testimonium dat; exempli causa ex pag. 521 lemma kak- [quod mendose impressum est kak-]'abmagern' afferamus: vocis Theudiscae forma significationem bene definitam esse suggerit, cum illa nihilominus eodem modo ut 'Gebogenes' supra tractatum a singularum vocum significatibus id est ab Avest. kasu- 'klein, gering', Theud. hager 'macer', Lit. nukaseti 'ganz entkräftet werden' ut coniungerentur deducta sive constructa sit. Nonnulla exempla inveniuntur, in quibus significatio primordialis, quae quamvis incerta sit, tarnen fieri potuerit, ut talis notio generalis a singularum vocum significatibus deducta non satis clare distingueretur; e multis exemplis unum e pag. 7 1 0 adducemus: a tertia radice mei- 'wandern, gehen' verbum Latinum migrare et Graecum άμείβειν deduci posse dicuntur significatione eorum his verbis descripta: "Das Verhältnis migrare: ά μ ε ί β ε ι ν läßt alte Gleichheit mit mei- 'wechseln' als 'Ortsveränderung' möglich erscheinen." Eodem modo ut 'abmagern' in praecedenti exemplo, 'Ortsveränderung' pro significatione definita falso teneri posset. Ne lectorem in talem errorem duceret, optime maximam operam quondam navabat Passowius peritissimus sapientissimusque. Attamen alia exempla invenimus in quibus radicis cuiusdam, a qua plurima in singulis linguis verba condita sunt, significatio ab hisce cognatis vocibus non deducitur, sed singulorum verborum significatus in protolinguam reducuntur ita ut radicis significatio, simili modo ut saepe in hodiernis vocibus fit, multiplex fuisse videatur. Exempli gratia legas, benevolentissime lector, in p. 189: "1. dek 'nehmen, aufnehmen', daher 'begrüßen, Ehre erweisen'. Aus der Bed[eutung] 'annehmen, gern annehmen' fließt die Bedfeutung] 'gut passend, geeignet, sich schicken, ziemen, es jemandem recht machen; als unannehmbar darstellen ... lehren, lernen' ....". Simili modo in p. 424 legitur "1. ghei-... 'antreiben, lebhaft bewegen (schleudern) oder bewegt sein'; (geschleudertes) Geschoß'; von der Bed[eutung] 'Geschoß' oder allenfalls verbal 'wonach schleudern, treffen' kann 'verwundem' ... ausgegangen sein ...". In eis quae praecedunt exemplis non solum radicis significatio multiplex (quae Graece polysemia dicitur) describitur, sed polysemiae istius, id est significationis multiplicis rami singuli per singula incrementa (de quibus supra loquebamur, mutationis gradus aut passus eos appellantes) e significatione quaedam primordiali procedentes eorumque et inter semet ipsos et cum ea ipsa significatione nexus suppositi adumbrantur; attamen permulti significationis multiplicis quos appellamus rami fortasse non iam in protolingua sed in singulis linguis orti sunt: quae cum ita sint, multiplex talis radicis significatio seu polysemia res multis saeculis disiunctas quasi tempore sublato sicut eiusdem aetatis proprias praestare videtur. Nonnumquam radicis significatione generali bene assumpta tarnen verba desunt, quibus significatus speciales Theudisce vertantur; in tali verborum inopia non vettere sed res ipsas, ad quas actio verbi pertinere potest, describere lexicographus noster doctissimus conatur. Pro

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

159

exemplo lege, sis, clarissime lector, in pag. 55: "1. ar- ... 'fügen, passen', mehrfach und vielleicht ältest vom planmäßigen Aufeinanderlegen beim Holzbau ... und vom Aufstapeln von Hölzern, aber auch vielfach auf geistiges Zurechtlegen, Berechnen übertragen." Radicis eiusque derivationum significatio hoc modo bene redditur, licet versiones Theudiscae proprie dictae absint. In quae praecedunt exemplis operam dabat lexicographus, ut polysemiae totius rami singuli quo modo qua ratione coniungerentur explicaret; attamen in permultis exemplis lectori permittitur, ut tales singulorum polysemiae ramorum nexus sine ulla explicatione ipse inveniat videatque; exempli gratia ex pag. 48 lemmatis versionem "anti 'im Angesicht' > 'gegenüber'" adducam. Facile hoc exemplum intelligitur; difficilius exemplum in pag. 128 invenimus: "1. bher- 'tragen, bringen' usw. ..., auch 'aufheben, erheben'" quia lector onus quoddam tollendum esse ut feratur intelligere debet. Difficillima tarnen multa alia exempla sunt ut illud quod in pag. 896 sq. invenitur: "1. sekw- ' f o l g e n ' . . . ; 2. sekw'bemerken, sehen; zeigen', ursprünglich] 'wittern, spüren' und (jünger) 'sagen'; identisch mit 1. sek" -". Intelligendum est hominem videntem seu spectantem oculis suis rem visam sequi, simili modo ut canis praedam subodorans earn sequitur. (Velim scias, lector benevolentissime, me de his rebus etymologiisque multa et ea sapientissime scripta esse non ignorare; tarnen non de etymologiis ipsis sed sola de significationum in lexici lemmatibus descriptione loqui volumus.) Nonnumquam fit, ut radicis significatio multis paronymis describatur et notio quaedam lata seu generalis (et propterea vacua) in lectoris mente adumbretur, exempli gratia e pag. 401 *gleubh- 'schneiden, klieben, schnitzen, abschälen'" adducere possumus. Quae significatio satis generalis est, ut ne puella quidem apud Catullum 58.5 amicos Romanos glubens comprehendi non possit: de qua re virum doctum H. Tränkle in Musaeo Helvetico (38, 1981,245-250) bene scripsisse amicus Neander Oxoniensis me docet. Denique, si verba desunt ut significatio versionis ope reddatur, necesse est eam explicationis cuiusdamope describere. Exempli causa legamus in pag. 97: "1. b(e)u-... schallnachahmend für dumpfe Schalleindrücke z.B.. Uhuruf, dumpfer Schlag u.a.". Quid aliud lexicographus facere possit, non apparet. Aliae observationes faciendae nobis sunt. In pag. 43 etymi angwhi significatio verbis 'Schlange, Wurm' indicata est: quae verba Theudisca non sunt paronyma (talia ut supra vidimus sub gleubh-), quorum summae ope notio describitur, set duae significationes distinctae. Allatum est supra exemplum, in quo Pokorny doctissimus etymi arqusignificationem vocis Theudiscae generalis vacuaeque ope 'Gebogenes' indicavit; attamen aliter in nostro exemplo fecit vir clarissimus: cum etymi angwhi significatum simili modo vocis Theudiscae 'Kriechendes' ope describere noluerit, ambas significationes indicavit. Voluitne online earum quae vetustior esset indicare? Nescio. Attamen radicis at- significationem 'gehen, Jahr' indicans (p. 69) mea opinione certissime ordine eorum secundam e prima ortam esse indicare voluit. De his rebus amplius disserere haud necesse est, cum signification!s in lexici lemmatibus tractandae varii modi appareant, quos bene distinguere nonnumquam difficile est, immo vix inter eos distingui potest. Inter omnes tales difficultates una paene difficillima esse videtur:

160

De verborum

non est qui in omnibus hue spectantibus casibus praeter dubium discernere possit, quae significationis primordialis mutationes iam in protolingua radicis aut etymi polysemiam effecerint et quae denique in singulis Unguis orientibus aut iam ortis exstiterint. Sine dubio maximi sunt momenti linguae eaeque non paucae, in quibus voces derivatae occurrunt et aliae considerationes quaestionesque (sitne derivatio vetustior aut innovatio quaedam consideranda: alia it genus), quae unicuique etymologiae lndo-Europaeae indagatori notissimae sunt. Quod ad significationem assumendam et exprimendam pertinet unam rem solam praeter dubium discernere possumus: cum radicum ipsarum significationes non nisi e tenebris erui possint, etymorum verorum, id est vocum, nominum verborumque postulatorum significatus multo amplius accuratiusque aut poni aut definiri possunt. Optime has duas res distinguere Calvertius Watkins (1985), alterius quamvis angustioris lexici Indo-Europaei auctor celeberrimus, conatus est, qui in lexico suo radices simplices ab earum et augminibus et derivationibus quoad fieri potuit positionis quam in lemmate et articulo toto habent ope ut discerneret operam navabat. Quam distinctionem iam Iulius Pokorny, vir clarissimus, in lexico suo facere conatus est, licet nonnumquam frustra operam earn ei rei dederit: quam opinionem recte a nobis expromi benevolo lectori, qui una ex parte in pag 287 radicem ed'essen', in pag. 839 radicem primam pö(i)- 'Vieh weiden', in pag. 1004 radicem stä' stehen' aliasque bene tractatas cum nonnullis quae supra dicta sunt comparaverit, planissime apparebit. Quae cum ita sint, nescio an sit quisquam qui quaestiones indicationesque recentiore voce semanticas dictas periculosae plenum opus aleae esse non existimet: quae difficultates nec non qui nonnumquam occurrunt errores non semper indagatoris perspicacis diligentisque culpa oriuntur, cum de significationibus vetustissimis earumque mutationibus quae iam ante litteras inventas occurrisse videntur plura ignoremus quam sciamus. Attamen operam quidem navare et debemus et possumus, ut quae in lexicis scribimus bene intelligantur, ad quem eventum attinendum clara accurataque variorum significationis et imprimis eius multiplicis modorum distinctio utilissima quin sit, non est qui dubitet.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

161

3.4. Sesquipedalian Bilingualism: The Difficult Easiness of Short Words"

Nobody in this generation has given more time and effort to the study of how English spreads among native speakers of other languages and of related phenomena than Braj Kachru. His studies cover the use of English as a second language and as a foreign language, and also, among many other things, the nativization of English, that is, the changes it undergoes when it is transplanted into another cultural and linguistic milieu, such as India, Africa, and so on. Thus, the choice of bilingualism (in the broadest understanding of the word) as the subject of what we can call Kächrupöjäkaumudi is a particularly apt one. The whole area of these studies is quite alien to me: however, while not being a student of bilingualism, I am a bilingual speaker of (a substandard variety of) English, hence my audacity in offering these self-observations to what I consider Priyabandhusnehakaumudi. Some years ago, I went to a conference on English as a second language (which took place in Urbana) to hear the paper of a former student of mine. In the subsequent discussion (in which I did not take part) a participant from another university unknown to me made a remark that lacked any connection to the paper read, but which was, in spite of that, one that immediately interested me. I cannot quote the remark verbatim, but the gist was that foreigners frequently seem to prefer to use Latinate, polysyllabic words instead of monosyllabic ones because they wish to show off their learnedness. On hearing this, I realized two things; namely, that: (a) I use many of those polysyllables; and (b) I do not use them to show off. If this is so, why do I use them? First, eliminate from this consideration a great number of the Latinate polysyllables that belong to the register in which I frequently talk: linguistic terminology (with the exception of transformational grammar, in which, for some time, now past, affixes "hopped" in the Anglo-Saxon mood, and clauses were monosyllabically "pruned") is full of polysyllabic formations; they do not, however, count in this connection, because one has to use them, there being no substitute. Also, I must admit that occasionally, if not too frequently, I indulge—in spite of the indomitable Fowler's [1858-1933] (1926/1983) fulminations against "pedantic humour" and "polysyllabic humour"—in the jocose use of those sesquipedalians. However, this is not the core layer of my polysyllabic usage. Those long words typically emerge in the following situations. When giving a lecture, reading a paper, or teaching a class, I never use a prepared text: rem tene, verba sequentur ('stick to the topic, words will follow') is how I operate. Clearly, in these situations I do not have time to consider, however quickly, alternative lexical choices, let alone to ponder them: words must come on their own from memory (or wherever the theoreticians decide we have them). The same applies, of course, to conversations: unless it is an important occasion, one just goes through the give and take of a dialog without particularly watching the lexical choices. Why, then, do the polysyllabic words emerge? The general answer is that the fact that short words are easy for the native speaker does not entail that they are as easy for every foreign speaker. There are several reasons for this: I shall discuss some that I consider important. * Reprinted from: World Englishes, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp. 303 - 307, 1992b.

162

Sesquipedalian bilingualism

As is well known, many English words, particularly verbs, have rather broad meanings. I shall not discuss problems such as what the individual parts of a sentence mean outside the sentence, what role the context has in the constitution of the meaning, the difference between generality of meaning and semantic depletion, the demarcation of idiomaticity, and the meaning of phrasal verbs, etc. All these are notions about which an educated foreigner knows next to nothing, unless he is a linguist himself (and even then knowledge of the problems does not help, as my English sufficiently proves). Let us take an English grammar written for the advanced Czech learner (Spacek 1946). The author taught English for many years and based his grammar on examples, contexts, and sentences; it is closely similar to the more recent grammar by Schibsbye (1970). In Spacek's grammar, the meaning of the verb to get is illustrated (p. 148f.) by the following sentences: 1.

I got my ticket all right.

2.

I got to the station in time.

3.

It is getting dark.

4.

He got fired.

5.

I have got the money.

6.

I got my shoes repaired.

7.

We shall get him to do it.

8.

He got experience abroad.

9.

How much do you get a week?

10. He got a knowledge of English in USA. 11. He got him by the shoulder. 12. Will you get lunch, please? 13. We shall try to get him to go there with us. 14. That's got you! 15. Have you got me?

The meaning of to keep is illustrated (p. 151f.) by the following sentences: 21. His wife keeps his memory in her heart. 22. They keep many servants. 23. He keeps cows and sheep. 24. The doctor said that she had better keep in bed. 25. Keep straight on till you come to the Bank.

26. I hope this milk will keep till tomorrow. 27. I hope you will keep your word. 28. Keep the flag flying. 29. Give him the money, he will keep it for you. 30. Keep an eye on him. 31. She always keeps her mother's birthday.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

163

32. The man kept us amused all evening. 33. Do you keep drugs here? 34. Parents keep their children till they are grown up. Nobody will maintain that this is necessarily the best or even the only way to illustrate the multiple meaning of these verbs. The point, however, is that the meaning is so broad that, for many of the sentences, the author offers a Czech explanation of what the verb to get means in the given context: these explanations invariably use different Czech verbs as equivalents of to get. We shall not trouble the reader with these Czech expressions, because it is, for our purpose, even more important that the author helps the learner by indicating, for each of these sentences, which English verb could be used as a substitute for to get: again, in each case the substituted synonyms (or partial synonyms) differ. For to get the grammar indicates these synonyms: 1.

I bought my ticket all right.

2.

I arrived at the station in time.

3.

It is becoming dark.

4. He was fired. 5.

I received/gained the money.

6. I had my shoes repaired. 7. We shall induce him to do it. 8.

I acquired experience abroad.

9.

How much do you earn a week?

10. I learned English in USA. 11. He seized him by the shoulder. 12. Will you prepare lunch, please? 13. We shall persuade him to go there with us. 14. That has perplexed you. 15. Do you understand me? A similar picture obtains for to keep, in the way that the grammar presents the synonyms: 21. His wife retains his memory in her heart. 22. They employ many servants. 23. He rears cows and sheep. 24. ... she had better remain in bed. 25. Continue going straight on ... 26. I hope this milk will remain in good condition ... 27. I hope you will carry out your promise. 28. Uphold the flag flying. [?] 29. Give him the money, he will guard it for you. 30. Watch him.

164

Sesquipedalian bilingualism 31. She always celebrates her mother's birthday. 32. That man held us amused all evening. 33. Do you carry /sell drugs here? 34. Parents support their children till they are grown up.

Take example 14. Any native speaker of English (particularly of its British variety) will, I think, maintain that That's got you is more neutral, easy, and smooth than That has perplexed you. However, for a speaker of Czech or German, or French for that matter, Da bin ich ganz perplex in German, or to jsem perplex in Czech ( = Ί am perplexed'), is not only normal, it belongs to the colloquial language. In French, qa me rend perplexe is not a colloquialism, but it still is an expression used in everyday language, spoken and written. This shows the first point: there are false friends whose treachery is not in their denotative meaning, but in their stylistic value, frequency, connotation, etc. There is, however, yet another consideration. In some of the sentences quoted above, it is easy to perceive the identity or similarity of the senses represented: see examples 1, 8 and 10, or 7 and 13. Still, in the majority of these examples, the senses are widely divergent. Also, some of the synonyms inserted in the primed sentences are somewhat awkward when compared with their non-primed counterparts: e.g. 28. Still, most of the primed sentences are as good as or nearly as good as the non-primed ones. The real point is this: when the learner of English acquires a certain wealth of vocabulary, the substituted synonyms in the primed sentences are easier for him to remember and recall, because all or nearly all of them correspond to a word he knows from his native language. (I am talking about my personal experience as a native speaker of Czech: the situation of German, French, and other speakers will not be very different, in principle.) The difficulty of a word like to get is not so much in its being polysemous, but in the broadness of its polysemy, in the wide range of its applicability, and in its being intertwined with expressions that are slightly or fully idiomatic. The learner first remembers the individual senses and uses them (or, rather, some of them), as equivalent to many verbs in his own language, and only when his mastering of the language begins to move from speaking grammatical to speaking (at least partly) idiomatic English does he grasp, or have an inkling of understanding of, a verb like to get as a whole: such an understanding is a summation of the individual uses. Before he reaches this stage, however, he remembers the individual senses, each of them attached to its Czech (German ...) equivalent, and to its English synonym that can be substituted for that sense. Furthermore, many of the substitutions are reinforced by other languages. For example: 2 I arrived, cf. French arriver, 5 I received, French recevoir, 7 We shall induce him ..., Latin inducere; 81 acquired, French acquerir, Czech akvisice 'gain'; 11 He seized, French saisir, 12 Will you prepare, French preparer, Latin praeparare·, 13 We shall persuade, French persuader, Latin persuadere\ 14 That has perplexed, cf. above. Similarly for sentences with to keep·. 21 His wife retains, French retenir, Latin retineo', 22 They employ, French employer, 24 remain in bed, Latin remanere\ 29 guard it, French guarder, 31 She always celebrates, French celebrer, Lat. celebrare, German zelebrieren, Czech celebrovati (the last two with a restricted meaning); 34 Parents support, French supporter.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

165

This shows that the way that simple words like to get or to keep are used in English is highly idiomatic to the foreign learner. For the learner who has already acquired a certain vocabulary, the verbs substituted in the primed sentences are more closely equivalent to words he knows; and frequently the easiness with which they are recalled is reinforced by corresponding words in other languages he probably knows. No doubt all these equivalences are only approximate; but the learner operates by approximations. We also see that these substitutions bring in words, such as in examples 7, 8, 11 and 14, that are stylistically more formal than to get. It would be easy to continue this discussion using, for example, phrasal verbs as examples: the same picture would emerge, but their degree of idiomaticity tends to be even greater than that of simple verbs. One example will suffice. The following sentences are equivalent in meaning, at least in the broad, approximate understanding of a foreign speaker: It cannot be helped, we must put up with it. It cannot be helped, we must bear it. It cannot be helped, we must endure it. It cannot be helped, we must tolerate it.

The simple to bear will probably not be the first thing that is recalled by a foreign speaker, because it is more frequently associated with children. The phrasal verb to put up with is a mind-boggling phrase that lacks any easily graspable connection to anything known by a foreign speaker. (I remember that when I first encountered it—let us not forget that speakers like me acquire much of their vocabulary by reading—I suspected that it was some artificially constructed witticism, so strangely did it strike me.) There remain two non-monosyllabic borrowings: of the two, in my speech, tolerate will always be the automatic choice, because I am accustomed to saying toterer in French, tolerieren in German, and tolerovati in Czech, and I know the Latin tolerare, all of them with approximately the same meaning. After 20 years of immersion in the Anglophone world, I am able to use the verb to put up with, but, for me, it is marked as jocose: I can use it, but with the feeling of having some private fun with a little monster. To summarize, for a foreign learner or foreign speaker of English like me, the nonmonosyllabic, usually borrowed or directly Latinate, and frequently stylistically high or learned words tend to be easier to learn, to remember, and to recall because of the frequently much broader meaning of the monosyllabic words, and because they are frequently supported by words in other languages which are similar in both form and meaning. So, the way in which all of us latter-day Pnins speak English should not be considered as showing off, but should be both put up with and tolerated.

166

'Haid Words'

3.5. Hard words' — 'schwierige Wörter' in der älteren englischen einsprachigen Lexikographie*

Der Begriff der hard words spielte in der Geschichte der englischen Lexikographie eine wichtige Rolle; man hat ihm jedoch wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt, und seine Entwicklung ist nicht systematisch untersucht worden. Er entstand in der englischen Lexikographie ebenso natürlich wie etwa der entsprechende Begriff der γλώσσαι glössai 'schwierige, unverständliche Wörter' in der griechischen Lexikographie. Der Lexikograph konzentriert sich auf jene Wörter, die vor allem bei der Lektüre eines Textes eine Schwierigkeit verursachen können. Die einsprachige englische Lexikographie hat mit Listen solcher Wörter angefangen, die als Appendix zu dem betreffenden Text veröffentlicht wurden. Typisch ist die erste solche Liste von William Tyndale [1484?-ca.l536], "A table expoundinge certeyne wordes", die seiner Ausgabe des englischen Pentateuchs (1530) angefügt ist. Die Wortliste enthält selbstverständlich vor allem kirchliche Ausdrücke wie albe 'a long garment of white lynen'; consecrate 'to apoynte a thinge to holy uses'; firmament 'the skyes'; tabernacle 'an house made tentwise, or as a pauelion'.' Das erste wirkliche, selbständig gedruckte englische einsprachige Wörterbuch von Robert Cawdrey [ca 1538-?] (London 1604) hat den bezeichnenden Titel "A Table Alphabeticall, conteyning and teaching the true writing and understanding of hard usuall English wordes, borrowed from the Hebrew, Grecke, Latine, or French etc. With the interpretation thereof by plaine English words, gathered for the benefit & helpe of Ladies, Gentlewomen, or any other unskilfull persons." Der Titel enthält also den Ausdruck hard words; die Attribute usuall and English sind jedoch auch wichtig: entlegenes und ganz fremdes Sprachgut soll nicht erfaßt werden.2 Als Beispiele führen wir die letzten zehn Wörter des Buchstabens Α und die ersten zehn des Buchstabens Β an. Cawdreys Definitionen sind hier gekürzt worden (angegeben durch ...). § avowable 'the which may be allowed and affirmed'; § avouch 'affirme with earnest...'; auoke 'to call f r o m , . . . ' ; austere 'sharpe,...'; authenticall '(g) of authority, ...'; autumne 'the harvest'; axiome '(g) a certaine principle, ...'; ay 'euer, ...'; azure '(k) of colour'; baile 'suretie,...'; ballance 'a paire of scale, ...'; § balase 'grauell, wherewith ships are poysed to goe upright, ...'; bang 'beat'; bankerupt 'bankerout,...'; banquet 'feast'; baptisme '(g) dipping, or sprinkling'; § band 'company of men, ...'; baptist 'a baptiser'; barbarian 'a rude person'. 3 Das Zeichen § gibt den französischen, (g) den griechischen Ursprung an. Lateinischer Ursprung wird nicht angegeben. Interessant ist * Reprinted from:: Helmut Henne/Wolfgang Mentrup (eds.), "Hard words - schwierrige Wörter' in der ältesten englischen einsprachiger Lexikographie. In: Wortschatz und Verständigungsprobleme. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1983, 220-236. 1

Mehr zu der glossographischen Literatur bei Long (1904) 26 ff.; Mathews (1933) S ff.; Starnes/ Noyes (1946) 1 ff.

2

Wir zitieren die Titel der Wörterbücher in einer verkürzten Form. Beinahe vollständige Titel sind bei Starnes/ Noyes (1946) und bei Hayashi (1978) zu finden.

3

Eine Analyse der in den hier erörterten Wörterbüchern benutzten Definitionen, Paraphrasen und Synonymangaben kann in diesem kurzen Aufsatz nicht unternommen werden.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

167

das Zeichen (k): es hat die Bedeu-tung 'a kind (of)'· Das Zeichen kommt sehr oft vor, z.B. barbell '(k) fish'; barnacle '(k) bird' u.v.a. Das Zeichen ist sehr effektiv; selbst ganz moderne Wörterbücher benutzen nicht oft viele semiotisch so wirksame und definitorisch so brauchbare Zeichen.4 Interessanterweise enthält diese Probe zwei 'einheimische' Wörter, ay und bang; inwiefern sie im 16. und 17. Jhd. schwierig waren, müßte man besonders untersuchen, jedenfalls sind sie nicht terminologischen Charakters. Auch sonst zieht Cawdrey ganz offenbar den allgemeinen Wortschatz dem terminologischen vor, so daß er sogar ein Wort wie baptisme nicht in seiner christlich-terminologischen Bedeutung 'Taufe', sondern in seiner etymologisch-allgemeinen Geltung anführt, für deren Gebrauch jedoch das "Oxford English Dictionary" keinen Beleg bietet. 5 ' Aus 1616 stammt J. Bullokar, "An English Expositor, Teaching the Interpretations of the hardest words used in our Language." Der Titel enthält keine sonstigen Angaben, aber die Vorrede spricht von 1) Entlehnungen aus alten und modernen Sprachen; 2) alten, nicht mehr gebrauchten Wörtern; 3) Fachtermini. Das Wort ay wird auch hier angeführt, bang verschwindet jedoch. Baptisme wird auch weiter mit der etymologischen, nicht der terminologischen Bedeutung angeführt. An Fremdwörtern wird neu balneo 'a bathe' angegeben. Die meisten neuen Angaben gehören jedoch wenigstens zur Nomenklatur, falls nicht direkt zur Fachterminologie; so z.B.: azymes 'a solemnity ... among the Iewes ... the Pasche ...'; baboone 'a beast much like an ape ...'; bacchanals 'the feasts of Bacchus'; badger 'he that buyeth corne ... in one place to carry into another;... a beast... commonly called a brock'; balke (ein ungepflügter Streifen des Feldes); ballon 'the round globe on top of a pillar'. Die Artikel haben manchmal einen stark enzyklopädischen Charakter; so z.B. balme, balsamum (Balsam): Herkunft, Verwendung usw., im Ganzen 32 Zeilen von Angaben. Das nächste einsprachige Wörterbuch stammt von Henry Cockeram [d. 1650], "The English Dictionarie: or, an Interpreter of hard English Words," London 1623. Cockeram hat eine ausgesprochene Vorliebe für ganz entlegene lateinische und griechische Ausdrücke, die oft nur eine Scheinexistenz in der damals für elegant gehaltenen Ausdrucks weise führten. Man findet bei ihm also nicht nur ziemlich übliche Wörter wie aurora; auspicious (gutverheißend); austere (strikt); australe 'southerne'; authenticke; autumne; autonomy; bacchanals; balme, sondern auch auricular 'spoken into the eare'; aurigation 'a driving of a coach'; axinomancy 'divination done by hatchets'; ballatron 'a rascally base knave'. Auch 4

5

Man muß Cawdreys Leistung umso mehr bewundern, wenn man sich vergegenwärtigt, daß er es für zweckmäßig halten mußte, in der Vorrede die folgende Anweisung zu geben. If thou be desirous (gentle Reader) rightly and readily to understand to profit by this Table ... then thou must learne the Alphabet, to wit, the order of the Letters... and where euery Letter standeth as (b) neere the beginning, (n) about the middest, and (t) toward the end.... Againe, if thy word beginne with (ca) looke in the beginning of the letter (c) but if with (cu) then looke toward the end of the letter. bankerupt wird wohl angegeben, weil das damals eine gelehrte Orthographie war, von Schreibern eingeführt, denen die Etymologie (lat, ruptus, -a, -um) bewußt war. Auf dieselbe Weise ist z.B. auch das -b- in debt (entlehnt aus franz. dette), deubt (entlehnt aus franz. doute) wegen lat. debitum, *dubitum eingeführt worden. Während jedoch bei den letzteren Wörtern die Aussprache unverändert geblieben ist, hat man unter dem Einfluß der Orthographie das -p- später auch in die Aussprache eingefahrt: spelling pronunciation.

168

'Haid Woids'

anderes Sprachgut wird angeführt, so z.B. bandle 'an Irish measure of two foot in length'; bardes 'ancient poets'. Cockerams Wörterbuch hat jedoch noch einen zweiten Teil (im selben Band), wo die schwierigen Ausdrücke als Synonyme der leichteren angeführt werden6 , also z.B. to awake one: expergesce, exuscitate; ayde or succour: subsidie; to babble: deblaterate; a babbler: inaniloquus; much babbling dicacity, verbosity; love of babbling: phylology . Cockeram ist der einzige Lexikograph dieser Zeit, der so eine 'umgekehrte' Liste der entlegenen Ausdrücke bot; aber auch den sonstigen Lexikographen schwebt es als Ziel vor, dem Benutzer ihrer Wörterbücher die Anwendung solcher Wörter zu ermöglichen.8 Hayashi 37 meint, daß Cockerams zweiter Teil durch ältere zweisprachige Wörterbücher inspiriert wurde, wobei er eine Stelle im "Promptorium parvulorum" (um 1440) gooyn abowten (neuengl. going about): circumeo ...; goone a-forne: precedo....; goon aftyr: succedo ...; goon a'wey: recedo mit Cockerams to goe on foure Feet: quadrupedate; to goe from a matter: digresse; to goe downe: descend; to goe up: ascend; to goe before: precede; to goe backe: retire; to goe forwards: progresse vergleicht. Der Vergleich ist insofern richtig, als es sich bei Cockeram um eine sehr starke Diglossie handelt. Da die gelehrtere Variante in der diglottischen Situation, vor allem was das Lexikon angeht, gelernt werden muß, erinnert die ganze Lage an die Notwendigkeiten der Zweisprachigkeit. Große Ähnlichkeit zeigt sich auch darin, daß das Lexikon der gelehrten Variante des Englischen nicht etwa wie die griechische Kathareuousa oder das klassische Arabisch aus einheimischen Wörtern besteht, sondern weitgehend lateinische und griechische Entlehnungen und aus lateinischen und griechischen Morphemen gebildete Kunstformen bevorzugt. Inwiefern jedoch Cockeram konkret das Vorbild des "Promptorium parvulorum" vorschwebte, bleibt, wie Hayashi auch feststellt, unsicher. Rein enzyklopädische Angaben ('Gods and Goddesses, Men and Women, Boyes and Maides, Giants and Deuils, Birds and Beasts, Monsters and Serpents, Wells and Riuvers, Hearbs, Stones, Trees, Dogges, Fishes, and the like') sind im dritten Teil des Cockeramschen Wörterbuches zusammengestellt, wogegen sie in anderen Wörterbüchern in der Mehrheit der Fälle in der allgemeinen alphabetischen Reihenfolge der Artikel eingereiht sind. 9 Cockerams Wörterbuch hat kein besonderes Interesse für die Terminologie. Desto mehr davon findet man in dem nächstfolgenden Wörterbuch: Thomas Blount [1618-1679], 6

Cockeram selbst beschreibt (in der Vorrede) die zwei Teile wie folgt: The first Booke hath the choicest words now in use, wherewith our language is inriched and become so copious, to which words the common sense [also, 'umgangssprachliche Ausdrücke'] is annexed. The second Booke containes the vulgar ['umgangssprachlich'] words, which whensoever any desirous of a more curious explanation by a more refined and elegant speech shall looke into, he shall receive the exact and ample word to expresse the same. Cockeram betrachtet also die zwei Serien der Ausdrücke als synonym, was die Denotation angeht.

7

Es entspricht dem Zeitgeist, daß hier das Wort wieder in der ursprünglichen griechischen Bedeutung, nicht in der terminologischen Geltung angeführt wird. Es handelt sich also um denselben Vorgang wie bei baptisme, das auch bei Cockeram allgemein aufgefaßt wird: 'a washing or dipping in water'. Nur bei baptist 'a washer' wird die enzyklopädische Angabe über St. Joannes gemacht, er heiße Baptist 'for that he first began to baptize, or wash men in the River of Iordan to remission of sinnes'.

169

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

"Glossographia or a Dictionary Interpreting all such Hard Words, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Teutonick, Belgick, British or Saxon, as are now used in our refined English Tongue. Also the Terms of Divinity, Law, Physick, Mathematick, Heraldry, Anatomy, War, Musick, Architecure; and of several other Arts and Sciences Explicated ...".London 1656. Blount wiederholt einige sonderbare bei Cockeram angeführte Ausdrücke wie axinomancy (obwohl er zweimal nur den Druckfehler axiomancy hat) und vermehrt sie sogar um z.B. auturgic 'working with his own hands'; auxiliate 'to help, aid ...'. Ein guter Teil, wenn nicht sogar die Mehrheit der von ihm neu angeführten Wörter ist jedoch terminologischen bzw. enzyklopädisch-exegetischen Charakters. So z.B. automatarian 'of ... the art of making clocks...'; axillary 'belonging to the arme-hole . . . ' , dazu auch axillary vein, axillary artery; axicle 'a little shingle or board, a latch, a pin, that a pully runs on'; axis '... the diameter of the world' (es folgt eine enzyklopädische Erörterung); azimuths 'great circles meeting in the zenith ...'; Baal 'a Lord ... a common name whereby the Heathens called their God ...'. Der enzyklopädischen Erörterung des Namens Babel wird beinahe eine Seite gewidmet, wobei das 'leichte Wort' 10 to babble (erklärt als 'to twattle, to speak confusedly') zur Erwähnung kommt, u. zw. als ein B e w e i s , daß das Englische 8

Auch heute gibt es Wörterbücher, die speziell diese Art der 'hard words' erfassen wollen. Solche Wörterbücher sammeln nur wenige zur Nomenklatur oder Fachterminologie gehörende Ausdrücke (es sei, die Mode macht den Ausdruck irgendwie schick); das Interesse gilt den preziöseren, irgendwie gelehrt wirkenden Prestige- und Modewörtern. Als Beispiel dieser Gattung führen wir I. Moyer Hunsberger, "The Quintessential Dictionary", New York 1978 an. Auf dem Umschlag des Buches lesen wir folgenden Werbetext: What makes this the quintessential dictionary? ... First, it doesn't contain the words you already know and don't need to look up, nor does it contain the words you don't need to know. The 1,269 entries contained in this dictionary are all words that leap out at you from magazines, newspapers, and books, and make you say, "...what does it actually mean?" Here are some samples: acolyte, gemütlich (sic), panache, clone, sartorial, visceral. These are hard words; but they are lovely words; the kinds of words you'd really like to feel at home with; essential intellectual baggage for reading and talking about the current political, cultured, and social scene.... [The dictionary] makes fascinating reading, and will swell your vocabulary to brobdingnagian proportions, supply a lapidary precision and elegance to your conversation and inject eclat and elan into your writing ... if you suffer from lethologia (inability to remember the right word), you'll find this book furnishes you with apposite terminology for every occasion. ... your vocabulary and conversation will become so scintillating, people will be quoting you. Der Werbetext gibt in der Kursive genügende Beispiele der von diesem Wörterbuch erfaßten Ausdrücke. Selbsverständlich übertreibt der Werbetext die Vorteile der Kenntnis solcher Wörter. Es kann jedoch nicht abgestritten werden, daß z.B. in der sehr verbreiteten Monatsschrift Reader's Digest die Rubrik 'Increase your word power', die eben die Kenntnis solcher Ausdrücke seitens des Lesers testet, schon über lange Jahre sehr populär ist. Auch sollte darauf hingewiesen werden, daß der sogenannte Scholastic Aptitude Test, ein Bestandteil der Annahmeprüfung auf vielen amerikanischen Hochschulen, nicht nur die logische Urteilskraft und das mathematische Lösungsvermögen des Kandidaten, sondern auch seine Kenntnis solcher 'hard words' prüft; bei ihrer Auswahl zum Zwecke der Prüfung werden jedoch begrifflich seriösere und notwendigere Ausdrücke bevorzugt.

9

Auf die Beschreibung der biographischen, geographischen und sonstigen Appendixe in den einzelnen Wörterbüchern, bzw. überhaupt auf die Frage der Einreihung der Artikel mit enzyklopädischen Angaben gehen wir nicht ein.

10

Wie wir oben sehen, übersetzt es Cockeram in seinem zweiten Teil mit

deblaterate.

170

'Hanl Woids'

wirklich bis in die Zeit des Turmbaus zurückgeht: ein umgangssprachliches Wort wird also der Gelehrsamkeit wegen angeführt. Schon Blounts Vorgänger führen zwar Wörter wie autumnal, Bacchanals an, Blount gibt jedoch seinen Artikeln einen stark enzyklopädischen Charakter. Bei Cockeram fanden wir einen irischen Ausdruck (bandle); dem Interesse der Zeit entsprechend finden wir bei Blount azamoglans 'the Turks Janizaries before they bee inrolled in pay ...'. Blount hat nämlich für sein Wörterbuch seine sehr breite Belesenheit selbst in entlegeneren, aber damals aktuellen Gebieten verwertet. Die folgenden Wörterbücher haben ungefähr denselben Charakter wie Blount. Wir nennen als Beispiele Edward Phillips [630-1696?], "The New World of English Words: or, a General Dictionary: Containing the Interpretations of such hard words as are derived from other Languages ... Terms that relate of Arts and Sciences ...", London 1658, und Elisha Coles [16407-1680], "An English Dictionary: Explaining The difficult Terms ... Containing Many thousands of Hard Words ...," London 1676. Wir werden diese Wörterbücher nicht eingehend erörtern, da sie methodisch nichts oder wenig Neues bieten, zumal Phillips von Blount (wohl nicht mit Unrecht) wegen eines zu ausgedehnten Gebrauchs seines eigenen Wörterbuches angegriffen wurde. Methodisch wichtig sind die Wörterbücher von John Kersey [1616-1690]. Hauptsächlich handelt es sich um "A New English Dictionary: Or a Compleat Collection Of the Most Proper and Significant Words, Commonly used in the Language; With a Short and Clear Exposition of Difficult Words and Terms of Art ...", London 1702" und vor allem "Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum: Or, A General English Dictionary, Comprehending ... all Sorts of Difficult Words ..., as also, of all Terms relating to Arts and Sciences ... a Large Collection of Words and Phrases, as well Latin as English, made use in our Ancient Statutes, old Records, Charters, Writs, and Processes at Law ...", London 1708. Das Wörterbuch von 1702 gibt als erstes im Titel an, daß auch umgangssprachliche Wörter angeführt werden; und selbst Kerseys spätere Wörterbücher, die im Titelblatt zu den älteren Mustern zurückkehren, bleiben bei dieser so wichtigen Neuerung. Man findet hier (zitiert aus der Ausgabe 1708) Wörter wie to back 'to mount or get up on the back of a horse; also to support ...'; to backbite 'to flander, or speak evil of one behind his back'; to baffle 'to confound by reasons, or put to a non-plus'; bag' a sack or pouch ...'. Sonderbare Wörter ä la Cockeram sind weitgehend weggelassen worden. Die Terminologie ist bereichert worden, z.B. urh azimuthcompass 'an instrument made use of to take the sun's amplitude ...'; azoth 'an universal medicine ...'; azygos 'a notable vein ...'; baboon 'a kind of large ape'; bacca 'a berry ...', dazu bacciferous plants. Der enzyklopädisch-exegetische Bestandteil ist stark reduziert worden: Babel hat nicht einmal drei Zeilen bekommen.12 Das Anführen von 'normalen', umgangssprachlichen Wörtern ist eine wichtige Neuerung von Kersey. Er hat jedoch einen Vorgänger gehabt, nämlich John Wilkins [1614-1672], der " Der Name des Autors dieses Wörterbuches ist nur mit J.K. angegeben; es ist jedoch höchst wahrscheinlich, daß es sich um Kersey handelt; s. Starnes/Noyes (1946) 6 9 . 12

Obwohl Kersey schon (als der erste in England) ein professioneller Lexikograph war, zeigt sich doch das wenig systemabsche Wesen der damaligen Arbeitsweise ganz klar darin, daß durch die Reduktion des Artikels Babel das umgangssprachliche to babble wieder aus dem Wörterbuch verschwand.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

171

in seinem "Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language", London 1668, eine zwar in erster Linie geschriebene, aber sekundär auch (wenigstens theoretisch) gesprochene Kunstsprache konstruiert hat, die ganz regelmäßig und nach den Prinzipien der wissenschaftlichen Klassifikation geordnet sein sollte. Der letzte Teil des Essays heißt The Alphabetical Dictionary (im Ganzen 157 Seiten in quarto), das eigentlich dazu dient, englische Wörter in die Wörter der Kunstsprache durch den Hinweis auf die betreffende Stelle der Hauptabhandlung und durch eine Zusammenfassung der dort gegebenen Klassifikation und Derivation zu übersetzen, wobei jedoch auch Erklärungen in Englisch gegeben werden, so daß es als ein einsprachiges englisches Wörterbuch angesehen werden darf. Eine Probe des hier erfaßten Wortschatzes (jedoch nicht dessen ganzer Behandlung durch die Hinweise auf die Klassifikation) sieht wie folgt aus: ax 'carpenters ... for to cut strikingly'; battle-ax; pole-ax;pickax 'hammer for pecking'; axiom; axis, axle-tree 1. 'of globe', 2. 'of cart'; ay; azimuth;azure 'blew'; azure stone; babble 'loquacity'; babe; baby;bable 'vanity (thing)'; baboon; bachelor 'coelibate person'; bachelor of arts; bachelor's button; back 1. noun back of body,—of animal, 2. adverb 'to the same place /or/ person /or/ condition again', 3. preposition ...; give back...; keep back 'abstein, detein'; keep one back 'cohibit, hinder'; back door; back friend 'conceal'd enemy'; backbite. Es ist also einwandfrei klar, daß das Wörterbuch von Wilkins das erste ist, das die englischen umgangssprachlichen Wörter in großem Ausmaß erfaßt. Deswegen ist es seltsam, daß alle Geschichten der englischen Lexikographie Wilkins überhaupt nicht erwähnen, oder nur ganz nebenbei, als Autor der Klassifikation und der Uni Versalsprache, und daß die Anführung umgangssprachlicher Wörter ausschließlich auf Kersey zurückgeführt wird.13 Der Grund dafür ist wohl darin zu sehen, daß das Wörterbuch von Wilkins nur ein Teil seines Essays, also keine selbständige Veröffentlichung war und somit der Öffentlichkeit unbekannt geblieben ist. Die Frage, ob und inwieweit Wilkins seinen unmittelbaren Nachfolgern bekannt war und von ihnen benutzt wurde, muß eingehend untersucht werden.14 Jedenfalls hat er auf dem Gebiet der umgangssprachlichen Wörter und ihrer Polysemie Hervorragendes und Originelles geleistet. Kerseys Wörterbücher waren sehr wichtig und innovativ. Noch wichtiger sind jedoch die von Nathan Bailey (dl742). Dieser Lexikograph hat zuerst ein kurzes Wörterbuch herausgegeben "An Universal Etymological English Dictionary Comprehending The Derivations of the Generality of Words in the English Tongue, either Antient or Modern,... And Also A Brief and clear Explication of all difficult Words ... and Terms of A r t . . . Together with A Large Collection and Explication of Words and Phrases us'd in our Antient Statutes ...", London 1721. Daß sich das Wörterbuch 'etymologisch' nennt, ist unwesentlich; Bailey bemüht sich, die Herkunft der Wörter so weit wie möglich anzugeben, was jedoch seit Cawdrey alle seine Vorgänger in verschiedenem Ausmaß getan haben. Wichtiger ist, daß dieses Wörterbuch die folgenden Gruppen oder Kategorien von Wörtern zu unterscheiden scheint: 1) words; 2) difficult words; 3) terms of art; 4) words us'd in antient statutes (also juristische Ausdrücke). Baileys Hauptwerk hat jedoch eine andere Klassifikation, wie wir dem Titel entnehmen 13 14

Starnes/ Noyes (1946) 72; Long (1904) 29.

Dolezal (1985). Die lexikographischen Methoden von Wilkins und seine Stellung in der Entwicklung der englischen Lexikographie werden in der Monographie von Fredric Dolezal eingehend untersucht.

172

'Haid Words'

können "Dictionarium Britannicum: Or a more Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary than any Extant. Containing Not only the Words and Explications; but their Etymologies ... Also Explaining hard and technical Words, or Terms of A r t . . . Likewise A Collection and Explanation of Words and Phrases us'd in our antient Charters ...", London 1730. Die Begriffe der hard words und der 'technical words or terms of art' scheinen sich hier zu überschneiden. Dieser Eindruck wird durch den bei Bailey gebotenen Wortschatz bestätigt: die Extravaganzen ä la Cockeram sind weg, umgangssprachliche Wörter werden dagegen weitgehend angeführt; das enzyklopädische Element ist sehr stark vertreten. Wir lesen da z.B. die folgenden Artikel: azure, als Farbe; azure, Geltung in der Heraldik u.a.; azure, metonymisch bei Milton für den Himmel gebraucht; azygos, eine Vene; azyma 'the feast of unleavened bread observed by the Jews ...'; azymites 'persons who communicate the Eucharist with unleavened bread'; B, der Buchstabe, seine Form, Aussprache, Geltung in Abkürzungen; Baal, Baal Berith, Baal Gad, Baalim, Baalpeor, heidnische Gottheiten; Baalzebub;Baanites, eine manichäische Sekte; board 'a sort of sea vessel ...'; babe, baby 'a little ... infant'; Babel (10 Zeilen verschiedener Angaben); babywries 'strange, odd, antick works'; baboon 'a ... kind of monkey'; Babylon (16 Zeilen enzyklopädischer Angaben); Babbler 'an enemy to good manners...'; babble'... talk foolishly'; babble 'simple talk'; babbler 'a prater'. Mit diesem Wörterbuch (das in mehreren Ausgaben und Umarbeitungen herausgegeben wurde) hat, wie sich ein Peripatetiker ausdrücken würde, die englische Lexikographie "ihr Wesen erreicht": Umgangssprache und Terminologie, enzyklopädische Angaben sogar mit Bildern, einige Zitate aus der Literatur (s. den Beleg aus Milton), reiche, obwohl jetzt natürlich weitgehend überholte etymologische Angaben, das sind auch heute die Bestandteile eines beliebigen modernen—vor allem amerikanischen—Wörterbuches. Baileys Auffassung der Lexikographie und seine Handhabung der lexikographischen Materie entsprechen dem Stand und den Methoden der zeitgenössischen Lexikographie in anderen Ländern, vor allem in Frankreich. Inzwischen hat jedoch neben dieser Tradition in Europa eine neue Entwicklung stattgefunden. Die Pflege der neu entstandenen Schrift- und Standardsprachen und ihre immer größere Verbreitung auf Kosten der Dialekte haben auch einen neuen Typ des einsprachigen Wörterbuches mit sich gebracht. Die Autoren dieser standardsprachlichen Wörterbücher stehen natürlich vor dem Problem, wie der Wortschatz der Standardsprache zu erfassen und gegenüber dem nichtstandardsprachlichen abzugrenzen ist. Es sind also nicht die hard words, sondern —um einen Ausdruck in demselben Stil zu prägen—die 'good words', die im Mittelpunkt der Aufmerksamkeit stehen. Das erste dieser Wörterbücher ist das "Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca"; das Wörterbuch ist von der Florentiner Accademia della Crusca zusammengestellt, aber in Venedig 1612 gedruckt worden. Maßgebend für die Florentiner Akademie ist der Sprachgebrauch der 'trecentisti fiorentini', also der klassischen Autoren des 14. Jhd., vor allem Dante [1265-1321], Petrarca, Boccaccio. Das ganze Wörterbuch ist also auf den Belegen hauptsächlich aus diesen vorbildlichen, sozusagen 'guten' Autoren aufgebaut; daß die drei Autoren bei der Herausgabe des Wörterbuches schon über zwei Jahrhunderte alt waren, gehörte sicher zu seinen Nachteilen. Das wichtigste dieser standardsprachlichen Wörterbücher ist zweifellos Le dictionnaire de l'Academie [frangoise], Paris 1694. 15 Die Wichtigkeit dieses Wörterbuches ist zuerst in dem Umstand zu sehen, daß die ganze normative Tätigkeit der französischen Akademie später

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

173

in vielen europäischen Ländern von verschiedenen nach ihrem Vorbild gegründeten Akademien und sonstigen Institutionen nachgeahmt wurde. Zweitens hat sich die Akademie ganz auf den Standpunkt des zeitgenössischen Sprachgebrauchs gestellt. Man liest im Vorwort: L'Acadcemie a juge qu'elle ne devoit pas y [d.h. in das Wörterbuch] mettre les vieux mots qui sont entierement

hors d'usage,

ni les termes des Arts & des sciences

qui

rarement dans le Discours;

Elle s'est retranchee

dans le commerce

des honnestes gens, & telle que les Orateurs ά et les

l'employent;

ordinaire

Ce qui comprend

entrent

ä la Langue commune, teile qu'elle

tout ce qui peut servir ά la Noblesse

est

Poetes

& ä Γ Elegance

du

discours.

Nur die zeitgenössische Sprache der gebildeten Oberschichten zu erfassen, war also das Ziel der Akademie. Deswegen wird nicht nur auf Terminologie und enzyklopädische Exegese, sondern auch auf Zitate aus den Autoren verzichtet [Le dictionnaire] Frangoise;

a este commence ά achevce dans le siecle le plus florissant

Et c'est pour cela qu'il ne cite point, parce que plusiers

Orateurs & et de nos plus grands Poetes y ont travaille, leur

de la Langue

de nos plus

celebres

& qu'on a creu s'en devoir tenir ά

sentiments.

Auf diese Weise begründet die Vorrede das Fehlen von Zitaten. Das Sprachgefühl ausgezeichneter Sprecher hat den Vorrang vor den Texten, die Potentialität vor der Aktualität, die langue vor der parole, die Kompetenz vor der Performanz. Anstatt mit Zitaten wird die Mehrheit der angeführten typischen Syntagmata und Redewendungen durch ort dit 'man sagt' eingeführt. Nur wenige große Wörterbücher folgen dem Vorbild der französischen Akademie, was das absolute Fehlen von Zitaten angeht. Das Prinzip jedoch, daß ein einsprachiges Wörterbuch einer modernen Sprache in erster Linie ihre Standardform erfassen und dadurch den Benutzer u.a. über die richtige Anwendung ihres Wortschatzes informieren soll, ist bis heute gültig geblieben.16 Selbstverständlich haben sich in verschiedenen Epochen und Ländern normative, präskriptive oder sogar prohibitive Einstellungen zu dem Grundprinzip in verschiedener Stärke beigesellt; das ist jedoch eine andere Angelegenheit, auf die wir hier nicht eingehen können. In England ist trotz verschiedener Versuche und Anläufe eine entsprechende Akademie nie gegründet worden. Die stabilisierende Rolle spielte hier das Wörterbuch von Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary

of the English

language

in which

the words

are deduced

from

their

originals

15

Eine Feststellung wie die vorangehende wird des öfteren fälschlicherweise in dem Sinne verstanden, daß dieses Wörterbuch irgendwie als ein besonders gutes Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache zu bewerten wäre. Das ist keineswegs der Fall; die Wichtigkeit dieses Wörtesbuches ist ausschließlich methodologisch und entwicklungsgeschichtlich begründet.

16

In der fünften Auflage des Wörterbuches (Paris, Jahr 7 der Republik = 1800/1801 n. Chr.) ist dieser sozusagen 'pädagogische' Aspekt des Werkes ganz explizit geworden. Es wird in der Vorrede festgestellt, eine Art des Wörterbuches sei nützlich "aux Gens de Province qui avoient l'ambition d'ecrire et de parier comme a Paris". Die Rücksicht auf den Sprecher eines Dialektes ist neu. Jedenfalls zeigt das wieder die Relativität des Begriffes der 'hard words': ein 'leichtes Wort' der Schriftsprache kann für den Dialektsprecher ein 'schwieriges Wort' sein.

'Hard Words'

174

[d.h. also Etymologie], and illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers ..., London 1755. Mäßigung im Rahmen eines vernünftigen Kompromisses war eins der Hauptprinzipien des Johnsonschen Wörterbuches. Deswegen hat er einige Termini, wie z.B. azimuth, sogar in fünf verschiedenen Bedeutungen und Anwendungen (azimuth of the sun, magnetical azimuth, azimuth compass, azimuth dial, azimuths - 'circles intersecting each other in the zenith and the nadir'), wogegen das Dictionaire de l'Academie das Wort überhaupt nicht anführt. In diesem Fall sind es die vier verschiedenen terminologischen Syntagmata, fixierte Kollokationen der Nomenklatur, denen diese gewisse enzyklopädische Üppigkeit gilt. Manchmal bietet Johnson jedoch enzyklopädische Angaben auch dort an, wo sie vom Sprachlichen her gesehen überhaupt nicht notwendig sind. So wird z.B. bacciferous genügend als 'berry bearing' erklärt; es folgt jedoch die enzyklopädische Information: Bacciferous

trees are of four kinds 1. Such as bear a calliculate

as have a naked monospermous

fruit...

as have their fruit composed of many

or naked berry ... 2. Such

3. Such as have but polyspermous

fruit ... 4. Such

acini...

Dessen ungeachtet kann jedoch darüber kein Zweifel bestehen, daß es hauptsächlich der nicht-terminologische Teil des Wortschatzes der literarischen Form der Standardsprache ist, der von Johnson erfaßt wird. Ein Blick auf eine Probe der Artikelabfolge zeigt das zur Genüge Β (der Buchstabe); baa 'the cry of a sheep'; to baa; to babble Ί . to prattle like a childe...; 2. to talk idly ... 3. to ... tell secrets; 4. to talk much ...'; babble 'idle talk ...'; babblement 'senseless prate ...'; babbler' 1. an idle talker ... 2. a teller of secrets...'; babe 'an infant...'; babery 'finery to please a babe ...'; babish 'childisch ...'; baboon 'a monkey ...'; baby Ί . a child ...; 2....imitation of a child, which girls play with ...'. Das Vorziehen der umgangssprachlichen Form der Schriftsprache zeigt sich auch darin, daß sehr oft eben nur die geläufige, nicht die antiquarische Bedeutung angegeben wird. So z.B. bacchanalian 'a riotous person, a drunkard'; so ohne jede antiquarische Bedeutung und ohne jede enzyklopädische Erörterung, nur mit der evidenten Etymologie angeführt. Im Unterschied zum Wörterbuch der französischen Akademie enthält die Mehrheit der Artikel bei Johnson reiche und äußerst geschickt ausgewählte Zitate aus literarischen Quellen, die zeitlich etwa bis Shakespeare zurückreichen. Das ist übrigens, wie schon bemerkt, der Fall auch bei der Mehrheit der sonstigen Wörterbücher, die sich in anderen Aspekten dem Vorbild der französischen Akademie anschließen. In dieser neuen Lage mußte sich jeder Lexikograph entscheiden, ob er der Tradition der hard words plus Terminologie plus Enzyklopädisches plus (seit Kersey und vor allem Bailey) Umgangssprachliches oder der neuen Bevorzugung des Literarisch-Umgangssprachlichen den Vorzug geben wollte. Wie wir sahen, war Johnson selbst nicht ganz strikt, sondern eher—wenigstens teilweise—zum Kompromiß geneigt. Auch wurde das Wörterbuch von Bailey nicht sofort von Johnson überschattet, sondern ist, in mehreren Ausgaben und Neubearbeitungen (so vor allem in der Neubearbeitung von J.N. Scott [1703-1769], Α New Universal Etymological English Dictionary etc., London 1755) noch lange benutzt worden. Erst später hat dem Johnsonschen Werk vor allem die Feinheit seiner semantischen Unterscheidungen bei polysemischen Wörtern und die Geschicktheit seiner Wortauswahl den Vorrang vor Bailey verschafft.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

175

Es muß auch erwähnt werden, daß die Wörterbücher sehr umfangreich und teuer geworden waren. Kein Wunder also, daß John Wesley [ 1703-1791], der bekannte kirchliche Reformator und Gründer des Methodismus, der viele der Volksaufklärung dienende Bücher schrieb, auch ein ganz praktisches Wörterbuch zusammengestellt hat: The Complete English Dictionary, Explaining most ofthose Hard Words, Which are found in the Best English Writers. By a Lover of Good English and Common Sense. N.B.: The author assures you that he thinks that this is the best English Dictionary in the World, London 1753.17 Das kleine Wörterbuch bietet, was es verspricht: etwa 4600 Wörter, die einer Person mit geringerer Bildung bei der Lektüre Schwierigkeiten verursachen können. Der einfachere theologische Wortschatz ist dabei weitgehend berücksichtigt (z.B. Calvinists, conversion, deism, Jansenism, Presbyterians, Purgatory), aber auch andere Gebiete sind berücksichtigt: z.B. the Galaxy 'the milky way'; a galeon 'a large ship'; a galley 'a ship with oars'; a Gallicism 'a way of speaking peculiar to the French tongue'; to gambol 'to dance, skip, frisk'; the gamut 'the scale of musick'; a gangrene 'the beginning of mortification'; a gantlet 'an iron glove'; a garb 'a dress'; garboil 'trouble, ...'; a garner 'a store-house'; to garnish 'to ... adorn'; garrulity 'talkativeness'; a garth 'a yard'; a Gasconade 'a bravado . . . \ 1 8 Es ist hier von allem etwas vorhanden; sogar ein gelehrter Latinismus wie garrulity ist aufgenommen worden. Das wirklich Neue an diesem Wörterbuch ist, daß es den Begriff der hard words dem Bildungsniveau des 'kleinen Mannes' anpaßt. Bis zum Ende des Jahrhunderts wurde das Wörterbuch viermal gedruckt, war also erfolgreich. In Frankreich gab es auch eine Opposition gegen den neuen Typ des Wörterbuches. Es handelt sich nicht so sehr um Wörterbücher, deren Erscheinen ungefähr mit dem Erscheinen des Akademie-Wörterbuches zusammenfällt und die die sozusagen enzyklopädischterminologische Tradition repräsentieren; als Beispiel nennen wir P. Richelet [ 1626-1698], Dictionnaire frangois, contenant les mots et les choses, ... avec les termes les plus connus des Arts & des Sciences, Geneve 1680 (die zweite Auflage erschien 1681 in Lyon, die dritte 1710 wieder in Genf, die vierte 1735 wieder in Lyon). Dieses Wörterbuch wurzelt noch ganz in der älteren Epoche. Viel wichtiger ist, daß ein abtrünniges Mitglied der französischen Akademie zum entschiedenen Gegner der von ihr vertretenen Prinzipien geworden ist und daß kurz vor dem Erscheinen des Akademie-Wörterbuches sein eigenes Wörterbuch herausgegeben wurde (was zur Anklage führte, er hätte das von der Akademie zusammengebrachte Material plagiarisiert): Antoine Furetiere, Dictionnaire universel, contenant generalement tous les mots frangois tant vieux que modernes, & les Termes de toutes les Sciences et des Arts ... le tout extrait des ... Auteurs anciens & modernes, La Haye et Rotterdam 1690 (Neubearbeitungen durch andere Gelehrte La Haye 1701 und 1727). Dieses Wörterbuch, das durch das Anführen archaischer Ausdrücke und der Fachterminologie die ältere Tradition

17

18

Wesleys Name wird nicht angegeben, seine Autorschaft ist jedoch nie in geringsten Zweifel gezogen worden; s. Starnes/Noyes (1946) 172. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Wesleys Tätigkeit auf dem Gebiet der Volksaufklärung und populärer Bildung (er hat u.a. auch eine englische, lateinische, griechische und eine hebräische Grammatik geschrieben) und seiner lexikographischen Tätigkeit ist bei Starnes/ Noyes (1946) gut erkannt; das Neue dieser soziologischen Orientierung in der Lexikographie ist aber nicht erfaßt worden. Aus Starnes/ Noyes (1946) 178.

176

'Hard Words'

gegenüber der Methode der Akademie fortsetzt, hat für eine lange Zeit seine Stellung in Frankreich behauptet. Weder die weitere Entwicklung noch der heutige Zustand der lexikographischen Auffasssungen können hier erörtert werden. 19 Man kann jedoch etwa folgendes sagen. In Europa, einschließlich England, hat die immanent-sprachliche Konzeption der standardsprachlichen Wörterbücher, die auf Enzyklopädisches ganz oder zumindest weitgehend verzichtet, die Oberhand gewonnen. In Amerika ist jedoch die lexikographische Tradition, in der das Sprachliche mit dem Sachlichen, also das Linguistische mit dem Enzyklopädischen, kombiniert werden, nie unterbrochen worden. 20 Alle amerikanischen Wörterbücher, einschließlich Noah Websters An American Dictionary of the English Language, New York 1828, Joseph Worcesters [1784-1865] A Dictionary of the English Language, Boston 1860, W.D. Whitney's The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, New York 1889-1891,1 .K. Funks [1839-1912] A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, New York 1893, und einschließlich ganz moderner Werke wie Philip B. Goves Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Springfield (Mass.) 1961 und W. Morris The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Boston 1969, sowie alle Varianten dieser Werke vereinigen in sich eine rein sprachliche und eine enzyklopädische Komponente. 21 Aber auch Europa ist bei dem strikten Standpunkt der französischen Akademie von 1694 nicht geblieben. Wir haben schon gesehen, daß Johnson seine eigenen Wege gegangen ist. Was die französische Akademie angeht, so kann man aus der Vorrede zur Auflage ihres Wörterbuches von 1932 die folgende Entwicklung ihres Standpunktes zur Fachterminologie ablesen. 1694: so gut wie kein Fachwortschatz; 1762: einige Fachtermini aufgenommen; 1877 etwa 2000 Fachtermini angeführt; 1932 die von Jahr zu Jahr immer mehr steigende Flut von Fachtermini und ihre 'brusque penetration ... dans le parier' sowie die mit ihrer Erfassung zusammenhängenden Schwierigkeiten haben diese Auflage aufgehalten. Was das Enzyklopädische angeht, hat vor allem P. Larousse [1817-1875] in seinen Wörterbüchern das Sprachliche mit dem Sachlichen vereint. Auf seine Tätigkeit gehen vor allem das Nouveau Larousse illustre, Paris 1897, und das Petit Larousse illustre, Paris 1906 (viele Neuauflagen) zurück. In England ist neuerdings auch eine ähnliche Entwicklung feststellbar, vor allem in dem The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Oxford 1975 (2. Aufl.). 19

In dem während der Tagung gehaltenen Vortrag wurde jedoch auch der heutige Zustand anhand einer Analyse mehrerer britischer und amerikanischer einsprachiger Wörterbücher erörtert.

20

Vielleicht ist es jedoch nur der Rückblick, der uns diese Perspektive der ununterbrochenen Tradition so erscheinen läßt. Es müßte untersucht werden, inwiefern die amerikanische Tradition bewußter etwa an Bailey anknüpft und inwiefern es sich um eine wenigstens teilweise unabhängige Entwicklung der praktischen Notwendigkeiten und Erfordernisse des amerikanischen Marktes handelte. Friend ( 1 9 6 7 , 2 4 ff.) erörtert die britische Tradition in der amerikanischen Lexikographie und spricht von Johnson und Bailey-Scott; sein Interesse gehört jedoch eher den Definitionen als der enzyklopädischen Komponente. Auch in jener Hinsicht kann man jedoch seiner Arbeit keine klare Feststellung entnehmen, ob das eine oder das andere Wörterbuch vorgezogen wurde. Jedenfalls war Balley-Scott gut bekannt.

21

"Webster's Third "(Gove 1961) bildet eine Ausnahme in dieser Hinsicht, da es keine Eigennamen, also auch keine biographischen, geographischen und sonstigen Angaben bietet. Dafür ist es äußerst üppig, was die technische und sonstige Fachterminologie angeht.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

177

Zusammenfassend kann man also etwa folgendes sagen: Der Begriff der hard words ist in der englischen Lexikographie im Zusammenhang mit der Exegesis und Interpretation der Texte entstanden. Es handelte sich um veraltete und fremde Ausdrücke in alten und übersetzten Texten und um die Realia; dazu kamen einige neuere Entlehnungen aus verschiedenen Sprachen. Mit dem Ideal der humanistischen Bildung, die den Schwerpunkt auf die Kenntnis der lateinischen und griechischen Sprache (sowie auch Literatur und Kultur) verschob, ist auch der Begriff der hard words breiter geworden; es handelte sich dann auch (und vorwiegend) um gelehrte Wörter, die weitgehend als Synonyme oder Homoionyme zu entsprechenden umgangssprachlichen Wörtern und Ausdrücken aufgefaßt werden können, die jedoch als 'gelehrt', 'high-brow', oder modern ausgedrückt 'prestigious' o.a. markiert waren; die Tatsache, daß ihre denotative Funktion von diesen 'leichteren' Synonymen erfüllt werden kann, verleiht diesen 'schwierigen Wörtern' wenigstens teilweise den Beigeschmack von (größerer oder geringerer) Überflüssigkeit oder übertriebener Preziosität. Mit der Verminderung der Vorliebe für diese Wörter und mit der Entwicklung der modernen Wissenschaft und Technik kommt es zu weitgehenden Überschneidungen zwischen dem Begriff der hard words und dem Begriff der Fachterminologie, ja sie fallen beinahe zusammen; dabei ist es in der modernen Zeit nicht untypisch, daß einige ursprüngliche Fachtermini wenigstens für eine gewisse Zeit zu preziösen Modewörtern werden (z.B. 'Angst', 'Unterbewußtsein', 'Libido', 'Charisma' u.ä.). Alle diese Bestandteile des komplexen Begriffes (1. entlegene, meistens veraltete Wörter und Fremdwörter, 2. wenig bekannte Realia und ihre Bezeichnungen, 3. preziöse, teilweise durch die Mode der Zeit hervorgerufene und ihr auch wieder zum Opfer fallende Wörter, 4. Fachterminologie) sind jedoch auch im Wortschatz der modernen Sprachen vorhanden; somit muß sich die moderne Lexikographie auch mit ihnen auseinandersetzen können.

178

Multiword Lexical Units

3.6. Multiword Lexical Units'

Professor Martinet's [1908-1999] "functional syntax" is one of the most important and most advantageous approaches to syntactic analysis now in existence. The functional approach which is its basis must be regarded as very fruitful; and its fruitfulness is certainly not limited to syntax only. One of the most significant and, in my opinion, absolutely correct consequences of this functional approach is what Prof. Martinet terms "the subordination of form to function. 1 It will not be too gross a simplification if we try to summarize it in the slogan "the possible identity of function is more important than the possible divergence of form." Prof. Martinet exemplifies the subordination by examples like Lat. homini:: Eng. to the man which show both the identity of the function and the divergence of the form: what is expressed by a combination of several words in English is amalgamated into one word in Latin. 3 It is not necessary to discuss the point at greater length as it is both well known and easy to understand. Nor is it our intention to discuss examples which would prove the validity of the principle by comparison of syntactically equivalent but formally different expressions, not from two languages but from one. What we wish to discuss is the fact that the functional principle is useful not only in the sphere of syntax, but also in the sphere of lexicology, or, perhaps, onomasiology. 4 If we compare English lexical units like spinster :: old maid or French vieillir :: prendre de I age, we see that, apart from some connotative values, the members of the two pairs are synonymous. In other words, they are functionally identical, as far as their lexicological, in this case designative, function goes, and the divergence in their form (one word :: more words) is less important. Obviously, the validity of the principle of the "subordination of form to function" can be posited in the sphere of lexicology as well as that of syntax. In other words, the multiword lexical units are on a par with those lexical units which consist of one word only. This is an observation which is important not only for the theoretical constitution of the linguistic units, but is very important also for some practical tasks, e.g., those of the lexicographer. 5 What are the diagnostic means which help us to discern multiword lexical units from free combination of words? It seems that the following nine criteria can be established: * Reprinted from Word, Volume 23, no. 1 - 2 - 3 (April-August-December 1967), pp. 578 - 587. 1

A. Martinet, "The Foundations of a Functional Syntax," Monograph Linguistics,XVII ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 35.

2

Cf. the citation in the preceding footnote and, e.g., Elements 1960), 115.

3

Martinet's term is syntagme such a syntagm.

4

Our use of the term onomasiology is inspired by V. Mathesius' [ 1 8 8 2 - 1 9 4 5 ] term "functional onomatology": the study of the lexical units of language as carriers of lexical meaning. However, these latter terms have already other applications.

autonome·,

Series on Languages

de linguistique

generale

and

(Paris,

a word is the product of the "ankylose graduelle" of

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

179

1) The basic diagnostic feature seems to be that it is impossible to substitute a constituent part of a multiword lexical unit. If a constituent part of a free combination of words is substituted, the meaning of the whole is only modified insofar as the substituted word has another lexical meaning; if on the other hand a constituent part of a multiword lexical unit is substituted, the overall meaning of the multiword lexical unit is changed. If we take a free combination of words likefat pig, we can see that it is possible to make the substitutions big pig, young pig, etc., with the resulting partial modification of the whole expression's meaning corresponding to the respective lexical meanings of the substituted words. If we take, on the other hand, a multiword lexical unit like guinea pig, we see that it is impossible to make any substitution without changing the overall meaning of the expression. Sometimes, a free combination of words has the same form as the multiword lexical unit. This is easy to demonstrate by the contrast between the free combination cold feet (where it is possible to make a substitution like wet feet, sore feet, etc.), and the multiword lexical unit cold feet in a sentence like "He will not do it, he has got cold feet!" (where it is impossible to substitute anything without changing the overall meaning of the expression which makes it synonymous with to be afraid). The form of the language sometimes suggests the wrong interpretation. For instance, that is the case in written German, where nouns are spelled with capital initials. On the menu of a restaurant, one frequently reads the item trockene Bohnensuppe. This suggests the interpretation "bean soup which is dry," where the real meaning is "soup made of dry beans." It would be, however, hardly correct to assume that a vast difference between the overall meaning of a multiword lexical unit on the one hand and the individual meaning of its constituent parts on the other must necessarily be observed, in all cases. If we take an expression like the greeting good day!, we see that we cannot substitute, say, excellent day! Such an expression would not be a modification of the usual greeting, it would not be understood as a greeting at all, i.e., its overall meaning would be changed.6 Therefore, such a set expression can be considered a multiword lexical unit although its overall meaning is not vastly different from that which is predictable from the lexical meanings of its individual constituent parts. In this case, we could speak here rather about a certain semantic depletion of the constituent parts of the expression.7 The last example, viz. good day!, shows us, however, another important thing, namely, that the multiword lexical units are not only of designative character. They are used not only to designate segments of extralinguistic experience, but they also perform other functions, e.g., those of purely communicative or relational or other character. A grammatical-relational 5

Some of the more important papers on the subject: Garvin 1955; Greimas 1960; Coates 1964; Phal 1964; Sabrsula 1966. Cf. also Brekle 1966 When the present paper had already been submitted to the Editor, Professor Martinet himself published his paper "Syntagme et syntheme", in La Linguistique, II ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 ff., in which similar ground is covered.

6

Except in a joke or as a joke.

7

Cf. note 17.

180

Multiword Lexical Units

operator like Eng. so as to, inasmuch as stand on a par with a one-word lexical unit like when·, Fr. ne ...pas is not functionally different f r o m a one-word lexical unit like Eng. not, G e r m , nicht-, E n g . old girl performs the same function of a symptom of affection as the one-word synonym darling (although its application is restricted to persons and beings of female sex only). 8 In these cases, it is again an impossibility to substitute a part without a total change in the overall meaning, which seems to be the basic criterion. W h e n applying the substitution test, one has to take into consideration that some words occur as constituent parts of whole series of expressions, e.g., E n g . give away : give off ( e t c . ) : : turn away : turn off : turn over (etc.). If and insofar as the individual expressions comply with the criteria of multiword lexical units, we should not be distressed by such concatenations. After all, the productivity of a type of combination of words does not have a different status than the productivity of, say, derivation by a suffix, at least not in the trend of thought we are following here, in the formation of fixed clusters of m o r p h e m e s . But it would not always be easy to differentiate such multiword lexical units f r o m the set groups (point 9) on the one hand, and f r o m the free combinations of words on the other. And if such a type is very productive, it can verge by its regularity on the quasi-grammatical. Good examples of such quasi-grammatical chains were discussed by J. Sabrsula (cf. note 5), e.g., F r . etre en branle : entrer en branle : se mettre en branle : mettre en branle :: etre en colkre : entrer en colere : se mettre en colere : mettre en colere :: itre en mouvement : entrer en mouvement: se mettre en mouvement: mettre en mouvement, etc. The following criteria d o not seem to apply to all the pertinent cases and are, therefore, not of such a basic character as the preceding one. 2 ) Sometimes, it is impossible to add something to the multiword lexical unit, in contrast to the free combination of words. While the free combination illegal market can be expanded into illegal steel market, the only way to expand the multiword lexical unit black market would be black market in steel9 This phenomenon is certainly not observable in all cases, but many of them are rather conspicuously characterized by it.10 If, however, the multiword lexical unit is expanded, say, by an attribute, the specification pertains to the whole multiword lexical unit: an exotic guinea pig is a guinea pig that is exotic, not a pig f r o m exotic Guinea." As this phenomenon is a necessary consequence of the multiword lexical unit's being a unit, it sometimes has a considerable diagnostic value 8

Here again, the "homonymity" of a free group of words and of a multiword lexical unit can be observed : darling = old girl:: old girl ~ young girl ~pretty girl ~ naughty girl, etc.

9

Coates 1964, p. 1050.

10

It is, however, not infrequently possible to drop a constituent part of a multiword lexical unit. (I owe the suggestion to Prof. I. J. Gelb.) It is possible to greet by saying only " ... day\"·, it is possible and even usual to speak, in Italian, about a rapido, dropping the first constituent part of the multiword lexical unit treno rapido "express train." Some of these cases will be of an elliptical nature (" ... day!"); but some tend to become or have become one-word lexical units themselves. So, e.g., Italian rapido, direttisimo, accelerato (different types of trains, generally used without treno); German Mahlzeit! (greeting after a meal) never used in the original full form gesegnete Mahlzeit I). French metro (abbreviated from metropolitan, and this instead of the official full chemin de fer metropolitain).

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

181

as a criterion, or at least as a symptom. On the other hand, the well known difficulties connected with the construction of sentence-trees are present here, too, so that there are cases of uncertainty. 3 ) Different semantic phenomena are not a necessary accompaniment of the constitution of a multiword lexical unit, but they are very frequent. Most conspicuous are those multiword lexical units whose meaning is not derivable from that of the individual constituent parts. Most striking are idiomatic expressions like Eng. to drop a brick, or French revenir ά ses moutons, 'to come back to the main topic'; I am not sure, however, that they really belong here, whether they do not belong rather to the set groups, as established below, point (9). But W . A. Coates 1 2 [1916-1973] is certainly right in classifying expressions like Eng. give up as belonging to multiword lexical units (though he has a different terminology). In contradistinction to the idiomatic expressions, we observe here a certain semantic depletion. This important phenomenon can be illustrated by the following example: French jeune fille is not necessarily a 'young girl' (though this is what is suggested by the individual constituent parts), but just a 'girl' of any age, or an unmarried woman, as shown by the possibility of saying, "Elle est dejä assez ägee, eile va rester jeune fille." This semantic depletion must be considered a very important criterion for the recognition of multiword lexical units. Its value is, unfortunately, diminished by the fact that our methods of judgement in the field of semantics still need much refinement. But I suspect that the semantic depletion of the constituent parts will one day be shown to be one of the basic properties of multiword lexical units; this should be so, because a multiword lexical unit has a single designatum which will probably nearly always be characterized by having a smaller number of relevant semantic features than those contained in the sum of the constituent parts (irrespective of whether or not there are, in the single designatum, some additional semantic features not present in the designata of the constituent parts). 13 4 ) A constituent part of a multiword lexical unit may be severely or exclusively restricted to it, i.e., it does not occur elsewhere. This is, for instance, the case of Eng. maid 'virgin, unmarried woman,' which does not occur (having this sense) except in the multiword lexical unit old maid. (At least this is the situation in Modern English.) 14 5) The multiword lexical unit may have a synonym or near synonym which consists of " The example has some validity in spoken language only. (In the last sentence, I use some remarks made by G. Richter, in a personal discussion.) 12 13

Proceedings (see footnote 5), p. 1051.

Certain scholars not infrequently require that a multiword lexical unit designate what is called "a unified, unique concept" (A. Phal [cf. footnote 5], p. 56: concept unique), i.e., a single designatum. Yes, it should, or rather it must, otherwise it cannot be a multiword lexical unit; but the diagnostic value of this requirement is not considerable, because it is not easy and sometimes it seems to be impossible to decide what is a single designatum, a "unique concept," and what is not. For instance, in the case of such expressions belonging to technical terminologies, like

bacille de Koch, bacille d'Eberth, bacille de Hansen, A. Phal is certainly right in thinking that the conceptual status of similar terms (and of the underlying concepts) will be different in the general language and in the restricted, technical language of the specialist. 14

A decision will not always be easy, above all not in those cases when a word can be combined only with a limited set of other words.

182

Multiword Lexical Units

one word only, e.g., Eng. old maid :: spinster, loose woman :: prostitute. 6) A small group of semantically related expressions may show the analogous or identical status of the multiword lexical units on the one hand and the single-word lexical units on the other. This seems to be the case of such subsystems of designative terms as Amer. Eng. elementary school :: high school :: college :: university; French pommede terre "potato" :: radis "radish" :: betterave "sugarbeet." 7) A one-word equivalent in a foreign language can indicate that we have a multiword lexical unit before us, e.g., Eng. guinea pig = Fr. cobaye,15 The individual constituent parts of the Russian expression dikaja koza have the meaning "wild goat"; but the English equivalent of the Russian multiword lexical unit is roe.16 8 ) Sometimes, the way in which the individual constituent parts of a multiword lexical unit are combined shows some special grammatical properties. 17 Good illustrations are supplied by the absence of the article in Eng., e.g., at hand, by heart, or Fr. parcceur. The importance of this formal criterion must not, however, be overrated because many of the examples quoted above show no grammatical peculiarities and because it is even possible to cite special examples which tend to testify against the importance of the formal criterion. 9 ) There are set groups of words which should not be considered multiword lexical units, even though the first criterion and at least some of the other criteria listed above seem to apply to them. In a set expression, or set groups like my house my castle, it is not possible to substitute a constituent part of it; and other criteria will apply to it, too. But while being a set group of words, this is certainly not a multiword lexical unit because it does not comply with the most fundamental requirement, viz. that of performing, in a sentence (syntagmatically) and in the lexicon, in the lexical stock of the language (paradigmatically) the same syntactic and lexicological function as a morphologically more simple lexical unit which frequently coincides with the word, e.g., in the Indo-European languages. This fundamental requirement is the criterion by means of which set groups of words like proverbs, sayings, dicta, quotations, and similar fossil, set combinations are distinguished from multiword lexical units. At least some of the idiomatic expressions (cf. point 3) will belong here, too.18 This ninth criterion is as basic and as general as the first: it seems to be these two criteria, the first and the ninth, are the fundamentum divisionis by which 15

But the presence of the synonymous French term, cochon d' Inde "guinea pig" suffices to signal how precarious this criterion is.

16

This test should be handled with the greatest care, and preferably only between languages that belong to the same cultural sphere and level, because otherwise, all the problems of folk taxonomy and related questions can be raised. Nobody would assume that the Eng. term guinea pig implies that the animal thus denoted is zoologically a species of pigs; but in a language with an exotic culture, we are on less safe ground; worse than that, our less inhibited interpretations may lead us astray.

17 18

Cf. Weinreich 1963, p. 146; Akhmanova 1965, p. 164.

An either-or decision is sometimes difficult or impossible. E.g., we cited above the greeting good day! among the multiword lexical units, because it seems to function in a similar way to other attitudinal symptoms like hello! But we are not quite sure about some other greetings and similar expressions.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

183

multiword lexical units are singled out, whereas criteria (2) - (8) seem to be of a rather additional character, at least provisionally; as stated above, one can expect that criterion (3) will also gain such a basic status when our semantic judgments are refined.19 So far, we have contrasted one-word lexical units with multiword ones, as exemplified by spinster :: old maid. In reality, the situation is far less simple. It suffices to compare multiword lexical units like Eng. old maid with Fr. prendre de I' age to see that the term "multiword" must necessarily involve all the uncertainties and differences inherent in the term "word" itself: the uncertainty of its boundaries, the difference existing between the "full," "content" words, and the "empty," "formal" words, etc. In reality, the lexical units are clusters of morphemes (the boundaries of which, however, are not always quite certain in their turn, either); and the ways in which the morphemes are combined within the lexical units are very different. Some random examples from well-known languages only: Eng. man , Fr. homme: monomorphemic lexical units;20 Eng. houseboat: bimorphemic lexical unit morphologically characterized as one word; Eng. old maid: bimorphemic lexical unit morphologically characterized as two words; Eng. look ( ... something ... ) up (e.g., in a dictionary): bimorphemic lexical unit clearly characterized as two words, even discontinuous; Amer. Eng. high school "pedagogical institution attended after elementary and middle school": bimorphemic lexical unit traditionally conceived of as two words in the written language, but tending to be pronounced as one word in the spoken language; Eng. albeit: either a monomorphemic or (for very well educated speakers) trimorphemic lexical unit conceived of as one ("functional," "empty," "grammatical") word; Eng. contraption: a lexical unit clearly characterized as one word but of unclear morphemic status;21 Eng. manservant: a bimorphemic lexical unit, characterized both as one word (accent, no space) and as two words (plural menservants)', Ger. Stelldichein, 'date (with a girl)': trimorphemic lexical unit (one "full" morpheme, two "empty" ones), morphologically conceived of and functioning in every respect as one

" A.-J. Greimas, in his paper cited in footnote 5, discusses also the frequency of co-occurrence of words which are the potential constituent parts of the possible multiword lexical unit as a criterion for the decision concerning the lexical status of the group. In my opinion, this assumption will need yet much elaboration and investigation. 20

If we accept the position that there are zero-morphemes, in these and similar examples, which should be posited because of the grammatical structure of the language in question (for instance, because of the cases, numbers, etc.), we will have to modify the term "monomorphemic," but the overall situation will remain unchanged. This remark applies mutatis mutandis to the other examples, too.

21

Apart from the etymology of the word (which is in a high degree irrelevant and not quite sure), its morphemic status will depend largely on the association with other morphemes like trap, tion, con- (as suggestive of complicated, complex, contrivances).

Multiword Lexical Units

184

word, though being a fossilized sentence and capable of being understood as such; French prendre de l' äge: tetramorphemic 22 lexical unit (two morphemes "full," two "empty"), traditionally (and perhaps also morphologically) conceived of as four words; etc., etc. The classification of the formal types of lexical units would be very rich and very interesting,23 particularly if it were based on the study of languages of different types. I do not think that the morphological concept of the word would have an exclusive importance in the theoretical conception of such a classification (though I do not deny that it would be important). Our linguistic tradition is, however, connected with languages (like Latin and Greek) in which the word is one of the really central concepts, not only because of its morphological clarity, but mainly because sentences consist, in these languages, of units which coincide to a very large degree with these morphological words, so that a sentence can be conceived of as consisting simply of words. As far as the modern European languages go, the same situation prevails, e.g., in German and Russian. To some extent in French and above all in English, the situation is partly different, and the concept of the word is less clear; but we must take into account the fact that until relatively very recently these languages were both studied and dealt with on the model of Latin, so that for a long time, these studies exercised no considerable modifying influence on the building of the tradition 24 The outcome of this linguistic25 tradition and the result of these linguistic facts is, among other things, that the formal structures of those lexical units consisting of one word are much better studied (compounding, derivation, etc.) than those of the multiword ones, and that our dictionaries are organized by words and will remain so.25 When we speak about one-word and about multiword lexical units, we bend before this tradition and to those facts, too. But the really important thing in onomasiological studies is not to limit them to

22 23

prendre

is conceived of as monomorphemic.

It is worthwhile to remark that a classification of the semantic side would not be less interesting, but certainly much more difficult. Such an undertaking would imply a study of the semantic status of the individual constituent parts: to what extent do the individual constituent parts still have a meaning of their own, how strong are their paradigmatic or associative ties, etc. The most important thing would seem to be the study of the semantic depletion of the constituent parts.

24

This should not be taken as a statement to the effect that the category of the word is exceptional, in the different languages of the world—quite to the contrary; e.g., the recent symposium in Lingua, XVII (1966), 1 - 261, where different scholars study word classes in the following languages: Igbo (J. Camochan), English (D. Crystal), Japanese (F. J. Daniels), Navaho (H. Hoijer), Greek (F. Householder), Modem Standard Chinese (P. Kratochvfl), Latin (H. Matthews), Yokuts (S. Newman), Bilin (F. R. Palmer), Yurok (R. H. Robins), North Sotho (Ε. B. van Wyk). But it would be as wrong to deny the role of classical tradition in the connection discussed above.

25

The concept and the term word are so firmly ingrained that they have a certain "metaphorical productivity" of their own: see the concept of "word" in the memory of computers.

Dictionaries and the Lexicon

185

lexical units which coincide with individual words, but to study all the types of combinations of morphemes which perform the onomasiological function, and to establish accordingly the lexical units of the language in question. 26

26

This is, however, not only a theoretical dictum. For instance, one of the most important tasks of the lexicographer in the field of a language like Chinese or Vietnamese is not to come too much under the spell of the usual morphologically clear-cut "words" and not to try to find in his language more than what is there, but on the other hand, to be able to perceive not only the morphemes, but also their different lexicalized clusters.

Chapter Four Dictionaries and Languages

4.1. The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard" 4.1.0. Typology of Dictionaries That Influence the Standard

With respect to the way in which they influence the standard, dictionaries can be distributed into the following types: (1) dictionaries that aim at creating a written standard: standard-creating dictionaries; (2) dictionaries that try to render the standard more modern: modernizing dictionaries; (3) dictionaries that try not only to stop any change in the standard, but even to reverse change, to reintroduce obsolete forms and meanings: antiquating (or archaizing) dictionaries; (4) dictionaries that try to describe the existing standard, thereby clarifying it: standard descriptive dictionaries. Many dictionaries are typologically mixed, and probably few if any dictionaries belong to one type only, free of any contaminating elements from another type; indeed, some dictionaries are hard to classify. Particularly frequent are combinations of Types 1 & 2; 1 & 4 ; 2 & 3; 2 & 4; 3 & 4. There are other important parameters, or dimensions, of typological variation besides those mentioned. For instance, some dictionaries constitute a lexicographer's isolated effort, whereas others can be seen as connected with a cultural, literary, scientific movement, or with some change in society. Some dictionaries are not endowed with any official authority, whereas others are. Some dictionaries try to foster regularity, logical character of expressions, and similar properties of language, real or only perceived as such. Some are more and some are less restrictive in their selection of vocabulary; some intend to deal with contemporary standard language only, whereas others are less exclusive. These and similar typological properties will be taken into consideration, however, as secondary features. The primary fitndamentum divisionis is the compiler's attitude toward linguistic change. It is the most important distinction for the purposes of this article; at the same time, it is the most difficult one for the lexicographer to cope with.

* Reprinted from Dictionaries. An International Gruyter, 1989a, Vol. I, pp. 70 - 79.

Encyclopedia

of Lexicography,

Berlin, Walter de

Dictionaries and Languages 4.1.1.

187

Type 1: Standard-Creating Dictionaries

4.1.1.1 Type 1.1: New Standard Languages

There are several historical cases in which the introduction of a written standard language was not the outcome of (usually rather slow) indigenous growth, but the result of a rather abrupt action, frequently by external agents (in many cases missionaries, mostly Christian and Buddhist); the creation of the Old Church Slavonic written standard language for the translation of the Bible by St. Cyril [ca.315-386] (about 860 A.D.) is a good example. However, the cultural activities that followed such a development were usually restricted, at least initially, to proselytizing for and catechizing the new religion, and to the exegesis of the sacred scriptures; since the use of the new written language was consequently restricted to the theological register, lexicographic activities were, again at least in the initial stages, limited to glossaries of the particularly heavy words. Conversely, in our own days (approximately since World War I) such an abrupt introduction of the written standard, even if carried out by missionaries, usually entails a general or at least partial acculturation to the technical age, not only acceptance of theological doctrine. This has the consequence that a new written standard language, if its introduction is to be successful, must be used in many registers with their terminologies and nomenclatures: consequently, the role of lexicography is more prominent. It is particularly bilingual dictionaries that are compiled in this situation, in order to introduce into the 'new' language the terms lacking in it but present in the 'cultural language' (mostly English, French, Russian, Spanish, and to some extent also Chinese, and perhaps Dutch and Portuguese) in whose sphere the 'new' language is embedded. A bilingual dictionary of the 'cultural language' as the source language and the 'new' language as the target language is clearly unambiguously compiled for this purpose: it presupposes that there are or soon will be native speakers of the 'new' language who have received various types of education in the 'cultural language' and who will need the help of the dictionary in order to write in the 'new' language. On the other hand, a bilingual dictionary in which an 'exotic' language is the source and the 'cultural language' is the target language can be compiled either for the purpose of linguistic description of the source language (perhaps with some ethnographic or similar information added), or for the purpose of fostering the 'exotic' language as a new written standard language. A good example of the first (purely linguistic) type is Karttunen's Nahuatl-English dictionary (Karttunen 1983): it concentrates on the indigenous Nahuatl morphemes, largely omitting the frequent borrowings from Spanish that found their way into that language. Had the purpose of the Nahuatl-English dictionary been to foster Nahuatl as a written standard language, it would have been necessary to take the borrowings into consideration. In our days, standard-creating activities are mostly carried out by missionaries (see Bartholomew/Schoenhals 1983) and by state agencies (directly or indirectly; in the latter case funding only is provided).

188

The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard

4.1.1.2. Type 1.2: Revived Languages A subcategory of this type comprises dictionaries instrumental in the revival of a language, i.e. in its reintroduction as a written standard language. There were several cases of such a revival of a language nearly dead (or at least not used in any cultural register) in the 19th century; one good example may be found in Czech, in whose revival a dictionary was highly instrumental. The best example in our century is, of course, the revival of Modem Hebrew.

4.1.1.3.Type 1.3: Varieties Raised to Standards It can be safely expected that a new subcategory of this type will develop soon: dictionaries of regional varieties of a standard language that will help those varieties to develop a standard of their own. A modest beginning has already been made by such small monolingual dictionaries as the Australian one (Turner 1984); and several of New Zealand English (Orsman 1979; Gordon 1984; especially Burchfield 1986). (However, the dictionary of Newfoundland English [Story/ Kirwan/ Widdowson 1982] naturally refrains from attempts to foster a new standard; for specifics of Canadian English lexicography, see Story (1986) [and the whole volume].) There is also the monolingual dictionary of Mexican Spanish by Luis Fernando Lara (1996 of which Lara (1986) is a preliminary version), which gives that variety its own standard; and perhaps the (by now well-advanced) project of the dictionary of Quebec French (Poirier 1985) will exercise a similar influence.

4.1.1.4. Borderline Cases No dictionary that belongs to any subcategory of this type creates a new standard language ex nihilo: either there is a spoken language used for daily purposes, if only in a few registers, or else there is a language as it existed before its decline that offers a basis for the revival (and frequently influences the new standard by its archaic character), or there is an existing standard of the 'metropolitan' variety (e.g., British English, Castilian Spanish) from which the new standard must be extricated. It follows from this circumstance that many dictionaries are borderline cases between Types 1 and 2, or between Types 1 and 4.

Dictionaries and Languages 4.1.2.

189

Type 2: Modernizing Dictionaries

4.1.2.1. Type 2.1: Terminology

Constant change of lexicon is observable in each language: incessant influx of new words and expressions is one of its outstanding manifestations. Dictionaries of neologisms frequently register such new coinages. Such dictionaries, however, do not fully belong to the type of the modernizing dictionary, because the intention to influence speakers to use these new expressions normally is not their main purpose. In well-established languages, it is mainly dictionaries of scientific and other terminology that pursue such a goal; naturally so, because scientific and technical registers need defined terms which are used consistently in order for communication to be effective. The task of such dictionaries is rendered even more important and complicated by the fact that scientific and technical progress constantly brings in new notions and terms and redefines the old ones. The existence of different schools of thought whose terminologies vary, as well as of terminological differences between languages, add to the difficulties of this subject. Coping with these problems is sometimes the duty of authoritative, mostly government-approved or government-operated bodies, that publish lists and dictionaries of approved terms and their definitions. This type of lexicographic activity is of utmost importance; also, the authoritative impact of such dictionaries is so strong (although neither omnipotent nor omniscient) that they belong among those that influence real usage most tangibly.

4.1.2.2. Type 2.2: New Registers However, the notion of modernization is usually reserved for languages that already have a written standard, but in which for some reason several of its registers are not developed. This is mostly the case with some languages of Asia and Africa that already have a written standard, but only recently were introduced (sometimes only tentatively or partially) as languages of administration, higher education, etc. The vocabulary necessary for these registers is frequently introduced through lexicographic activity, sometimes carried out by governmental or other similar authorities as well. There is another subcategory of this subtype. There are known cases in history where a language, although it had a well established written standard, receded in actual use, so that it failed to develop vocabularies for all the registers and absorbed many borrowings not only for new things and concepts, but also as replacements for existing indigenous words. When an effort similar to the revival described in Type 1.2 takes place, modernization of the lexicon is needed in order to create the vocabulary necessary for the hitherto neglected registers. Such effort is frequently accompanied by a wave of purism during which borrowings are ostracized (not always successfully). While the filling in of lexical gaps in the new register brings about an overlap of Types 2 and 1, these puristic tendencies frequently cause an overlap with Type 3, because one of the ways to expunge borrowings is to replace them

190

The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard

with old or obsolete indigenous words (unless neologisms are coined for that purpose). To illustrate the complexity of such efforts at modernization, a list of labels or symbols used by Campe [1746-1818] (1807) to qualify entry words in his dictionary follows:

*

obsolete words, recently re-introduced by good writers, or deserving re-introduction. * * obsolete words, incapable of re-introduction. 0 neologisms, already used by good writers, or approved of by esteemed linguists. 0 neologisms whose value is not yet certain; all neologisms coined by Campe himself get this sign. 6 neologisms coined or used by important writers, which should not be accepted, nevertheless. + regionalisms, either already used by good writers or deserving acceptance. Φ regionalisms that do not deserve acceptance. χ "low" words that are useful for the "minor" styles (jocose, sarcastic, etc.). χ - "low", nearly vulgar words which should not be used in any style, nor in the better colloquial language. Δ words to be used only in poetic language. Δ neologisms to be used only in poetic language. 0 Δ such neologisms coined by Campe himself. Οχ neologisms coined for the "minor" styles. © χ such neologisms coined by Campe himself. Excerpt 13: Symbols used in Campe 1807, with English translation of their meaning

It goes without saying that there are borderline cases between Types 1 and 2, not only with respect to the dictionaries involved, but also to the underlying linguistic situations. For instance, while no one will doubt that attempts, such as the one for German exemplified by Campe, are efforts toward modernization of the language, some may doubt whether

Dictionaries and Languages

191

similar efforts in Irish in this century are to be classified as an attempt at modernization, or whether the notion of revival (Type 1.2) should be invoked.

4.1.2.3. Type 2.3: Overcoming Diglossia Another subtype consists of dictionaries that make the attempt to overcome diglossia, as described below, in Type 3, because in that situation we also face the emergence of a new standard. However, since this is a slow, sometimes generational process (such as, e.g., in Modern Greek of the 20th century), the usual development is that dictionaries of Type 3 gradually change their character into Type 4. However, even if the break with diglossia is very sharp, such as in China after 1911 or in Turkey after 1922, real dictionaries of Type 4, describing the new standard, do not come immediately afterwards. (There cannot be large lexicographic ventures of Type 1, because such sharp breaks usually are unplanned and are connected with major upheavals in seemingly stabilized societies.) Even in a situation such as that obtaining in Turkey after 1922 when modernization was not only supported, but fully engineered by governmental agencies, the lexicographic tools of modernization are not primarily full-fledged dictionaries, but mainly orthographic, terminological and similar outlines, plus glossaries.

4.1.3.

Type 3: Antiquating (or Archaizing) Dictionaries

4.1.3.1. Type 3.1: Weaker Type

Cases of strong diglossia are known, in which the written standard language (and sometimes even the spoken standard language in its more formal styles) is archaic in comparison with the colloquial language. Contemporary Arabic is a good example of such a situation, in which the written (and formal spoken) language is a classical idiom acquired mostly by education, for which dictionaries are necessary. Classical Arabic has been uninterruptedly used for literary purposes, so that its dictionaries help to preserve it: they belong to what can be called the weaker subcategory of antiquating dictionaries.

4.1.3.2. Type 3.2: Stronger Type There are cases of diglossia that are, so to say, reintroduced by the revival of an older language form whose active use was discontinued for some time. A good example of such development is late ancient Greek: somewhere in the second and third centuries A.D. the

192

The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard

effort began to reintroduce the language of the classical Attic authors as the standard of the day. Since those authors flourished mostly in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., there was a span of some seven centuries, during which the Attic form of language had disappeared and been absorbed into the common Greek koine. A form of didactic dictionaries developed in the third and fourth centuries that gave advice on which classical expressions to use in place of common-language ones. For instance, one of these dictionaries (Phrynichus; see Zgusta 1980c, 126) contains (in translation) items like the following: Εύχαριστέΐν has been used by no esteemed author, only χάριν είδέμαι [both expressions mean 'to thank']. Σίναπι one should not say, only ναπυ [both mean 'mustard']. Βρέχειν instead of ΰειν is a totally despicable word [both mean 'it rains'], f

Ης is a solecism worthy of the market place. Say ήσθα [here the prohibition pertains to a later morphological form of the verb 'to be' in 2nd sing, past tense].

Dictionaries of this stronger type positively try to reverse change, not only to stop it or slow it down. They are rather rare and belong to the stronger subcategory of antiquating dictionaries.

4.1.3.3 Borderline Cases There are two ways in which to conceive of diglossia: in the first understanding, the term refers only to situations in which the written standard is so archaic that it is largely unintelligible to the speaker of the colloquial variant; in the other understanding, differences such as that obtaining between le frangais litteraire and lefrangais commun are also called diglossic. Although the difference between the two types of situations is only gradient, it is probably more useful to reserve the term diglossia for the first type only, because otherwise the notion could become so broad that every difference of style could be termed diglossic. Still, even with the narrower understanding, one can say that there are elements of diglossia in situations such as the French one, consequently there is a typological similarity between the weaker subcategory of the antiquating dictionaries and the so-called dictionaries of difficulties that belong to Type 4 (see below).

4.1.4.

Type 4: Standard-Descriptive Dictionaries

4.1.4.1. Difficulties of Compilation

In a language with a well-established standard functioning in all registers, the compilation of a descriptive dictionary of the standard variety should not be different from that of any other variety of language, whether it be a geographical or social dialect or any other

Dictionaries and Languages

193

functionally restricted language. In reality, the former task is much more difficult, particularly for the following reasons: a) Only the standard language has developed all registers and styles; consequently, it has a vast vocabulary from which it is difficult to select. Also, there is probably no single speaker who knows and can use the totality of this vocabulary; consequently, some variation is built into the situation from the beginning. b) The delimitation of the standard from the nonstandard is at least as difficult as in the case of any other variety, and perhaps more so: tangible data such as the place of birth of a speaker-informant, the area(s) in which he spent his life, his social background, profession, age, etc., are less useful for the decision as to the standard or non-standard character of a text produced by him than is the case with other varieties. c) As does any other variety, the standard language changes in time. However, if we leave aside terminological and other innovations coined on purpose, language change usually starts with an aberration from the normal. Some aberrations do not spread but disappear again and are haphazard or non-systemic; on the other hand, some spread and become normal in their turn. However, a dictionary of the standard language cannot, in contrast with dictionaries of some other types, list every aberration, because the very purpose of the standard language is (at least ideally) to function as a generally and identically comprehensible means of communication beyond the boundaries and limits of other language varieties (dialects in particular), and because a standard language needs some stability to remain generally and identically comprehensible for some period of time. Thus the problem boils down to how to decide whether a change or alternation is sufficiently widespread to be considered or accepted as normal. d) Many, perhaps most, users of a dictionary of the standard language are interested in getting advice. This is partly caused by the idiolectal character of every individual form of speech; more importantly, the standard language is used by many speakers who acquired it by education, not in the family and from their peers. The other reason for seeking advice is that the more important the text, the greater the probability that it will be couched in standard language, although in different styles. Such advice is either implicit (e.g., the non-advisable items and usages are excluded from the dictionary) or explicit (e.g., expressed by labels or usage notes. However, it is necessarily more difficult to give advice, i.e., to give a generalized rule, than merely to describe phenomena. e) Most general dictionaries of contemporary languages also contain much other information besides this standard-descriptive layer, such as information about obsolete words not used any more but met in literary works that are still read, or about dialectal expressions, colloquialisms, 'demotic' speech, taboo words, etc. This brings in the necessity to differentiate these various types of standard and non-standard lexical units (usually by labels); since, however, opinions can vastly differ as to what is, e.g., colloquial, what is — or should be — taboo (taboo is by its very nature always prohibitive, hence the entry must also be prohibitive, or prescriptive, depending on the terminology chosen), the lexicographer's indications can hardly ever be based on a complete consensus. f) Yet another set of difficulties is caused by the fact that various points of view of

194

The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard

theoretical-linguistic, sociological, or even philosophical character can influence not only the lexicographer's stances, but also the public's and the critics' attitudes and perceptions; that there may be a great diversity of clashing opinions and interests goes without saying. To mention only a few problems: the dissociation of theoretical linguistics from school practice (observable, with notable exceptions, particularly in the United States) leads to the clash between the (per se quite correct) assumption that all varieties of language are intrinsically equivalent (although their functions are neither equivalent nor interchangeable), and the school's duty to teach the standard (standard usage being frequently called 'good' or 'correct" non-standard 'bad' or 'incorrect', 'wrong', a stance which irritates many linguists); the lexicographer's and the public's frequent focusing on the standard can be perceived as elitist, all the more so since the ability to use the standard is strongly connected with a speaker's education and thereby indirectly with his societal status: the lexicographer's inability or unwillingness to accept recent neologisms and changed or vacillating usages can be perceived as a pedantic narrow-mindedness or archaizing purism; on the other hand, at least a part of the public will consider it a lack of due care if the lexicographer does not give enough information on the status of expressions where usage vacillates and opinions differ.

4.1.4.2. Various Subcategories and Terms That all these difficulties and problems admit various solutions causes practically every dictionary to have ultimately an individual character. For instance, the dictionary may stress the historical dimension so that it approaches Type 3, etc. There are additional parameters of variation in dictionaries. One of them is the possibility for the lexicographer to evaluate the logical appropriateness of complex expressions; e.g. Littre (1873) rejected the collocation remplir le but (literally, 'fulfill the goal'), in spite of its being frequently used, and by good authors at that, because one does not fulfill a goal, one reaches it. As we have seen above, the (at least theoretical) basis of this type of dictionary is the description of the standard, not of all its peripheral vacillations, but of normal usage. The rules or regularities of such stabilized, normal usage (including the 'rule for how to apply a word', i.e., among other things, its lexical meaning) are sometimes called the norm of usage: hence the term norm-descriptive' dictionary sometimes used instead of the term standard-descriptive. Parallel to the difference between the lexicon and grammar (as parts of the speaker's competence) on the one hand, and the dictionary and grammar as the linguist's descriptions of the former on the other hand, there are, in this terminological approach, a norm of usage as a part of the speaker's (or rather speakers') competence, and its description; this description is sometimes distinguished (particularly in Prague-inspired works) by the term codified norm, hence the term norm-codifying dictionary. The obvious difficulty of this term consists in its suggesting (against the original intention) the obligatory, binding character of the norm (the norm as a law). The same applies to the term normative dictionary: some authors use it for the purely norm-descriptive dictionary; however, the term carries for some authors the suggestion of (overly) restrictive selections, rulings against real

Dictionaries and Languages

195

usage, etc. Other authors call a dictionary of this restrictive type a prescriptive dictionary (or a prohibitive one, if it concentrates on prohibitions). It would probably be useful to restrict the term 'normative' dictionary to those dictionaries of Type 1 and 2 that really help to create a yet inexistent norm of standard usage. The term prescriptive dictionary could be usefully applied to dictionaries that not only select from vacillating usage, but that rule against real usage: these are mostly dictionaries of Type 3, but at least elements of prescriptivism are present in a number of dictionaries of Type 4; and it is sometimes a matter of terminological tradition, sometimes merely of taste and preference, whether one wishes to consider various school and learning-oriented dictionaries prescriptive or not. Prohibitive dictionaries are mostly to be found among the so-called dictionaries of difficulties; these frequently overlap with or belong to Type 3.1.

4.1.5. Means and Methods of Influencing the User, Their Effectiveness, and Their Results The means by which the dictionary tries to influence its users are basically the following: a) Selection of information. This is a particularly strong factor in Types 1 , 2 , and 3: for instance, if from among several synonymous or other variants only one or two are listed in the dictionary, it can be presumed that the user who tries to communicate in the (new) standard language would use the listed rather than the nonlisted varieties. (Why would he otherwise check, if he felt that he knew better?) However, the selection or non-selection of information (lexical units, variants of usage, etc.) is an influential factor in Type 4 as well, because users do check the dictionary, particularly when drafting written texts, and frequently accept what the dictionary says. b) The next means for influencing the user are the labels and symbols that give information about the status (colloquial, informal, dialectal, obsolete ...) of the expression, or that give indications of syntactic patterns, government, etc. c) Thirdly, larger dictionaries contain short commentaries of various types within the entry or appended to it: we have seen above that Littre used logical arguments when advising the user against a certain usage. Dictionaries with a historical slant can and do give a historically founded argument for or against a usage. Dictionaries of technical terminology sometimes give encyclopedic arguments to make the selection of a term instead of a competing synonym well-founded. Recently, dictionaries of Type 4 frequently use what are called 'usage notes' that select the preferable one from among competing syntactic, collocational or other variants, or that warn that using a word or expression involves some danger of which the user may not be aware, or such. Although performing the same function as labels, these usage notes have the objective advantage (particularly in cases of vacillating usage) that they inform the user about various possibilities and leave the final choice to him, while giving the pro et contra·, the reader gets thus more involved and may develop a sensitivity and judgment of his own. The subjective advantage of these usage notes consists in the fact that the lexicographer does not act by what seems to be a fiat (although a good lexicographer would always have his apparent fiat founded in some consensus: of sources, of

196

The Role of Dictionaries in the Genesis and Development of the Standard

the editorial staff, or of experts): the onus is shifted, because the usual formulation is, e.g., "frequently felt as offensive"; "frequently rejected, particularly by teachers of English." The lexicographer is not or pretends not to be the judge, he merely reports somebody else's reactions: there is always a broad harmony between the dictionary and the culture; in this case, between the dictionary's acrisy and our euphemistic (if not occasionally paradiastolic) and responsibility-shifting age. Some dictionaries have for this purpose advisory panels, whose majority verdicts on the acceptability of some usage are reported. A remark should be made in this connection: since these judgments pertain exclusively to the usage in standard language, it is quite in order if these panels consist only of speakers and writers of standard language. The criticism (Wölk 1972; Creswell/McDavid 1986) that these panels do not reflect the whole demography of the language in question, with speakers of various dialects, educational classes, etc. represented, is not valid: in the same way that a dictionary of, say, a geographical dialect of a language is based on speakers (and texts) of that dialect only, a dictionary of the standard language is based on speakers (and texts) of that variety; dialectal and any other variation should be considered only insofar as it is reflected within the standard language. (It goes without saying that this applies only to the standard-descriptive component of a dictionary, as mentioned above, Type 4e.) There are yet no empirical data as to how far these usage notes do influence real usage; within my admittedly limited observation of native speakers of English, they occasionally do. Thus, one can maintain that even dictionaries of Type 4 exercise a certain influence on their users, so that they tend to stabilize the norm. On the whole, one can say that the influence on the speaker is much stronger in Types 1,2, and 3 than in Type 4. That is because the (unsophisticated) user of those dictionaries (not a learned colleague of the lexicographer or such!) has already made the basic a priori decision: either he wishes to use the new standard language or not; either he wishes to go with the modernizing tendency or not; either he wishes to use the acrolectal ('higher', 'classical', whatever the term) variety of a diglossic language or not; if so, he is willing to use the advice and help offered. This attitude probably is much weaker in the users of Type 4, because they feel more confident in regard to their knowledge of the language. One could generally say that the influence of a dictionary of any type ultimately depends on the willingness of the public to cooperate: it was not good or bad dictionaries which decided that the revival of Czech or Hebrew would be successful and the modernization (or revival) of Irish less so, but the willingness (or otherwise) of the public to (leam and) use the language. By the same token, antiquating dictionaries would not impose diglossia on their own, without the population, or at least an influential part of it, being willing to archaize anyhow, before any actual use of the dictionary. There are areas of lexicography where the influence on the user is strong because of the overwhelming superiority of the knowledge contained in the dictionary. Hard words, archaic expressions, and technical terms are typical examples of such areas. Most users who seek information on the meaning of paradiastole 'deliberately deceptive euphemism', portcullis 'sliding grille in a gateway', or defenestration 'throwing (a person) out of a window, usually as an attempt to kill' will accept what they are told; nor will the user seeking information on pericarp 'walls of a plant ovary' reject what the dictionary tells him (unless he is a specialist and happens to have his own opinions on it, and on endocarp, epicarp,

Dictionaries and Languages

197

mesocarp as well). Yet other branches of lexicography are particularly influential because of governmental or similar support. Terminological and similar activities frequently performed under governmental or similar auspices and the nearly obligatory character of their results have already been mentioned. A somewhat different situation obtains in the educational system. Depending on the degree to which it is centralized within individual countries, the educational system can use recommended dictionaries in teaching the native language. It is particularly the smaller, restricted types of dictionaries that are widely used in schools, such as orthographic dictionaries and such. As far as the larger dictionaries go, we should not forget the wisdom of Dubois (1970), who told us that a regulation of the French Ministry of Education makes it the duty of every student of a lycee to have a (monolingual) dictionary; the regulation does not, however, make it his duty really to use it. Even with the small amount of empirical research at our disposal, it seems that schools generally do not open to the student all the wealth of information contained in the larger dictionaries. The arrival of specific pedagogical and learners' dictionaries (mono- and bilingual) may help to change this situation. Much empirical study of the way people use dictionaries will yet be needed. To sum up: there is no doubt that dictionaries do influence the linguistic behavior of their users. They cannot stop change, nor can they cause changes disapproved of, or not accepted by, the user. They can and do stabilize usage, particularly in the written language and in the related formal styles of spoken language; they do clarify meanings and make them more systematic (particularly in the area of terminology as used in scientific and other technical registers, but also as increasing numbers of terminological words enter into general language, in spite of the fact that they usually lose the defined precision of their meaning). During the last 2,000 years or more, the growth of dictionaries has been concomitant with the growth of culture. Dictionaries certainly do not create culture, but in a modest way help in its development; they are part and parcel of culture, its product and expression.

198

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

4.2. The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types on the Structure of Dictionaries*

4.2.1. Introduction A dictionary must be organized in such a way that each item (in most cases, a word) can be found as easily as possible. From this requirement follow the three most usual types of organization of headwords: 1) Organization by the sequence of words in the text to which such a dictionary belongs. This is the order (sometimes called the local order—from Latin locus 'passage') most frequently used in some ancient glossaries and in medieval mamotrects: e.g., a glossary to Homer follows the sequence of words in the Iliad and the Odyssey: a mamotrect follows the sequence of words in a scriptural text. Needless to say, this organization is practical only for limited purposes. 2) Organization by meaning as used in onomasiological dictionaries (thesauri). 3) Organization by the form of words, (a) While there exist dictionaries presenting the acoustic form of the words (e.g., Juilland 1965), it must be noted that the sequence of their entries is, to my knowledge, never governed by some sequence of acoustic—or articulatory— parameters, but always by the sequence of the letters of phonetic transcription. Thus, these dictionaries are not only marginal by their number and by the high specificity of their purpose, but they ultimately belong to the following category, to wit, (b) that of dictionaries organized by the written form of the entrywords. Such organization is by statistics and by the logic of practicality the most widely used macrostructural principle.

4.2.2. Scripts Scripts can be divided into alphabetic and non-alphabetic ones. Further subdivisions of the first category, such as into syllabaries and alphabetic scripts in the narrower sense (i.e. such scripts that attempt to represent approximations of single phonemes) are of little interest for our purposes. Also, the character of the different types of spellings, or orthographies (e.g., how closely they correspond to the phonology and morphonology of the language), is not our main concern here.

* Reprinted from Dictionaries. An International deGruyter, 1989b, Vol. I pp. 296-305.

Encyclopedia

of Lexicography,

Berlin, Walter

Dictionaries and Languages

199

4.2.2.1. Alphabetic Sequences An alphabet is the sequence of letters established in each script and language. Some alphabets, or alphabetic sequences, are of a principled character: an outstanding case is that of the Nagari script (the syllabic script used in India), whose alphabet is based on a phonetic classification of the sounds represented. The sequence is: a, ä, i, 1, u, ü, e, o, ai, au; ... ka, kha, ga, gha, qa (velars); ca, cha, ja, jha, na (palatals); ta, tha, da, dha, na (retroflexes); ta, tha, da, dha, na (dentals); pa, pha, ba, bha, ma (labials); etc. On the contrary, the sequence of letters in the alphabets that ultimately derive from (Northwest) Semitic script(s) (such as, above all, Hebrew, Arabic; Greek, Roman, Cyrillic) is given historically, without an underlying principle that can be perceived. In spite of this drawback, the alphabets of these scripts are easy to remember, because the number of letters is small. Indeed, the ease with which alphabetically ordered dictionaries can be used is the reason that such a macrostructure is so widespread and generally accepted as to be considered the normal one. Even in computerized dictionaries in which the information may be ordered and stored by other principles, its retrieval is usually carried out (with the exception of computerized thesauri and such) through the alphabetical sequence of the headwords. All this does not mean that the alphabetic sequence is without difficulties. The main neuralgic points are diacritic signs and digraphs (trigraphs, etc.). For instance, the Czech alphabetic sequence treats c: c, r: r, s: s, ζ: ζ as different letters separately alphabetized; but e: e are not differentiated in the sequence. Turkish differentiates all the diacriticized letters (to the extent that / is taken as basic and precedes / considered diacriticized), but German usually does not differentiate its ä's, ö's, and ii's from a, ο and u respectively. The digraph ch is treated as two letters in English, French, and German, but as one grapheme with a position of its own in Spanish and Czech. Besides the practical problems that this causes in the ordering of entries both manual and automatic, this matter is of importance to the lexicographer who himself must decide what the alphabetic sequence in the dictionary will be (usually because he works with a language hitherto undescribed, or with only a weak, dubious lexicographic tradition). Probably the best decision is to follow, or imitate, the tradition of the culturally dominant language of the area. For instance, if the lexicographer uses the digraph ch to represent the affricate [tj] in an Indian language of Venezuela, it will be reasonable to treat it in the same way as in Spanish, i.e. as a grapheme of its own; on the other hand, the same digraph ch representing [tj] in an Australian aboriginal language may be treated in the English way, i.e. as two letters. (Note: The Spanish Real Academia has recently decided to alphabetize ch as two letters.)

4.2.2.2. Non-Alphabetic Sequences While it is easy to remember the alphabetic sequence, however arbitrary, of some 20-50 letters of a normal alphabetic script, or of the 80-200 letters of a normal syllabary, it would

200

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

be difficult to remember an arbitrary sequence of the several or even many thousands of characters necessary for a developed ideographic script. If those characters are to be ordered by their written form, not by their meaning or pronunciation, a manageable organizational principle must be found in some properties of the written form itself. In Chinese characters, it is usually the number of strokes of which a character (or its nuclear part) consists and their form which serve as such an ordering principle. A similar situation obtains in dictionaries of most languages written in cuneiform script, which consists of both ideographic and syllabic signs. Although some short glossaries existed in antiquity, full-fledged dictionaries of Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, and other languages came into existence only in modern times; therefore, it was necessary to create an alphabetic sequence for these languages. The possibility of locating an unknown character entails again that the shape of the character (i.e., the number of the wedges and their direction) is the decisive factor.

4.2.2.3. Hybrid Sequences Naturally, there are dictionaries whose macrostructure (above all, the sequence of entries) is based on various hybrid forms of such organizational principles. For instance, the ChineseEnglish Dictionary (Wu 1979) gives all Chinese expressions either in characters only, or with the Romanized transcription (or spelling, called 'pinyin') in the second place; however, all the entries are organized on the alphabetic sequence of the Romanized transcription, with different characters forming subgroups within homophonous syllables. Obviously, a system like this can be used only by a user who already knows Chinese, including its characters and their pronunciation. A detailed survey of the various systems of arranging Chinese entries written in Chinese characters only (which, therefore, must be located exclusively by the form and structure of the characters) can be found in Thomas Β. I. Creamer's two articles on Chinese monolingual and bilingual dictionaries (Creamer 1991a, b) in the Encyclopedia of Lexicography.

4.2.2.4. Various Scripts and Signs Among the scripts invented in modern times, the various systems of stenography and Braille are of particular importance; dictionaries of sign language and of various symbols are largely based on other semiotic means than script, although there are signs in sign language that represent letters of the alphabet.

Dictionaries and Languages

201

fresh air/ ~ i i t S be short of breath/ ~ B > e breathe with difficulty; lose one's breath Ο - - i t respiratory tract/ respiratory rate/ respirator/ respiratory system W & J hüxiöo whistle; scream; whizz: A bullet whizzed past./ A cold wind is whistling, [ n p j g j Hüyon a surname [ ! ¥ f i ] hüying echo; work in concert with: echo each other over a distance; echo from afar C»fiifJ hüyü appeal; call on: appeal for unity

letter of appeal; appeal W S S S f c ä i ] hü zhl yü chü seem ready to come out at one's call (said of lifelike figures in pictures or characters in novels) — be vividly portrayed

Μ

hü © neglect; overlook; ignore ©suddenly: - S S Β suddenly have a strange idea [ M i ß ] hü'er now..., now...: cry and laugh by hü turns/ advocate one thing today and another tomorrow - r ha © < # > M S — β — J hü...hü... now..., now...: be in Once is more thao enough. How can you do it again?/ high spirits one moment and in low spirits the next; be Does not success or failure hinge on subject to sudden changes of mood/ Χ Η ί & Φ ί Β & ο The this? (ficmmissny. conform to an objective weather is cold one minute and hot the next./ i t j t ® äs.® law/ fU — SiW exceed one's expectations; be beyond one's ϋ£„ Sometimes there are long shots, sometimes close-ups./ expectations/ be out of the ordinary © [ J g The lights keep flickering. S l i t - towering; lofty/ 9 S ~ / f 3 f very i U f e J hülüe neglect; overlook; lose sight of: J £ i n £ ä ; t important indeed While paying attention to the main contradiction, we should not neglect the sechü cover: Let's ondary ones. start hoeing at once. The young shoots are almost choked hüran suddenly; all of a sudden by the weeds. [ & U ] hüsht ignore; overlook; neglect: tff—Öt;AS a force not to be ignored; a force to be reckoned with/ X hü ©breathe out; exhale: exhale carE Z ~ B * S „ We should not overlook the difficulties./ bon dioxide © s h o u t ; cry out: shout slogans © 55„ Don't stress one aspect to the neglect call: address sb. disrespectfully (by name)/ of another. BiUfe.&iBIläs have sb. at one's beck and call © : ft l & m hüyou < # > flicker: Ä*äi:öi|)irA~-~(Üj„ Lights A north wind is whistling, flickered on the fishing boats. « f e i hüchi puff and blow X f t i " » ? * " of hüfeng-huänyü © summon wind and rain — hü stew in shallow water control the forces of nature © stir up trouble B f ® ] hühön call out; shout hü huänghü » 5 ^ 3 hühäo wail; cry out in distress: go around crying for help hü plaster: plaster up cracks in the « f i l hühäo © call sign; call letters ® catchword wall/ 'Jgffi spread a layer of mud (of an organization) 5 Ä , hu; hü Hühehdote Huhhot (Huhehot) • f f t ] hühuön call; shout to: Our country is calling us. «ί«ι|1 hüjiäo © c a l l out; shout © call calling lamp/ calling signal B f S J hüllü call for help u p ® ] hülö : JA%£.M J i 4 u The red flags are flapping in the wind. X f ) s " spiffs" |®»SJ hülu : ftbsSitfea He's a bit wheezy. Bf«#J hülu < q > snore: snore B f H 3 l ? £ ] hüpeng-ylnlel gang up hüshoo whistle: give a whistle u p ß ] hüsheng cry; voice: iflMfclft- the voice of the masses/ S f f i i i A S K l j E X . " the just demand of the oppressed people/ the powerful voice of world opinion hütiön-qiängdl lament to heaven and knock one's head on earth — utter cries of anguish hüxJ breathe; respire: - f r S S ^ have a breath of

'ΧΨ

Excerpt 14: Wu 1979

202

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

4.2.3. Morphology of the Entry word The entryword in a dictionary (represented by the headword) is a lexical abstraction, i.e. what is called a type; only some glossaries, mamotrects, indexes, concordances and such deal with tokens, i.e. with a word's individual concrete occurrences in a given text. In the case of uninfected words (which are not frequent in Indo-European languages, and are mostly prepositions, conjunctions and such), the type: token relation pertains only to the difference between the word as a unit of language stored in memory and usable on any suitable occasion (type), and its individual concrete applications in texts, spoken or written (token). However, in the case of inflected words, it is also necessary to decide which morphological forms belong to a type; that is, which forms will be considered members of the word's paradigm. The fact that the headword represents the whole paradigm of the entry word (or, in Firthian terms, the entryword's morphological dispersion) has the consequence that the lexicographer should check, for each entry word, whether all its forms are regular with respect to their morphology and semantics; irregularities should be noted, depending on the density of the dictionary.

4.2.3.1. The Paradigm and the Canonical Form In most languages, the paradigms of the individual word classes have already been established by grammatical tradition. If the lexicographer works with a language not yet described, he will have to analyse the grammar of the language first and base his dictionary on the paradigms thus established. Naturally, there are cases of competing grammatical descriptions of the same language among which the lexicographer may have to choose; in such a case a ripe deliberation on the consequences of the respective grammatical descriptions for lexicographic presentation is indicated. See Casagrande/Hale (1967). Another problem may arise in (dead) languages not completely known: the lexicographer cannot always decide to which entryword a given attested form belongs; see Butler (1980). A minor, if possibly vexing, problem can arise when the canonical form of the headword, i.e. the form in which it is to be cited, is to be chosen. (Again, most languages have already established traditions.) In general terms: either one of the actually occurring forms of the paradigm is chosen as the canonical form (e.g., nominative singular of nouns, nominative singular masculine of adjectives, present infinitive of the verb [as in modern European languages], first person singular active indicative of the verb [as in Greek and Latin], etc.); or the canonical form is a theoretical, linguistic construct (e.g., the stem of the noun or the root of the verb [as in Sanskrit]). If the lexicographer has to choose the canonical forms himself, his choice should be such that the whole paradigm is derivable from the canonical form as easily as possible. However, he should also take into consideration two practicalities. Firstly, if the linguistically unsophisticated users are accustomed to certain canonical forms of an important cultural language habitual to them, they will find it easier to cope with headwords of a less known language that have the same canonical form. E.g., an unsophisticated

Dictionaries and Languages

203

user of a Venezuelan Indian language may possibly find it easier to have verbal headwords quoted in the infinitive (instead of the root form), because he is accustomed to that in Spanish dictionaries. Also, the layman's idea of 'ease of derivation' just mentioned is not necessarily fully coincident with that of the linguist. Secondly, the ease of lexicographic presentation should be considered. For instance, let us suppose that French is an exotic, undescribed language spoken within the area of Anglophone culture. What should be the canonical form of the French adjective? Certainly nominative singular of the positive degree; however, masculine or feminine gender? Linguistically, it is as easy to derive the regular forms and as difficult to derive the irregular forms of the feminines from the masculines as vice versa. There is no gender in the English adjective, so no preference would come from this consideration, either. Consequently, the final decision would probably be based on the fact that it is easier to write something like petit, -e than petite, -e 0 or anything similar. It should, however, be remembered that these two are practical considerations; if there are important linguistic reasons for preferring a certain canonical form of the headword, they should have precedence.

4.2.3.2. Paradigms and Derivations The members of a paradigm are considered to be different grammatical (morphological) forms of the same word: cases and numbers of nouns and pronouns; cases, numbers, genders, and degrees of adjectives; persons, numbers, tenses, moods, and diatheses of verbs. These are typical examples of forms that are traditionally considered to belong to a paradigm. Languages differ vastly as to the extent of their paradigms; e.g., the English noun has only two forms (singular and plural), unless we count the so-called Saxon genitive (e.g., Richard's, Monica's, etc.) as a separate form. The English verb usually has four (walk, walks, walked, walking) or five {sing, sings, sang, sung, singing) forms; even if we take into consideration the periphrastic forms (formed by auxiliaries: he will walk, he may walk, he may have walked, etc.), the verbal paradigms are not rich. Derivation is another morphological process by means of which new words are coined. Derivation processes differ from language to language. Sometimes they are very regular; e.g., most English adverbs are formed by attaching -ly to the adjective, French ones by attaching -ment to the adjective. Indeed, the boundary between inflection and derivation is a fuzzy one. The more regular the derivational process, both from the point of view of morphology and semantics, the easier it is to conceive of it as an inflectional (grammatical) one. For instance, Engl. fall·, fell 'cause to fall' are taken as two entrywords in any English dictionary, in spite of the fact that the second verb is derived from the stem of the first by a process that was once productive (*fallan: *falljan, similarly as drincan 'drink': *drankjan 'drench'). On the contrary, Sanskrit causatives are so regularly formed by the suffix -ayathat (in spite of some differences in the treatment of the root) gamayati 'cause to go', däpayati 'cause to give', dhärayati 'cause to hold', etc. are considered parts of the total paradigm of the roots gam- 'go', dä- 'give', dhar- 'hold', etc. Thus, one can say that formal

204

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

and semantic regularity plus productivity are crucial in the decision as to how various morphological processes will be considered and treated, particularly if the derived form belongs to the same word class as the non-derived one. However, lexicographic practice has specificities of its own. Agglutinative languages show more morphological (including derivational) regularity and have fewer morphophonological changes than inflectional ones. Thus, Turkish series such as: gezmek 'go': gezdirmek 'cause to go': gezdirtmek 'lead (act.) someone': gezdirtdirmek 'have someone lead (pass.)'; ölmek 'die': öldürmek 'kill': öldürtmek ' have someone killed': öldürtdiirmek' have someone kill somebody,' etc. are regular and synchronically productive; still, most dictionaries, particularly the modern recent ones, will list at least some of the derived (or morphological?) forms as separate entries. One of the reasons for such a treatment consists in the fact that some of the derived forms develop unpredictable meanings (e.g., öldürmek 'tenderize' [as a culinary term]; another reason is that users mostly prefer short, compartmentalized entries. Derivational and similar processes are particularly difficult to treat if they affect the beginning of the entryword, because they disrupt the alphabetical sequence. The situation is relatively easy to deal with in languages in which there are, say, prefixes that have a regular form but affect the meaning in various ways. E.g., in German: schlagen 'hit': vorschlagen 'propose'; werfen 'throw': vorwerfen 'reproach'. Treatment in individual entries is self-evident; if the lexicographer wishes, he can indicate, in a large dictionary, under schlagen, with which prefixes it combines, but the combined forms themselves must be treated separately. There are, however, languages in which prefixation is a largely regular grammatical process, for instance Tagalog. Some dictionaries (Panganiban 1972) treat this in complex entries, as a grammatical phenomenon; on the other hand, other dictionaries (Santos 1983) list the individual prefixed forms in individual entries. The latter type of treatment seems to enjoy a greater success with the public: this exemplifies the general statement that the linguistically oriented lexicographer tends to (or at least would if he could) 'put together what belongs together', i.e., tends to take into consideration grammatical and derivational regularities and present them in the dictionary by using subentries et sim., whereas the unsophisticated public tends to prefer compartmentalized, quickly digestible information on isolated points of immediate interest. A similar situation develops in the market of Arabic dictionaries. We have already seen that morphophonological and generally phonological changes disrupt derivational regularity and transparency. Such changes are stronger in Indo-European languages than in, e.g., the Semitic ones. With transparent, regular vowel alternations such as Arabic katab 'write': kätib 'writer (clerk)'; malak 'reign': mälik 'king', it is possible to perceive the coherence of the pairs. Indo-European pairs such as *bher-&. *bhor-os; *ten-yö: *ton-os; *ghen-yö: * ghon-os would probably allow a similar observation concerning the proto-language; however, in an attested language, e.g., Greek, these pairs were disrupted by phonological change: pher-ö 'bring': phor-os 'payment, tribute'; tein-o 'stretch': ton-os 'strain; cord, band'; thein-ö 'kill': phon-os 'murder'. This explains why indigenous Arabic lexicography largely operates with roots, whereas European lexicography, whose tradition is based on the treatment of Greek and Latin, does not. However, the same tension between the interests of the learned lexicographer and the public is observable here as well: recent Arabic dictionaries tend to the type of compartmentalized entries containing single entry words,

Dictionaries and Languages

205

regardless of their derivation. On the other hand, there were attempts in the history of Greek lexicography to treat derivational groups of words in a cohesive way, such as Henricus Stephanus in the first edition of his Thesaurus (1572a) and Franz Passow in his Project of a Greek dictionary (Passow 1812); in each case, the non-derivational, one-word-one-entry model was reintroduced, in the case of the Thesaurus by its later editors, and in the case of Passow by the author of the Project himself when he started concrete work on the dictionary, after having collected the reactions of the public. The situation is reversed in English, where many noun-verb pairs have identical form. While larger dictionaries do treat them in two entries, e.g„plough n.: plough v., work n.: work v., smaller ones frequently collapse them into one entry, plough n.... v...., work n.... v...., without any resistance from the public, because the location of the information sought is not rendered more difficult by this arrangement. It is a matter of conjecture whether English lexicography would not tend more strongly to such comprehensive entries but for the centuries of contrary tradition; probably not, because such pairs are not semantically parallel {plough n.: plough v. is different from drink n.: drink v.), and frequently they are different even in form (song n.: sing v.). Thus, the only source for the English comprehensive entries in small dictionaries is probably the saving of space, i.e. a technical practicality. The same consideration of saving space obtains in other languages as well, particularly with respect to regular derivations.

4.2.4. Combinations of Lexemes as Entries If we define a lexeme as a morpheme that carries lexical meaning, we can say that there are, in various languages, not only words that consist of one lexeme (possibly accompanied by derivational or grammatical morphemes), but also those that consist of more than one lexeme; they are usually called compounds. Although languages vary vastly as to the frequency of their compounds and as to the possible number of compoundable lexemes, the compounds themselves do not create any particularly difficult problems of their own. Probably the most important circumstance to remember, from the purely lexicographic point of view, is that while the spelling and other properties of compounds suggest a degree of stability, they can be as ephemeral ad hoc coinages or nonces as any free combination of words. Should a man be called in German Minijäger, the compound would be immediately comprehensible (in a suitable context) as a counterpart to the lexically stabilized Schürzenjäger (Schürze = 'apron' + jäger = 'hunter'), but it would be a nonce just as its English counterpart 'chaser of minis' would be; or in another context, it could be understood as a 'minimal', i.e. not very successful, hunter. The alphabetic sequence of entry words causes the same lexeme which occurs as the second (third, etc.) part of different compounds to be listed in different entries, according to the first part and its position in the alphabet. The loss of information entailed by this can be obviated by the listing, in the entry of the lexeme occurring as a second part, of all the compounds in which it occurs.

206

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

In contrast to compounds, lexical units consisting of more than one lexeme that are not, or are only weakly, characterized in their form (spoken or written) as word-like units, cause manifold difficulties. However, their discussion does not properly belong in this article, because they are not tied to certain morphological types of languages. Phraseological verbs, multiword lexical units, set collocations, idioms, standing expressions—all these and some others (or some of them, in various constellations) are present in all languages that we know. There is no consensus among lexicographers or lexicologists on how to delimit their types and define them, nor in the terminology used in reference to them, in various languages. While one can say that there are noticeable tendencies in the lexicographies of various languages (e.g., there is a greater probability that guinea pig will get an entry of its own in an English dictionary than pomme de terre in a French one), all the relevant problems both of theoretical (mostly diagnostic) and practical character (Entries? Subentries? Idioms assembled at one position in the entry or distributed by the senses? etc.) are not much connected with the morphological structure of a language, as already stated. Languages of the so-called isolating morphological type, i.e. languages with nearly nonexistent morphological alternations, are an exception to the observations just made, because their structure, to wit, the absence of morphological markers, makes it difficult to decide which sequences of lexemes should be considered words or word-like lexical units. This difficulty comes to its apogee if such a language, concretely Chinese, uses an ideographic script that does not indicate pronunciation and that does not divide words by spaces or another device. (That the absence of spaces may have been caused, if we consider it historically, by the monomorphemic status of most words and by the low relevance of the status of the more complex strings of lexemes has little bearing on the present discussion.) Script has here an important role: if we compare English, the space between the lexemes, traditionally kept, e.g. in high school, disguises the unitary character of the combination of lexemes in spite of the stress that clearly marks it as a compound. On the contrary (but with the same result), in Chinese it is the absence of spaces that renders more difficult the recognition of the unitary character of some combinations of lexemes, although the cohesion of at least some of them is indicated by changes in the tones of the individual lexemes and similar phenomena. It is only very recently that some Chinese dictionaries started marking such polylexemic units by putting them into brackets, if only when they are indicated as subentries. A perusal of the right column of Excerpt 15 particularly a comparison of the di-, tetra-, penta- and hexasyllabic groups within brackets, will show that the expressions thus marked probably have different status, as to the degree of their setness. Thus, it is natural that the pivot of the Chinese headword is the written character; and it will remain so, at least until these difficulties are resolved.

207

Dictionaries and Languages

kong

or drink wine with nothing to go with it i S i O I & Ö i Ä l köngköu shuö bolhud make empty promises köngköu wü ping a mere verbal statement is no guarantee: Ä ^ Ä i S » Words of mouth being no guarantee, a written statement is hereby given. [ S ® " ] köngkuang open; spacious: — fftlÄif an expanse of open country; champaign I'fiWSJ köngkuö open; spacious: a vast expanse of water and sky [ S 8 8 ] köngkuö open; spacious: HSfi-' spacious and open on all sides [ S t f e ] könglün empty talk [ £ Π 1 köngmen Buddhism: become a Buddhist monk or nun [ S i ä J köngmeng < # > hazy; misty: t i l f i , ~ hills shrouded

köng © e m p t y ; hollow; void: —ffl^F- an empty box/ Ä & J S W ~ empty out a drawer/ Ä Ä & t f t i ^ t t ' - ' T , This tree has been eaten hollow by worms./ MSg-* 3 6 — Λ . There isn't a single soul in the house. 5) sky; air: U f r - a clcar sky (?) for nothing; in vain: ~ i g — m a k e a [ S ^ U köngqi CO air: breathe fresh air/ journey for nothing/ —it make fruitless efforts moist air ϊ ) atmosphere: a tense atmosphere » E köng Ο ucroballistic (jft atmospheric) trajectory/ [ S I C ] köngbä air ( $ aerial, airborne) target £p air-cooling/ ~ f } f - aeromechanics/ — IB air conI S f i i S J köngböodön < S > blank cartridge ditioner/ air pollution/ air compressor [ Q f ä t t ] köngeöngfei dead freight [ S f B J köngqlön unprecedented: Ά\ΜΈΙϋΧίϊ.]ΕΜ.~Κ·]ΐ& köngehöng jejunum China's oil industry is developing at an I S W t f · ] köngehengji cmpty-city stratagem (bluffing the unprecedented rate-/ Never enemy by opening the gates of a weakly defended city); before has our country been as united as it is today./ ffi presenting a bold front to conceal a weak defence an unprecedentedly grand occasion [ £ S J köngdäng neutral (gear) [ S i i f i & J ä ' J köngqiän-juehöu unprecedented and unrepeatI S i f S f f i l köngddngdöng empty; deserted: Χ ί Κ φ φ , A W T able; unique 14 Τ . W : f i B S L $ ~ l f t < , In the busy season the village looked deserted when the peasants had gone to the fields. [ • S i l J köngqin air duty Ο ~ A Η aircrew; aircraft crew; flight crew r S S J J köngdöng < 1) cavity: H i ~ pulmonary cavity © e m p t y ; Ι'&.ΨΙ köngshöu empty-handed hollow; devoid of conicnt: ~ f t ) F i f e empty theory/ - b [ S i & l köngtön φ indulge in empty talk © empty talk; empty phraseology/ utter lack of substance; idle talk; prattle Ο phrase-mongering devoid of content [ S & J köngtöu ® ( b n the stock exchange) bear; shortköng du? di döodön air-to-ground guided seller © nominal; phony Ο phony writer/ missile riitü armchair politician köng dui köng döodön air-to-air guided mis- i S & J c Ä J köngtöu zhipioo © d u d rubber) cheque; sile bad cheque © e m p t y promise; lip service f S f f l J köngfön somersault; flip: backward [ S & ] köngtöu air-drop; paradrop: - ^ • j K ^ l t t air-drop somersault; backflip relief supplies (to a stricken area) I S ί ί ] köngfön vague and general; not specific: Ο ~ ( ä parapack/ dropping ground/ — φ aerial vague and general opinions; generalities delivery parachute/ air-dropped agent f S E & J köngföng air defence [ S S c l köngwen ineffective law, rule, etc.: a mere rSffltl köngfu on an empty stomach: This scrap of paper medicine is to be taken on an empty stomach. köngxi suction i S f f i J könghuä empty talk; idle talk; hollow words: [ S ä S J köngxi air raid; air attack Ο air raid indulge in idle talk/ pages and pages of empty alarm/ ~ * f H s 5 airraid siren verbiage i Ö . « J köngxiöng idle dream; fantasy: 7, Ζ ί Φ ί Κ ] könghuol nonpregnant; barren Stop daydreaming. Be realistic. Ο ~sjc dreamer; C S & i f J könghuör*? rejoice too soon; be or feci let down visionary könghudn visionary; illusory köngxiöng shehuhhüyj Utopian socialism C S S n ] köng]! in the sky; in the air ~ # Utopian socialist [Zl&i-f· 1 köngjiözl a mere skeleton; a bare outline [ S i . · ] köngxin hollow Ο I S ® ] köngxü hollow; void: lead a life devoid of space perception meaning/ S ® — lack mental or spiritual ballast; be köngjldng airborne Ο - i s airborne force; paraimpractical in one's thinking/ The enemy chute landing force/ ~ t t k & landing area rear is weakly defended. köngjün air force K Ä ] koogxiw hole Ο ~ Φ Ρ λ air (force) unit/ air base/ CSÄJfeÄl köngxue 161 feng an empty hole invites the general headquarters of the air force; air command/ — §J wind — weakness lends wings to rumours • S commander of the air force/ - Ä f f air attache [ S t £ ] köngyü airspace: fäH— combat airspace 1 3 S Ä H & ] köngköng rü ye absolutely empty [ S ü l köngyun air transport; airlift: airlift [ S P J köngköu eat dishes without rice or wine; eat rice relief supplies (to a stricken area) airfreight; air

cargo [ S Ä ! köngzhän air battle; aerial combat köngzhöng in the sky; in the air; aerial; overhead Ο - I h i f r air-supply; air-resupply/ air alert/ ~ ti Λ < 5 ; ί ί > flying trapeze/ ~Ärif® air refueling; inflight refueling/ restricted airspace/ — β ι β air alert/ ~ S S i aerophotography/ — J t i ^ air umbrella; air cover/ — aerial reconnaissance/ -^jfelK air corridor; air lane r S + S S f f l i köngzhöng louge castles in the air [ S S I köngzhöng < > empty weight [ S i t ! köngihü diabolo: ft — play diabolo [ S i t ] köngzhuön φ (of a motor, etc.) idling; racing: ^ j S Don't race your motor, © ( o f a wheel) turn without moving forward; spin U s köng [ S S ] könghöu

an ancient plucked stringed instrument

ΕχοεφΙ 15: Wu 1979

4.2.5. Headwords Consisting of Bound Morphemes Even in languages in which the word is clearly marked as a coherent unit in spite of consisting of more than one morpheme, it has become the accepted practice recently to treat highly productive bound morphemes in entries of their own. (That the term headword is thereby partly turned into a misnomer should cause no undue concern: if footnotes can be printed at the end of the texts, not necessarily at the foot of each page, and if we sail on

208

The Influence of Scripts and Morphological Language Types

steamers propelled by combustion engines, then a headword need not necessarily be a real word.) This follows from what has been said above about compounds: nonce compounds are coined ad hoc just as easily (in many languages) as free combinations of words; by the same token, so are derivations by prefixes, suffixes, etc. If a new (and understandable) word can be coined any time with such prefixes, suffixes (or whatever they are) as anti-. -ism, etc., it is useful to indicate these productive elements in entries of their own, with an indication of what meaning they carry, in spite of the fact that they never (at least under normal circumstances) occur independently. It is particularly in technical terminology and nomenclature where such bound morphemes (such as, e.g., deriv-, di-, dia-, hetero-, piez-, poly-) are especially productive; there exist dictionaries with the specific purpose of dealing with them, e.g., Fachwort der Technik 1984, or Cottez 1980 We have seen above that the boundary between grammatical inflection and derivation is not a sharp one; no wonder, then, that some dictionaries, especially those compiled to be used by foreign learners, list also some purely grammatical morphemes in entries of their own. The practice is a useful one and should be expanded. It is particularly dictionaries planned and prepared as a part of an automatic language data processing system, such as automatic text analysis, parsing, lemmatization, machine translation, etc., that do need entries of this type and will need them more in the future. The morphological structure of the respective language has little importance in the decision to list such morphemes. Whether the grammatical morpheme is an independent, free function-word, or whether it is somewhat loosely connected with the lexical morpheme to form an agglutinative word, or whether it is fully coalesced with the lexeme in the word of inflectional languages, if it is useful (given the purpose of the dictionary) to list it on its own, listed it will be, provided it is productive and regular both in form and meaning.

4.2.6. Bilingual Dictionary For the purpose of the present discussion, it is necessary to distinguish genuinely bilingual dictionaries from quasi-bilingual ones. The latter category comprises those bilingual dictionaries whose function is identical with, or similar to, that of the monolingual dictionary. Such dictionaries are particularly frequently compiled for dead, or exotic languages: since it would be difficult to define the meaning of Akkadian words in Akkadian, an Akkadian-English dictionary is compiled instead. Since the purpose of such dictionaries is more or less the same as that of the monolingual ones, namely the description of the lexical units of a language and of their meaning, quasi-bilingual dictionaries do not much differ from the monolingual ones in their techniques of presentation, either. Genuinely bilingual dictionaries have the basic purpose of helping to handle texts in a foreign language. (Their further differentiation into active and passive ones, etc., need not interest us here.) Since their purpose is not description, these dictionaries may and do take practical concerns into strong consideration. We have seen above that occasionally the lexicographer will have to choose either a presentation that closely follows some line given

Dictionaries and Languages

209

by the structure of the language, or a presentation influenced or inspired by concern for the user and his needs, by the necessity to save space, by the usefulness of the information: the monolingual lexicographer will occasionally choose the second alternative; the bilingual lexicographer is even more entitled to exercise frequently his right to do the same.

210

Typology of Etymological Dictionaries

4.3. Typology of Etymological Dictionaries and V.l. Abaev's Ossetic Dictionary"

4.3.1. Introduction: the Typologies of Malkiel and Reichmann One of the good results of the recent greatly increased interest in the theory of lexicography is the concomitant increase in the study, frequently a comparative one, of existing dictionaries themselves. The logical development of any comparative studies is a typology of the studied objects, in this case of dictionaries. As we know from the typology of languages, it is not of much use to apply only one parameter of variation for the classification: two or more languages can be similar in one respect and different in another. Therefore, a useful method of typology consists in selecting a set of criteria or properties, or features, and in observing whether they are present or absent in any member of the set of objects, or languages, studied. Sometimes it is useful to discern to what extent a property is present in a dictionary; although there is no terminological unity or precision, it is useful in this case to talk about a parameter of variation. While the first extensive attempt at a typology of dictionaries was undertaken by Lev Scerba in his well known article of 1940 ("Opyt obäcej teorii leksikografii"), the method of distinctive features was introduced by the outstanding Romance scholar Yakov Malkiel, in his article "Distinctive Features in Lexicography: A Typological Approach to Dictionaries Exemplified With Spanish" (Malkiel 1958-59; 1959-60); a few years later, he returned to the topic, refining the features in his article "A Typological Classification of Dictionaries on the Basis of Distinctive Features" (Malkiel 1962). Professor Malkiel is a specialist in historical linguistics with a particular interest in morphology, derivation, word formation, lexicology, and etymology. No wonder then, that he applied his method to etymological dictionaries. His book Etymological Dictionaries: A Tentative Typology (Malkiel 1976) is based on the analysis of nearly 400 etymological and similar dictionaries and of many more etymological publications. The bulk of the works studied is concerned with the main Indo-European languages in general and with Romance languages in particular; but some dictionaries of and publications on other languages, some of them as unrelated as Basque or Blackfoot, are also studied. He continues these studies in Malkiel (1990). An even richer set of highly fine-grained criteria was developed by Oskar Reichmann and applied to German historical dictionaries, with excellent results (Reichmann 1984). Another study by Reichmann develops a set of criterial features pertaining to the structure of entries in historical and period dictionaries, and uses them in a typological study of German period dictionaries (Reichmann 1990a). The typological method of criterial features is so fruitful that I wish to apply it to the * Reprinted from: Lexicographica 7, 1991b, 38-49. Dedicated to Abäjty Ivany fyrt Vaso, on his 90th birthday, December 1990.

Dictionaries and Languages

211

analysis of V.l. Abaev's Historical And Etymological Dictionary of the Ossetic Language (Abaev 1958-1989). I chose for the purpose Malkiel's set of criteria, because they are specifically constructed for etymological dictionaries. Malkiel accepts the following eight main classificatory properties, or parameters: (1) time depth (what period of time is covered); (2) direction of analysis (backwards to the roots, or "down" through time); (3) range (how many languages are considered); (4) grand strategy (the overall organization of the dictionary); (5) tactical preferences (the favored structuring of the entry); (6) breadth (how much auxiliary, background, additional information); (7) scope (which layers of the lexicon are included); (8) character (the author's purpose and level of tone). In addition to these main parameters, there are yet four ancillary ones, namely (9) the intended durability of the dictionary, (10) the centrality of its etymological commitment, (11) the style of the etymological analysis, and (12) the author's linguistic creed. Let us now perlustrate the Ossetic dictionary in light of these parameters. The Russian text in general and the glosses in particular are translated into English.)

4.3.2.1. Time depth The first of these parameters is the time depth. In this respect, the dictionary takes the longest stretch possible: the language of the headwords is contemporary Ossetic and the etymology goes back to the Indo-European roots (unless the word is borrowed from a non-Indo-European language). One can observe a certain development within the dictionary: at the beginning (vol. 1), it is the Iranian etymon that is worked out in greatest detail, with cognates quoted from as many Iranian languages as possible. To this, the Sanskrit cognate was added; the Indo-European root represented the rest of the Indo-European languages, from which the cognates were added only sparingly. For instance, the entry for az I anz ' 'year' contains the cognates from Iranian languages such as Farsi, Kurdish, Parthian, Khoresmian, Pehlevi; Avestan, Old Persian; and from Sanskrit (I 95). In the third and particularly in the fourth volume, the cognates from all the Indo-European languages are cited in detail. E.g., the entry for xäryn I xwärun 'scratch' contains, besides the Iranian cognates, also references to Sanskrit, Norwegian, Armenian, Greek (IV 183). The same policy is pursued with respect to borrowings: wherever it is possible, not only the immediate source, but also (in the case where the entryword is a "Wanderwort") the ultimate source is indicated. E.g., the name of an epic heroine, Agundä, is traced through Georgian, Khevsur and Abkhaz, to Farsi and Parthian cognates and to the common source of all these borrowings, Gr. υ ά κ ι ν θ ο ς "blue-bell" and personal name. One cannot trace the history of the word further back, although borrowing from yet another language can be suspected.

1

The two main dialects of Ossetic are Iron and Digor; the Digor form always follows the vertical bar. Iron is the basis of the literary language; Digor is in many respects more archaic.

212

Typology of Etymological Dictionaries

4.3.2.2. Direction of Analysis The direction of analysis (parameter (2)) generally is one that goes back in time: from the modern language to the Indo-European root, broadly speaking. There are several particularly interesting features in this area that should be mentioned. First, already the way in which the author spells the headwords helps this "movement back in time." The Iron dialect has strong palatalizations, absent in the Digor dialect. Thus, Digor kizgä, Iron cyzg 'girl, daughter'. (The reduction of the first and the loss of the second vowel [y = Θ] do not interest us now.) The author developed an orthography2 in which what is normally spelled δ is represented as palatalized k\ dz as g, etc. This undoubtedly historically oriented orthography makes a headword like k ' y z g I k i z g ä possible: it is not only a practical means to keep the same alphabetical order for both dialects, but also a diachronic interpretation already in the headword. The same situation obtains with labialization: in the same way that the reduction of a front vowel is accompanied by palatalization, the reduction of a back vowel is accompanied by labialization in the Iron dialect, indicated by a separate letter in the generally used spelling. The author indicates the labialization by a diacritic, so that he gets a unified headword again: k ^ v d I kuvd 'prayer; ritual feast, usually with live sacrifices'. And since the diacritics do not count in the alphabetization, the sequence of the entries is given by the historical forms: e.g., k j s i I kusinä 'ladle'; k ^ s t I k u s t 'work'; k y s y l 'small; small amount' (Digor has another word, mingi, mink'i, maenk'äj, hence no bar); k ^ v d I kuvd 'festival'; k ' y z g I k i z g ä "girl". The historical orientation does not, however, prevail over facts: if there is a more modern pronunciation than the one indicated by the spelling of the headword, it is given in parentheses; e.g., fädki (fäcci) 'skirt, flap or lap of a coat or dress' (1429). Nor does the historical orientation cause the more archaic Digor forms to be quoted first, with the more recent Iron ones following: Iron is the basis of the main literary language, is taught in most schools, and has more speakers, so it stands first. The spellings as devised by the author have a similar historical orientation in other points as well, e.g., in respect to the prothetic and other vowels, but we shall not go into all the details.

4.3.2.3. The Range The third parameter, of range, refers to the number of languages studied. It has already been said that there are several layers of comparisons: words of Iranian origin have all or most of the Middle and Modem Iranian cognates quoted (including, e.g., Khoresmian and Saka among the former, Kurdish among the latter); the cognates from the other Indo-European 2

Historically, Ossetic was written in Arabic and Cyrillic. In the 'twenties, Roman script was introduced. In the late 'thirties, however, the Cyrillic script was re-introduced. Abaev writes all Ossetic words and sentences in Roman, with more differences from the general orthography than mentioned above. Some particularities of his spellings, such as the macrons, are left out in the present article.

Dictionaries and Languages

213

languages are cited with increasing frequency. E.g., IV 183 xäryn I xwärun 'scratch, itch, irritate' has among the Iranian cognates the Parthian, Farsi, Kurdish and Pamir words, but also its cognates in Sanskrit, Greek, Norwegian, German. (See above, 4.3.2.1.) Typologically more interesting is the treatment of borrowings. Some of them are simple: adli I adili 'arshin' is borrowed from Georgian adli 'arshin [unit of measure]' (129). Some non-Iranian words, however, have parallel forms in several Caucasian languages; e.g., ag I ag(ä) 'cauldron' has parallel forms in Ingush, Chechen, Avar, Adyghe, Rutul and other languages, so that while the ultimate source may be Turkic, the word must be considered a representative of the Caucasian linguistic area. For ändon 'steel' [12], the author proposes an Indo-European etymology (to Skr. sam-dhana, Iran. *han-dana 'layer' [in this case "a steel layer on iron"]; the etymology is supported by parallel semantic developments e.g. in Russian u-klad 'steel'). A discussion of ancient methods of producing steel supports all these assumptions. However, there is also a discussion of the borrowings of this form (or its predecessor) into several Finno-Ugric languages (such as Komi and Udmurt) and into Caucasian languages, such as Ubykh and Ingush (1157). The etymon of w y r s I wurs 'stallion' is correctly indicated as Iran. *vrsan- 'male', with a great number of cognates both Iranian and Indo-European (IV 124). However, the author does not fail to tell us that it was also borrowed into Finnish, Estonian, and Karelian ivarza), and thence into the dialectal Russian varza- 'foal, colt'. It is this crossing of the boundaries of a linguistic family and pursuing of areal connections that gives the dictionary a strong individual character.

4.3.2.4. The "Grand Strategy" By the fourth parameter, grand strategy, Malkiel understands the "total distribution of the corpus". Ossetic is a living language, so the idea of a corpus does not apply. The selection of vocabulary is such that it corresponds to the historical character of the dictionary. Thus, archaic and obsolete expressions (particularly from the epos) are listed, and so is contemporary basic vocabulary. Terms connected with modern life and technology are not avoided, but they have no entries of their own. So for instance, the modern-life expression särmagond sekretar 'personal secretary' occurs, but only because a good illustrative context of the expletive xädägaj 'oh' contains it (IV 155); there is no headword sekretar, which is a reasonable policy for an etymological dictionary. The treatment of the meaning is also such that it prefers the historical aspects; e.g., the entry for syrx I surx 'red' has a page of illustrative contexts, none of which exemplifies the modern political connotation (III 298 ff.). 3 3

Similarly: klass has no entry, but the entryword ävzäryrt 'originate' is exemplified, praeter alia, by klasstä fevzurstäncä särmagond mulki fädbäl 'classes appeared because of private property' (from Surx Digora ["Red Digoria"], a textbook from 1932-1936).

214

Typology of Etymological Dictionaries

The entries are marshaled in the alphabetical sequence of the Iron forms of the headword. Knowledge of the Ossetic language is presupposed, but difficult Digor forms are listed separately and cross-referred to the main entry: "gäwagä see qwag". Digor forms are given for their Iron counterparts even if they are different: "ämbaryn 'understand', in Digor, lädärun is more used"; or, e.g. a x ä m I ( w ä x ä n , awäxän) 'such' (I 89), with awäxän and wäxän lemmatized separately (187; IV 100).

4.3.2.5. Structure of the Entry

Malkiel's fifth parameter is what he calls tactical preferences, by which he means, broadly speaking, the favored structure of individual entries. The form of the headword has already been mentioned. There follow Russian equivalents and explanations, distributed into numbered sections in cases of stronger polysemy. 4 Then follow transparent or semi-transparent derivations and compounds, with their own Russian equivalents. (The non-transparent ones are lemmatized separately.) For instance, the entry sag 'stag' also gives sag-läg 'stag' + 'man'> 'fine fellow; hero'; sagartän 'having life (artän) like a stag'> 'girded up; well built (figure)' etc. (Ill 11-16). The entry for sär 'head' also indicates many compounds, e.g. Dig. anzisär 'New Year"'( c) explained as regular in the position and the glottalization (c > c') as caused by expressivity (I 152); etc. This level of tone is in good harmony with the purpose of the dictionary. It would seem that besides the obvious purposes stated in the title, the dictionary can also function as a monolingual one.6 This can be seen in various areas. Firstly, the rich documentation by context is constructed so that the senses are forced for their contextual nuances, usually indicated by the translation; for instance, in the entry for amajyn I amajun 'to pile, heap, stack (firewood, bricks [to build a wall], etc.); to erect, build; to plane, shave [e.g. wood]', the context fungtä samadtoj sygdäg moqotäj forces the meaning 'to cut, hew out tables from, etc.' (I 49). Secondly, the rich indication of standing expressions and collocations, even with no or only weak semantic effects, belongs to the descriptive apparatus (admittedly not in the monolingual dictionary exclusively); e.g., in the entry for afon I afonä 'time, term', there are the collocations ucy afon 'in that time', afon u 'time (is)' (as in "Time, gentlemen!") — no semantic complications either, but it is good that they are given. Thirdly, and most importantly, the dictionary uses paradigmatic means for the description of meaning. They are, for instance, the indication of synonyms as in s t y n I i s t u n 1. (in Digor) 'stand', synonyms läwwun, äristun (III 156); indication of antonyms as in näwäg 'new', antonym zärond (II 176); of paronyms as in amond 'luck, happiness', in Digor also 'sympathy, compassion; sin' "(similar in meaning to tärigad)" (151); of onomasiological relations, as in annä 'other' "about a third person or object in enumeration, the second being referred to by innä" (I 54); by the delimitation of the valeur by giving the adjacent word in the semantic field, such as the contrast of fädg I fädgä 'custom,' and ägdaw 'custom,' the latter being more general, the former tending to be used in local, familial, and cult contexts (I 428); and by the introduction of onomasiological pockets within the alphabetic sequence of entries, such as the indication of the various parts of the house in the entry for xädzar 'house' (see above, 2.6) and in giving twelve different expressions for various dwellings (IV 161), or giving under sajtan 'devil' also xäjräg, iblis, dälimon, ävdiw (all of them devils of various [linguistic] provenience; III 23). Interestingly, such onomasiological pockets can be relevant for etymological decisions. For instance, cyxt 'cheese' must be compared with Chuvash cdgdt 'cheese'; the borrowing 6

T o be precise, as a quasi-bilingual dictionary: these are bilingual dictionaries that function as monolingual ones.

218

Typology of Etymological Dictionaries

could have gone in either direction, but since other milk products have native Ossetic designations, a borrowing in Chuvash from Ossetic is more probable.

4.3.2.9. The Author's Style and Creed As far as Malkiel's ancillary criteria are concerned, the centrality of the etymological commitment (parameter (10)) is unimpeded by what has been said in 2.8 about the accretion of the characteristics of the monolingual dictionary. The durability of the dictionary (parameter (9)) is also beyond dispute: there will be no other native speaker of Ossetic born early enough to know the old culture firsthand, who at the same time will be a trained, first-class historical linguist and who will live long enough to spend so many decades over a dictionary. So what remains is the author's linguistic creed (parameter (12)) and the style of his etymological analyses (parameter (11)). One of the typical features of the style is that both the form and the meaning are equally taken into consideration; even if the sound correspondences are in good order, we need an example of a parallel semantic development. Thus, e.g., ud 'spirit' is derived from wad 'wind', with the semantic parallels of Lat. animus 'spirit', Gr. ά ν ε μ ο ς 'wind' and others (IV 7; see above, 4.3.2.5 n. 4); ämbaryn 'understand' is derived from Iran. *hama'together' and *bar- 'take, carry', with the parallel of French comprendre 'understand' 'smallpox'. We have already mentioned that the author perceives language as embedded in or imbued with culture; vice versa, he exercises linguistic palaeontology by making conclusions concerning ancient culture from language. For instance, adäm is borrowed from Farsi, Turkic, or Arabic (the ultimate source is irrelevant in this context), but does mean 'people', not 'man'; the latter meaning is carried by the derivative adäjmag, hence the conclusion that at the time of the borrowing, the idea of the collective was primordial, the individualization coming only later. The author's "creed" appears to be historical linguistics, strongly influenced by ideas like "Wörter und Sachen" and by anthropological interpretations ä la Levi-Bruhl and Dumezil. A particularly interesting component of the author's linguistic thought is traceable back to N.J. Marr [1864-1934] (whose etymologies are quoted at the proper places). This influence is clearly perceivable in what has already been said about the conception of language as strongly embedded in culture and language as the source of our knowledge of how ancient and prehistoric peoples conceptualized, or segmented the extralinguistic world (see above on

Dictionaries and Languages

219

adäm). The latter example shows another typical tenet of Marr's linguistics, namely a strong assumption of interdependence of language and thought. (In the original Russian, the standing terminological expression was jazyk i myslenie 'language and thinking': this expression conveyed to the Russian speaker more the assumed character of thought as an ongoing, non-static activity than would be the case with jazyk i my si' 'language and thought'. Let us recall that Marr was the founder and editor of the school's main journal, Jazyk i myslenie.) Typical of this school of thought are approaches such as the following: the entryword amonym I amonun 'show, teach', Lat. monere is correctly shown ultimately to belong to the I.E. root men- 'think, etc.' (Lat. mens, moneo, Eng. mean, etc.) Having discussed the formal side of the etymology, the author discusses the semantic developments, and collects their parallels in other languages. From here, he proceeds (I 52) to establish a group of Ossetic cognates with "magical semantics", such as: the name of the miraculous goblet in the Epos of the Narts Acamongä, Waci-amongä, or amond 'luck, happiness'; and perhaps the names of various ghosts such as dälimon, wälimon. Next, he establishes another group of cognates with 'emotional semantics', such as mondag 'wishing, desiring, strong wish', and monc, Dig. mondi 'strong desire'. Magical thinking or semantics and similar notions are typical components of the notional apparatus of Marr and his school of thought. It is quite logical that we find such a component in Abaev's dictionary: let us not forget that Abaev is not only Marr's disciple, but he was the only Soviet linguist who did not join the chorus of Marr's condemnations, so vociferous after Stalin hurled his anathema on Marrism in 1950. Indeed, Abaev was therefore characterized by Pravda as a "nerazoruzivsijsja marrist" ("a Marrist who did not lay down his weapons") — not a pleasant thing to be called in those days. Two remarks must be made in this connection. The Marr who influenced the young Abaev was still a quite reasonable scholar, not the person who later maintained that all the words of all languages go back to exactly four syllables, sal, ber, yon, ros, and who was quite ruthless toward his adversaries (which few dared to be, in the atmosphere of the early purges). And second, given the extreme dislike Marr displayed, from the early 'twenties, for Indo-European studies, it is quite remarkable that an excellent work which fully embodies the spirit and standard of these studies, and one that strictly adheres to their (by now) traditional methods, is the last product of that school of thought, or of the group of young scholars around Marr, and may prove to be the most enduring one. The author's "creed" also has a strong component of Hugo Schuchardt's [1842-1927] teaching (fully accepted, not always with recognition, by Marr) on the importance of linguistic interference, of substrata, borrowings, and of "mixing of languages", as it was called in those days. The way in which the dictionary treats borrowings, with the same degree of care and detail as the Iranian elements, has its root in the author's persuasion that Ossetic has two equivalent sources, one Iranian and one Caucasian.

4.3.3. Conclusion To sum up, I shall not recapitulate the individual points. It may suffice to say that the

220

Typology of Etymological Dictionaries

dictionary is typologically highly original on several scores, above all, by combining etymology cum history with a so-to-say monolingual functionality; by treating the native and the borrowed elements of the language equivalently; by studying not only the borrowings into Ossetic, but also the dispersion of borrowings from Ossetic into other languages; by studying "Wanderwörter" in the whole area of the Caucasus; by admitting a strong antiquarian component of ethnographical and generally cultural character; and last but not least, by introducing a special orthography in order to enhance historical understanding of dialectally variant forms. This last feature would seem to be quite unique in etymological dictionaries. On the other hand, the typological analysis shows its usefulness in allowing a better understanding of a dictionary's composition. In future planning of etymological and similar dictionaries, it will be rationally possible to plan in advance the desired components of the future product.

Chapter Five Bilingual Dictionaries

5.1. Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries*

5.1.0. Introduction The main purpose of a bilingual dictionary is to indicate the semantic equivalence of the lexical units, or items, of two languages. This simple sentence could convey the idea that bilingual dictionaries vary only in respect to the languages they cover and in respect to the depth of detail with which lexical units are treated and that otherwise, they vary slightly. In reality, the contrary is the case. There are different types of bilingual dictionaries; the variation is largely determined by the goals for which a dictionary is compiled. Since earliest times, there have been dictionaries compiled in the philological tradition. The purpose of this type of dictionary is to help the user (who is supposed to be a speaker of the target language) to understand texts (usually written ones) in the source language (which is usually a dead one). This purpose entails the whole character of the philological dictionary. This type of dictionary indicates not only the general meanings of source-words, but also tries to capture all contextual nuances, all other nonces, and all difficult passages generally. The larger such a dictionary is, the more it will rely on quotations of contexts, and also, it will tend to give exact citations of those contexts. Because of the cultural difference, there will be many explanatory passages in such a dictionary, frequently of an encyclopedic character. Any dictionary of a language such as Latin can be used as an example of this category. Bilingual dictionaries of living languages are used mainly for two purposes. A speaker of the target language uses the dictionary in order to understand texts in the source language. Or a speaker of the source language uses it to speak or write in the target language. The tasks of compiling dictionaries for these two uses are different, as we shall see from the following example (Springer 1964, p. 46) of a reduced and interpreted entry: enemy ... s(ubst.) 1. mil(itary) Feind m.; the enemy der Feind, das feindliche Schiff etc., die feindliche

Macht 2. Gegner m. Feind m, Widersacher

m,

Heer,

Gegenspieler

m. From this entry, the reader learns several German equivalents of one English expression. Only one of these equivalents is further described: Feind is said to be a military expression. Otherwise, there is no indication concerning the rest of the equivalents. Obviously, this * Reprinted from: Studies in Language Learning, Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 1975, pp. 95 - 109.

222

Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries

dictionary is written for a German who will know the subtle differences in the German expressions and their proper application. The German user will also have an English text before him and the context will lead him in his choice of the equivalent. Let us now take as an example one entry from the Russian-English dictionary of Smirnitskij & Akhmanova (1965, p. 267). The entry is reduced here, with indications, particularly the grammatical ones, being omitted. I have added, in brackets, English translations of some of the Russian expressions. oblegcat' 1 .to facilitate,

make easier/easy·, 2. (o trude, gruze [about work, load]) lighten;

oblegcat' ves (o samolete [about an airplane]) lessen the weight, (of); oblegfiit' konstrukciju samoleta lighten the construction of an aircraft·, 3. (o boli [about pain]) ease, relieve·, ο stradanijakh i t.p. [about suffering and such]) alleviate·, punishment]) mitigate,

jur. (o nakazanii [about

commute.

This entry contains more semantic information, because it instructs the Russian user when to apply the individual English equivalents. In this respect, it is a generative dictionary, compiled with the purpose of helping in the writing and speaking of English. The purpose of the semantic indications is to prevent a Russian from saying in English, for instance, that 'pain is facilitated' and to lead him to the correct collocation. Such a dictionary can be useful to an English speaker who knows Russian as well. However, this usefulness is diminished by the fact that all the semantic characteristics are in Russian only. (The square brackets do not exist in the actual dictionary.) Any speaker of English who knows Russian well enough to understand all of them would be capable of using a Russian monolingual dictionary. Bilingual lexicography has made great progress in establishing types of dictionaries and in finding techniques of semantic and grammatical indications. It is only recently that more complicated problems about bilingual lexicography are being understood. Above all, the choice between a translational equivalent as opposed to an explanatory one is clear, and other similar problems have also been clarified. Since all of these things are discussed in Zgusta (1971), especially in the sections on bilingual lexicography (particularly 7.6.1.), we shall, in this paper, discuss some problems for further research. Of course, we cannot possibly mention everything since the whole field is enormous, beginning with language planning in some languages, particularly non-Western ones, and ending with the application of computers in the lexicographer's work. We shall mention only two points. The first of them is connected with psycholinguistic research, the other with developments in theoretical linguistics.

5.1.1. Psycholinguistic Investigations Bilingual dictionaries are a crucial tool in the learning of a foreign language. The question is: which types and in what sequence should these dictionaries be used? The beginner

Bilingual Dictionaries

223

normally uses a simple glossary that does not contain much information beyond the equivalents themselves, because it is used in connection with a textbook that is supposed to contain all the necessary grammatical information. However, when some progress has been made, the advanced learners need much more information about the language which they are learning. Therefore, they start using a bilingual dictionary, usually a small one at first, and then they advance to using a larger one. How soon should a language learner be encouraged to use a monolingual dictionary of the language instead of the bilingual one? That is, for instance, how soon should an English-speaking student who is learning French start using his Larousse or Robert exclusively, instead of using it along with his Collins', Cassell's, or Harrap'sl Opinions differ on this, and the use of both kinds of dictionaries has its advantages. The advantage of the monolingual dictionary is that it has only one language in focus and concentrates on an exhaustive description of the polysemy of words, with examples showing the typical and/or semantically difficult collocations, phraseology, idioms, etc. The result is that the advanced learner who uses a monolingual dictionary of the language which he is learning is introduced more directly into that language and gets an exercise in its paraphrastic and synonymic possibilities. On the other hand, a bilingual dictionary can focus on the points of contrast between the two languages and thus effectively helps the learner to understand and overcome the semantic, grammatical, pragmatic, and cultural differences between the two languages. The general tendency is, in any case, that the better one knows a language, the more one tends to use a monolingual dictionary (if there is one). However, large monolingual dictionaries are too difficult to use and the smaller ones usually tend to supply only the kind of information that a native speaker may not know. Excellent progress in this was made by Hornby (1963). The idea of a monolingual dictionary written for the foreigner, usually called learner's (thus Hornby) or sometimes learners' dictionary, combines both the advantages mentioned above. It is true that such a dictionary cannot focus on the concrete contrasts between two given languages, but even so, it can be successful if it gives all the information any foreigner would need. However, the great advantage of the bilingual dictionary is that the student who is preparing a text in the target language can find in it the expressions that he does not know. See also Zgusta (Dictionaries 19, 1998, 258) on the so-called 'Semi-bilingual" dictionaries. The owner of the Kernermann Publishing House in Tel Aviv developed this type by combining entries of the monolingual English Chambers Concise Usage Dictionary (1985,1986) with their equivalents in a foreign language. All of these considerations, unfortunately, lack foundation in solid pyscholinguistic research, which would show whether an advanced student learns the expressions of a foreign language more effectively by means of a bilingual dictionary or a monolingual one. Some experimentation in this field is needed.

5.1.2. Theoretical Linguistics The last few years have brought great progress in syntactic and semantic studies. We shall

224

Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries

mention only a few developments which are of immediate importance for lexicography. We have seen above that a good generative (also called "active") dictionary should advise the user how to use the individual equivalents in the target language. Such indications require considerable semantic information. The bilingual lexicographer needs to know as much as the compiler of a monolingual dictionary about the possible, obligatory, and prohibited combinations of lexical units. In addition, a bilingual lexicographer must cope with the coincidences and differences between the two contrasting languages, at the same time. Therefore, it is important to him that some syntactic approaches are now paying particular attention to such combinations in a sentence. The investigations which are of most importance to the lexicographer are those which have been (at least partly) inspired by Lucien Tesniere (1953 & 1959), who introduced into the study of syntax the idea that the central element of the sentence is the verb. According to him, the sentence does not consist of a noun phrase + verb phrase, or of a subject and a predicate, but of the verb, usually accompanied by further actants. The predominantly syntactic consequences of this idea, as we see them, for instance, in Fillmore (1968), Saumjan (1973), and Heringer (1972), do not immediately interest us in this paper. There are, however, other important consequences. The interaction of the verb and its object is rather well known. If we compare He drinks water. He drinks.

we see that in the second example, drinks either has a different meaning, or the sentence is impossible. However, some verbs show similar semantic effects in interaction with other parts of a sentence, which have not yet been extensively studied from this point of view. We indicate some examples taken or adapted from Helbig & Schenkel (1973), with English translations: Er starb in Dresden.

He died in Dresden.

Er starb, als er in Dresden war.

He died when he was in Dresden.

Er wohnte in Dresden.

He resided in Dresden.

* Er wohnte, als er in Dresden war.

* He resided when he was in Dresden.

but:

In a similar way: Die Kinder spielten hinter dem Haus.

The kids played behind the house.

Die Kinder spielten, als sie hinter dem

The kids played when they were behind

Haus waren.

behind the house.

Der Obstgarten lag hinter dem Haus.

The orchard was located behind the house.

* Der Obstgarten lag, als er hinter dem

* The orchard was located when it was

Haus war.

behind the house.

but:

225

Bilingual Dictionaries

Obviously, some verbs have a tighter connection with their circumstancials (as they are called in Tesnierian syntax) than others. However, there are various constraints on the possible choices of the actants (and circumstancials). Let us compare the following examples (the English translation is only an approximation). Das Mädchen liegt am Strand.

The girl lies on the beach.

Das Liegen des Mädchens am Strand.

The girl's lying on the beach.

Berlin liegt an der Spree.

Berlin lies on the Spree.

* Das Liegen Berlins an der Spree.

* Berlin's lying on the Spree.

but:

The number of the necessary actants and circumstancials also varies: Ich besuche ihn in Berlin.

I visit him in Berlin,

can be reduced in only one way: Ich besuche ihn.

I visit him.

* Ich besuche in Berlin

* I visit in Berlin.

* Ich besuche.

* I visit.

but:

On the other hand, Er legt das Buch auf den Tisch.

He puts the book on the table,

cannot be reduced at all. * Er legt das Buch.

* He puts the book.

* Er legt auf den Tisch.

* He puts on the table.

* Er legt.

* He puts.

All of these and similar phenomena are conceptualized as valences of the verb, obligatory and optional. The term is inspired by chemistry. A valence is a given verb's requirement or ability to combine with another element. This approach is particularly important to the lexicographer because it ties these phenomena to individual, concrete verbs, thus entailing their detailed investigation. The most extensive result of such an investigation is Helbig & Schenkel (1973), a dictionary of some 500 German verbs, with their valences and semantic constraints. We shall give an adapted and simplified example of a simple verb, and another of a strongly polysemous one. Schenken

sense (1) "donate, give (concrete)"

two obligatory valences, one optional The first obligatory valence: a substantive in the nominative case, either "human" (Der Vater schenkt einen Roller. "Father gives a scooter.'), or "abstract", understood as human (Das Ministerium schenkt dem Aktivisten Blumen. 'The ministry gives flowers to an

226

Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries

employee who is innovative in political activities.'). The second obligatory valence: a substantive in the accusative case, either animate (but not human) (Er schenkt dem Kind einen Hund. 'He gives the child a dog.'), or inanimate (Er schenkt dem Kind eine Puppe. 'He gives the child a doll.'). The third, optional valence: a substantive in dative, either human (Er schenkte seinem Freund das Buch. 'He gave his friend the book.') or abstract (understood as human) (Er schenkte dem Staat das Grundstück. 'He gave the lot to the state.'). schenken

sense (2) "give, transferred sense" three valences, all obligatory

First valence: a substantive in nominative, human (Die Eltern schenken dem Kind Vertrauen. 'The parents give the child confidence.'), or abstract (understood as human) (Der Staat schenkt seinen Bürgern Vertrauen. 'The state gives its citizens confidence.'). Second valence: a substantive in the accusative case, abstract (Er schenkt ihm Vertrauen. 'He gives him confidence.'). Third valence: a substantive in dative, no constraints (Er schenkt dem Freund, dem Hund, dem Auto, dem Sportklub, dem Gedanken, dem Turnen viel Aufmerksamkeit. 'He gives the friend, the dog, the car, the club, the idea, physical exercise much attention.'). schenken

sense (3) "pour/serve"

three obligatory valences

First valence: substantive in nominative, human (Die Mutter schenkt Kaffee in die Tasse. 'Mother pours coffee into the cup.'). Second valence: substantive in accusative, inanimate (liquid matter) (Sie schenkt den Kaffee in die Tasse. 'She pours coffee into the cup.'). Third valence: preposition in, substantive in accusative, inanimate (container) (Sie schenkt Tee in die Tasse. 'She pours/serves tea into the cup.'). It goes without saying that some of these indications could be found, organized in another way, in dictionaries like that of Wahrig (1968) or Steinitz & Klappenbach (1961ff.); and it is equally clear that further refinements of these indications, particularly of the semantic constraints, will be possible. Still, it should be evident how useful works like Helbig & Schenkel are to the lexicographer; it is to be hoped that the work will be continued for German and in other languages as well. For English, all the new learner's dictionaries supply the pertinent information in the form of syntactic patterns. The work of Helbig and Schenkel is of immediate importance for lexicography because of its whole conception, and also because it has the form of a dictionary itself. However, there are also other approaches which promise to be useful for lexicography. Within the generative approach, lexical analyses are particularly useful. Pertinent works by generative semanticists, e.g. McCawley (1971) or Green (1969), are well-known. Apart from their syntactic interest, they also show that the meaning of lexical units can be considered as consisting of elements which have a syntactic structure themselves;

Bilingual Dictionaries

227

thus,

£

e.g. break

ca become

S not

S whole

y

Another aspect of the work of generative semanticists, which is of great importance to the lexicographer, is their detailed study of possible and impossible combinations. Cf., for instance: (Examples from Green and from McCawley, op. cit.) He hammered the nail into the board. He hammered the nail through the board. He hammered the metal smooth/flat/thin/soft/shiny. He hammered the flowerpot (in)to pieces/smithereens. He hammered the metal into a cylinder/disk/frying pan. He hammered a groove into the metal. He hammered the dent out of the fender. He hammered the gold onto the sign. He hammered the shine off the fender. He hammered a hole in(to) the wall. He hammered a 6-inch disk out of the wall. He hammered the board apart.

but: * He hammered the metal beautiful/ugly/dangerous/safe. * He hammered the metal cylindrical/circular/spherical.

And: He hammered the rod straight/*bent.

Investigations of this type are much broader in their scope than the usual testing of possible combinations, or observing their attested types, as normally performed by the lexicographer, unless he wishes to include many collocations, and they are therefore of the greatest consequence for lexicography. A similar type of syntactic investigation was performed by Fillmore (1969), whose work more immediately resembles the lexicographer's output. In a truly Tesnierian approach, he

228

Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries

sees the predication (of the verb) spread over arguments, some of which are obligatory; thus he shows various syntactic phenomena which are of immediate interest to the lexicographer. So, e.g. (Fillmore 1969, p. 118): The boys blamed the girls for the mess. The boys blamed the girls.

but: * The boys blamed.

Fillmore then describes several English verbs in a way which we shall illustrate by one example (op. cit. p. 134): ACCUSE: + Performative, + Locutionary, + Momentary arguments: x, y, ζ cases: Source +• Agent, Goal, Object prepositions: by, 0 , of normal subject: χ direct object: y presuppositions:

χ and y are human ζ is an activity χ judges [z is "bad"]

meaning:

χ indicates [y caused z]

zero for indefinite: χ zero for definite: ζ

We shall not discuss here the theory of the performative, locutionary, and other functions of verbs, nor the Fillmorean theory of case. But we cannot fail to notice that this description makes some implicit assumptions about the meaning of the verb explicit; this is also true concerning the presuppositions. In addition, it is an excellent observation that if χ is unexpressed, the accuser is or may be indefinite, but that ζ can be unexpressed only if it is definite. Works of this type are so numerous that we were able to discuss only two of them. We cannot discuss Fillmore (1970), Apresyan and Mel'cuk (1969), and Zolkovsky (1969), Bierwisch (1970), Brekle (1970), Chafe (1970), and many others. Unlike Helbig & Schenkel (1973), these linguists do not treat large groups of lexical units; they rather explore various theoretical avenues (by different approaches) and analyze individual examples. It is hoped that proofs of these theoretical conceptions will be sought in their broad application on large groups of lexical units in various languages, because the results of such investigations would be of great interest and might be of great use to the lexicographer.

Bilingual Dictionaries

229

5.1.2. Conclusion Theoretical linguistics is developing in a direction which should greatly profit the lexicographer. It would be wrong to think that the contemporary stress on the study of sentences creates a gap between the lexicographer, who deals primarily with lexical units, and the syntactician; the contrary is much closer to the truth. The lexicographer describes the properties of lexical units— the way they combine in a sentence, which lexical combinations are necessary, which are possible, and which are impossible. The indication of how a lexical unit is used in a sentence undoubtedly is a major aim of a generative bilingual dictionary. We have shown examples of syntactic approaches that study exactly the area where the investigation of the lexicon and that of syntax overlap, or rather where they are united. Much of this kind of information is contained in good contemporary dictionaries, but organized and expressed in a different way. However, a systematic study of all the necessary and possible elements with which a lexical unit is combined in a sentence is broader than the usual practice of the lexicographer. I do not think that lexicography will or should abandon its ways of presentation; to adopt, for example, the type of presentation used by Fillmore (see above) would puzzle the general user and would be cumbersome for a bilingual dictionary. Still, these syntactic or syntactico-lexical studies are of double importance for the lexicographer. First, in their concrete results: professional lexicographers frequently do not follow current syntactic research, so engrossed are they in their own work and so strict are the limits forced on them by time economy. But current syntactic research contains many observations concerning concrete lexical units which deserve incorporation into the dictionary. Second, in the method: if the application of a lexical unit in a sentence entails a complicated interplay of grammatical and semantic requirements and constraints, the lexicographer's task is not only to indicate the most immediate rules of, for instance, government (or rection), or the typical combinations of, say, objects with a given verb, but to try to indicate as many of them as possible, optimally all of them. The examples quoted above, from current studies, show that the area of necessary research is a very broad one. Such research implies the necessity of testing the acceptability of a given lexical unit in an enormous number of sentences. In the compilation of generative bilingual dictionaries, a comparative presentation of the results of this research is necessary, organized for the user in such a way that he can produce "good" sentences in the target language.

230

Equivalents and Explanations in Bilingual Dictionaries

5.2. Equivalents and Explanations in Bilingual Dictionaries'

The task of the bilingual lexicographer is to find such lexical units in the target language as are equivalent to the lexical units of the source language, and to coordinate them. We call lexical equivalent a lexical unit of the target language which has the same lexical meaning as the respective lexical unit of the source language. The definitional requirement is that the identity should be absolute: the equivalent should have the same polysemy, the same stylistic value, etc. But such absolute equivalents are rather rare. In the majority of instances, the lexical meaning of the respective lexical unit of the target language corresponds only partly to that of its counterpart in the source language. If we wish to be very precise, we therefore speak about partial equivalents·, but normally we use the term equivalent, knowing that the majority are partial. Before starting the search for equivalents, we must compare the structures of the two languages in order to decide which grammatical categories will be considered reciprocal. This is easy in languages which have similar categories of lexical units, or, traditionally, similar parts of speech; e.g., there is no problem in deciding that the French equivalent of an English noun will first be sought among French nouns. But one must not follow this principle too strictly. For instance, German Handarbeit (subst.) has a good equivalent in English hand-work (subst.), but if it is used as a label on wares, the English equivalent is handmade, because the English substantive denotes only the process, not its results. Usually, there are not only such isolated points of trouble, but also discrepancies rooted in the system. It is easy to decide that English expression and adjectives will be considered equivalent to Czech substantives and adjectives, and to indicate pairs like Czech nebe: English heaven, Czech nebesky (adj.) : English heavenly, celestial, in a Czech-English dictionary. But there will also be pairs like Cz. cihla : Eng. brick, Cz. cihlovy (adj.): Eng. brick (as in a brick wall). The second pair of equivalents can be left without comment if the Czech user of the dictionary is supposed to have a fair knowledge of English. If it is not the case, the entry of the second pair should contain an indication of how the equivalent is construed^ e.g. by giving an example (brick wall). The example used here is easy to handle, but the mass of the lexicographer's work poses more difficult problems of this type. The main thing seems to be to see these discrepancies before one begins the concrete work and to decide on their solution in general, so that the individual instances are treated in the same way throughout the dictionary. The equivalent should be a real lexical unit of the target language, which occurs or can occur in real sentences. (We shall see later that this requirement must be limited, but it is valid for the majority of instances.) The usual procedure is for the lexicographer to collect a broad range of typical contexts in the source language in which the respective lexical unit occurs. (It goes without saying that this procedure can be shortened by using native speakers as informants, or by using one's own competence; but at least some collections of contexts * Reprinted from Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, IV. Eds: M. A. Jazayery, E. Polome, W. Winter. Mouton, The Hague. 1979, pp. 385-392.

Bilingual Dictionaries

231

— not necessarily long ones — are usually essential.) The lexicographer then tries to translate all these typical contexts into the target language, using in each instance the prospective equivalent from the target language. If the prospective equivalent fits into all these contexts, it is an absolute one; if not, it is partial and the entry will have to indicate some other (partial) equivalent(s) to cover the whole range of the lexical meaning of the entryword. The way the lexicographer presents the data in the dictionary is largely governed by the purpose of the dictionary. Let us discuss some examples. German heiraten, sich verheiraten 'to marry' are usually considered equivalents of the Chinese iHW- chü jiä . One of the differences between them is that the Chinese lexical unit is used in reference to women only. In a dictionary whose only purpose is to help native speakers of German to understand Chinese texts, the entry could have the basic form t t j i ^ c h ü j i ä 'heiraten, sich verheiraten'

The two equivalents are applicable in all contexts, so that it is not necessary to state the restriction of the Chinese lexical unit; and the German user needs no information about the German equivalents. But if the dictionary is to be more descriptive, and is to give the German user more information about Chinese lexical units, the Chinese semantic restriction will have to be indicated: öiW- chü jiä (von Frauen) 'heiraten, sich verheiraten'

If, on the other hand, the dictionary is intended to help the Chinese user produce German texts, it is necessary to indicate the difference between the two German partial equivalents, so that the user can make the right choice: ff}® chü jiä 'heiraten' ('to take in marriage'),'sich verheiraten' ('to get married') The English words in quotation marks are notations which would have the form of a gloss or of an explanation, either in German or in Chinese, in a real dictionary.) A combination of the intentions mentioned requires, then, an entry like: tti4^chü jiä (von Frauen): 'heiraten' ('to take in marriage'), 'sich verheiraten' ('to get married')

Another type of entry can be discussed with the help of the following example: beinahe, fast 'almost, nearly' can be considered the German equivalent of the Chinese xian xie. The Chinese contexts are roughly of the type: He nearly stumbled, fell, starved, died, knocked someone down, poisoned someone, etc. Let us, therefore, suppose that a Chinese-German dictionary is prepared which should also have some descriptive power. The entry then would have to contain a gloss stating the applicational restriction, for instance, of the following form: xiän xie(bei negativen Ereignissen): 'beinahe, fast'

In a Chinese-English dictionary, the entry could have the form: ßfe® xiän xie (referring to negative events): 'almost, nearly'

232

Equivalents and Explanations in Bilingual Dictionaries

The applicational restriction could be stated in the form of an example or of some examples; the advantage of this method of presentation is that the information is more immediate, and, additionally, that it is less explicit than the gloss. The later type of advantage is particularly useful in the situation where the lexicographer is not sure about the extent of the restriction. Let us now consider the English equivalents. They both have multiple meaning. If we accept Hornby's description of their meaning, we see that almost has two senses: (1) as in He almost fell (where almost is replaceable by nearly)·, (2) as in Almost no one believed her (where almost is not replaceable by nearly). The other equivalent, nearly, has (according to Hornby again) three senses: (1) as in It is nearly 1 o'clock (replaceable by almost), (2) as in I have $20, but that will not be nearly enough for my journey (not replaceable), (3) as in nearly related (not replaceable). If we quote almost, nearly together as equivalents of the Chinese lexical unit, they disambiguate each other, because every user will assume that only that sense applies which is common to both of them. On the other hand, if we consider the German equivalents beinahe, fast, we find that they are as close synonyms as possible, because a difference in their meaning is almost imperceptible. If this is so, we can ask why both of them should be quoted. There are two arguments in favor of citing both. First, the indication of synonyms in the target language helps the user to find various expressions he can use, if only for stylistic variation. And second, imperceptible as the difference is, there is usually some slight difference between the meaning of even such close synonyms, so that if both are indicated, the information is richer and the user is inspired to imagine yet other possible translations and synonyms. But in any event, even a large dictionary should not indicate too many synonyms of this type, and a small one can omit them. In sum, we have discussed three types of indication of partial equivalents and synonyms: 1) heiraten; sich verheiraten: a rule (semantic or grammatical) of the target language makes it predictable which of the two will be used in any given situation; 2) almost, nearly: both can be used, but only in those senses of their multiple meaning which overlap; 3) beinahe, fast: either can be used, and giving the two together makes the information somehow richer. Although there are many borderline cases between these types, it is useful to know them; but it is particularly types (2) and (3) which are difficult to distinguish. In type (1), it is preferable to put a semicolon between the two partial equivalents; in types (2) and (3), a comma is generally used. Another type of problem can be illustrated by the following example. The German equivalent of Chinese [0 jiu is alt 'old'. When the lexicographer analyzes the contexts of the source language, he will perceive that they belong roughly to the three following groups: (1) old edition of a book, an old malady that recurs, old society, old ideology, old dwelling, old job; (2) old method, old custom, old dream, old archive; (3) old equipment in

Bilingual Dictionaries

233

industry, old material, old clothes. Unless the dictionary belongs to the smallest type, without any generative power in the target language, it will not be sufficient to state simply 10 jiü: alt, but it will be felt necessary to give fuller information. It will also be essential to indicate that the German equivalent must not be taken in one of its senses as in Er ist 10 Jahre alt 'He is ten years old'. If the dictionary proceeds, as usual, by the indication of synonyms, one can suppose an entry of approximately the following type: [0 jiü

(1) 'alt, früher, ehemalig' (that is, say, 'old, former, previous'); (2) 'alt, schon lange bestehend' ('old, existing for a long time'); (3) 'alt, gebraucht, durch langen Gebrauch abgenutzt' ('old, worn out by long use').

When we consider these examples, we see that an equivalent like alt 'old' is undoubtedly a lexical unit which can be immediately inserted into a German sentence, whereas schon lange bestehend or durch langen Gebrauch abgenutzt are somehow felt as non-minimal, as expansions of what the simple alt can convey. But these non-minimal expansions have the advantage that they, when we see them in isolation, give more information about the lexical meaning of the source language. Equivalents of the first type are usually called translational equivalents, those of the latter type explanatory or descriptive ones. Naturally there are many equivalents which combine both advantages; for instance gebraucht 'used' seems to be, in the example given, a good translational equivalent with great descriptive power. Very frequently, it is necessary to give a translational equivalent and an explanatory one, or only an explanatory one. For instance, an English-French dictionary can hardly proceed by giving a simple equivalent of English boyhood, because there is no really good one. The explanatory equivalent would probably be something like etat de gargon. But this cannot be inserted into sentences (or translation of sentences) like In his boyhood, he ... A more translational equivalent like adolescence or jeunesse is indicated. But these words are not restricted to male children in French, as the English word is. And so the entry would probably have to make a compromise and indicate, say, boyhood:

'adolescence, periode de jeunesse' (d'un gargon)

The explanatory equivalent has the advantage of being very general, because it is on the notional rather than on the purely linguistic level. If the user grasps what is indicated, and if he knows French very well, he will be able to understand many different English sentences, and he will feel free to adapt his French translations as need be. In various contexts, he may say, 'Au temps d'adolescence . . . ' , 'Dans sa periode de jeunesse . . . ' , 'Quand il etait jeune gar9on . . . ' , but possibly and simply also 'Quand il etait jeune . . . ' , etc. The explanatory equivalent works particularly well if the target language is the user's native one, because it makes considerable demands on his knowledge. The advantage of the translational equivalent is that it is purely linguistic and that it offers the user directly an expression that can be used. But apart from the fact that it frequently conveys less information, the translational equivalent can cause a good deal of trouble to the lexicographer. Let us discuss an example. We said that Chinese 10 jiü has a good equivalent in the German alt 'old'. The subsequent discussion has shown that the lexicographer will probably feel it

234

Equivalents and Explanations in Bilingual Dictionaries

necessary to add some further equivalents. This can be pushed too far. For instance, the lexicographer may find Chinese contexts in which the best translation would be 'preceding, foregone, past, obsolete'; there will be contexts in which 'ancient, antique, archaic' seem to fit well, etc. But to indicate all this would mean that the bilingual dictionary would grow into a synonymic dictionary of the target language. The lexicographer's task is to indicate the most general translational equivalents which have a broad range of application. And so the explanatory equivalent and the translational one are not so opposed as one would think: they both act as representatives of groups of synonyms and near-synonyms, out of which the user may choose the most suitable one (if he knows them, or if he is able to use a monoglot or synonymic dictionary of the target language). The difference between the two types is that the translational equivalent is always a possible choice for application in a sentence and sometimes the best one. But while the lexicographer tries to indicate the best equivalents, he is frequently faced with the fact that he does not find any. For instance, it is hard to find an English equivalent for the Russian preposition po in such everyday expressions as Russian po pribytii ego 'on his arrival',po ukhode ego 'after he had gone, after his departure',po okoncanii 'as soon as he had finished'. Grammatical information must be supplied instead of lexical equivalence, or in combination with it. The so-called culture-bound words pose another problem, because they frequently have no lexical equivalent in the target language. There are basically three types of solution: (a) The lexicographer may try to create a translational equivalent by borrowing the respective word into the target language, frequently in a phonemically adapted form, (b) He may try to create a translational equivalent by coining a loan-translation, or by coining a new expression in the target language, (c) He may try to find an explanatory equivalent in the target language (with the eventual hope that it may become a translational one, if used frequently in the future). If we take examples from a less-known language, the three types are: a) Ossetic alam: Eng. 'alam' (borrowing) b) Oss. ironvandag: 'Ossetic way' (new coinage by loan-translation) c) Oss. ziw: 'collective help' (explanatory equivalent) It is clear that the explanatory equivalent (c) gives the richest information; types (a) and (b) can be chosen only if it is expected that the respective words will have a high frequency in translated texts (where there will be explanatory notes, etc.). But for a real understanding, we need an explanation in all three types, for instance: a) alam: 'alam' (fruit and candy bound on a twig and carried by mounted participants at a funeral feast) b) ironvandag: 'Ossetic way' (an ancient Ossetic funeral ritual) c) ziw: 'collective help' (socially expected help, particularly in agricultural work, organized within or by a group of people) It depends on the lexicographer's decision (and this, in turn, on the type and purpose of the dictionary), whether his explanations will be minimal (as in type b), or whether they will verge on the encyclopedic (types a, c); but there should be a uniform style throughout the dictionary.

Bilingual Dictionaries

235

The difference between what we call an explanatory (or descriptive) equivalent and an explanation is that the explanatory equivalent tends to be similar to a translational equivalent. If stabilized and accepted into the language, it can become a lexical unit of the target language. But an explanation tends to be very similar to a lexicographic definition (or is even identical with it) as used in monoglot dictionaries, and usually cannot aspire to becoming a lexical unit. But there is no need, I think, to stress that there are a great number of borderline cases. And so we see that the bilingual lexicographer works basically with translational equivalents, synonyms, mutually disambiguating synonyms, mutually complementing synonyms, explanatory equivalents, and explanations. All of them have the purpose of informing the user about the meaning of the lexical unit of the source language, of supplying him with lexical units of the target language which can be used in source-language sentences, and of inducing in him a recollection of other suitable, near-synonymic lexical units of the source language, even if they are not directly indicated. A good entry in a bilingual dictionary also needs information usually supplied by illustrative examples (quoted or coined), by glosses, labels, and similar means; but a discussion of this type of information would require another paper.

236

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

5.3. Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary (Bähukosyam)*

The purpose of this paper1 is to discuss the so-called translational equivalent and its various problems, and to discuss its relation to different types of bilingual dictionaries. To get the proper contrast, various forms of explanatory equivalents will be discussed as well. The notion of the translational equivalent is well explained in the following quotation from Arnold Lissance's (1949) article, "The Translator's Dictionary": Integration of reading matter is blocked when the dictionary gives linguistic museum pieces or, at a loss itself, merely defines the idea rather than furnishing the contemporary English equivalent with all its dynamic associations. Words like Lebensfrische Entschlusskraft

and

are good illustrations in point. Bilingual dictionaries render them with

'freshness of life' and 'ability to make up one's mind (make decisions).' These renderings evoke no familiar language patterns. If the dictionaries gave "vigor" and "initiative" instead, the context would immediately be clear because these are words associated with concepts the reader is accustomed to manipulate in his everyday pursuits. Translations must be in the idiom of the reader. If they are not, the information, if remembered at all, becomes peripheral to his mind. Readability of a translation, therefore, is of more than academic interest. 2 The main requirement is well expressed here: the dictionary should offer not explanatory paraphrases or definitions, but real lexical units of the target language that, when inserted into the context, produce a smooth translation. This is a perfectly natural requirement; lexicographers have followed it since time immemorial. But w e also see that they did not do so in each and every case. When w e go through the Greek glossary of Hesychios, whose sources belong mostly to the first centuries of our era, w e see that he offers translational equivalents in the majority of his glosses: 1) das · es aiirion. Boiötoi abate · akhreion. Läkönes (in the Acc.) * Reprinted from: Dictionaries

9, 1987c, pp. 1-47.

1

This is a slightly expanded version of a paper I read at the lexicographic conference in Exeter in 1983. A greatly reduced version of it was published in Zgusta (1984a.) All examples of entries from various dictionaries quoted above are considerably reduced, all grammatical and other information not necessary to the purpose of this paper being omitted. In some cases, only a part of an entry is quoted.

2

A similar experience with Russian borrowings in Uzbek is described by Resetova (1979), who also maintains that a translational equivalent does not always suffice to convey the meaning. Other pitfalls of unexplained translational equivalents are well discussed, with a wealth of examples, by Martin (1962).

237

Bilingual Dictionaries

abartai· ptenai. Kuprioi abarii· origanon. Makedönes abeliakon · heliakön. Pamphülioi (in the Acc.) The fact that this is not (with the possible exception of Macedonian) a dictionary of different languages, but of different dialects, is immaterial; the main point is that, e.g., a Boeotian expression (indicated before the raised period) is translated into normal Koine Greek (following the raised period). Thus, the glosses have the following structure: das · 'till tomorrow'. Boeotians.

As the words to be translated are taken from concrete contexts, they are sometimes in the accusative rather than in the nominative (abale, abeliakon); accordingly, so are their Koine equivalents. However, there are also glosses of the following type: 2) ab6r · oikema stoäs ekhon, tameion. Läkönes

Here, the Laconian word aber is not only translated by the Koine equivalent tameion, but is also explained by the phrase oikema stoäs ekhon 'a building that has arcades or magazines'. The reason for this is clear: tameion or tamieion is a polysemous word; its dominant sense, the one that would occur first to a speaker of Koine Greek, was probably 'treasury'. The explanatory paraphrase is added in order to prevent a misunderstanding, because the sense 'storehouse' is the one that applies here. Abavus (Wagner 1967), a medieval Latin-French glossary, indicates translational equivalents in a similar way: 3) febritare, erubescere,

avoir fievre avoir honte

but in other entries, it gives explanatory paraphrases like: 4) cathecuminus,

qui croit foy

The reason is that at that time the translational equivalent of post-Renaissance French, catechumene, was not yet established. Some entries in both editions of Abaev's Russian-Ossetic dictionary (Abaev 1970) have a similar form: 5) ciiom, atom (materijy lystägdär khaj) 1950 ätom, atom (materijy lystäg khaj) 1970

The parenthesized explanation 'small' (or 'the smallest') 'particle of matter' is added, because it is only reasonable to assume that if somebody does not know what Russian dtom means, he will not understand Ossetic atom either.3 3

A similar experience with Russian borrowings in Uzbek is described by Resetova (1979), who also maintains that a translational equivalent does not always suffice to convey the meaning. Other pitfalls of unexplained translational equivalents are well discussed, with a wealth of examples, by Martin (1962).

238

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

We see that there are situations that cannot be treated by a (mere) translational equivalent, even if a perfect one (e.g., [5]) is at hand. These situations are, typically: (a) the nonexistence of the translational equivalent; (b) its polysemy; (c) its low intelligibility to someone not already fully familiar with it. The additional explanation, or information, can have the form of an added gloss in parentheses, as we have in (5), or of an explanatory paraphrase similar to a non-translational equivalent, as in (2). Such a paraphrase can be the only information offered if a translational equivalent is absent, as in (4). There exists, however, yet another way to handle a similar situation. For instance, Abaev's Russian-Ossetic dictionary has entries like: 6) degenerdcija,degeneraci, nyggagsäft atribut, atribut, miniwäg The difference between this and (2) consists in the fact that while oikema stoas ekhon in (2) is a mere explanation, which nobody would insert into a context, the words nyggagsäft and miniwäg in (6) are real Ossetic lexical units, whose meaning is something like 'destruction, deterioration of kin' and 'property, quality', respectively. Though degeneraci and atribut are the best translational equivalents of the Russian words, there are contexts in which the more general nyggagsäft and miniwäg could be used and inserted. These equivalents are somewhat less terminological and less precise and will be used less frequently; they are indicated, nevertheless, because in a way they explain the preceding translational equivalents. We can call them explanatory equivalents. It follows that an equivalent indicated in a bilingual dictionary has two different properties, which we can call translationality (or insertibility) and explanatory power. It is most propitious if both these properties are present in the entry; they can be distributed in various ways, depending on the possibilities at the lexicographer's disposal (an equivalent which is translational and explanatory at the same time; two or more equivalents, some of them translational, some explanatory; equivalent cum explanation, etc.). Let us consider the following examples from Steiner's French-English and English-French dictionary (1972): 7) tutoyer, to thou, to address familiarly Only "to address familiarly" is a real translational, insertible equivalent. It has, however, no explanatory power, because such familiarity of address can have many different forms. Since the author does not wish to give an explanation of the form, say "(by using the pronoun of the second person sing.)," he gives the obsolete verb "to thou," which conveys this information but cannot be inserted into any context in contemporary language. This is, then, a purely explanatory equivalent. In another entry of Steiner's, we read: 8) kneehole, trou, evidemment pour l'entree des genoux Here trou is the truly translational, insertible equivalent, without any explanatory power again, because so many things can be called a trou in French. The explanatory information is supplied by evidemment pour l'entree des genoux: this explanatory paraphrase (or a part

239

Bilingual Dictionaries

of it)4 has, however, a degree of insertibility, at least in some possible contexts. We may anticipate and say that equivalents that are both translational and explanatory are the bilingual lexicographer's best friends. One more remark. It is quite legitimate if the explanation does not give an exact definition, but conveys the broad idea in a general way. So, for instance, in Abaev's Russian-Ossetic dictionary: 9) degraddcija,degradaci

(kwyd fästärämä cauddär känyn)

The Ossetic explanation in parentheses means "to make something worse again.' For a language like Ossetic, I find the explanation acceptable, because both the Russian and the Ossetic word can have a meaning broader than the military term, like English "degradation." Among the examples above, (2) and (5) seem to be all right, but (4) misses the specificity of the catechumen, namely, that in spite of his being already a believer, he is not yet a member of the church. In the same way, the explanatory equivalents in (6) are all right, because both the Russian and the Ossetic words can have a broader meaning than the terminologically narrower one. This should not, however, be mixed up with the unfortunately not infrequent malpractice of the lexicographer's using several approximate "equivalents" in the absence of an exact one, hoping that the user will get the gist of the meaning. In order to offend nobody, I take the example from the medieval glossary Abavus again: 10) docilis,

sage uel enseignable

Since 'docile' was not yet established in the French of the epoch (and when it was, it acquired the same meaning as English 'docile'), the lexicographer used French words meaning 'wise' and 'teachable', which, however, do not capture the dominant meaning of the Latin word, namely, 'ready, apt to learn.' (There was probably yet another reason for using enseignable 'teachable', which we shall discuss below.) Such an agglomeration of imprecise attempts at a translation should be avoided, particularly if no explanatory, restrictive, or other glosses are added. When we follow the lexicographic treatment of some words, we frequently see that lexicographers do try to find good translational (cum explanatory) equivalents. Henricus Stephanus has, in his Greek Thesaurus of 1572, the following entry: 11)

hodeutes, qui iter facit, viator

Here, qui iter facit 'he who makes a journey' is an explanation, not an equivalent. The edition of the Thesaurus of 1865 has basically the same entry: 12) hodeutes,

qui iter facit, viator; ambulator

However, another translational equivalent was added, ambulator 'who walks around'. Modern lexicography drops the unnecessary explanation; so, e.g., Liddell and Scott (1940) have: 4

The only purpose of evidemment is to show the user that the lexicographer is aware of the seeming banality of the following words; this makes the user realize that they have a non-trivial purpose.

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

240 13) hodeutes, wayfarer.

The search for a correct treatment by equivalents is not always immediately successful. Stephanus's 1572 Thesaurus has the entry: 14)

kataprotemi,

projicio, e manibus dimitto, aut elabi sino, vel etiam cum neglectu

abjicio

Here, the phrases e manibus dimitto 'dismiss out of one's hands' and elabi sino 'allow to slip away' are strongly explanatory. The edition of the Thesaurus of 1865 has the same entry only with some minor changes. Liddell and Scott in 1883 tried to treat the verb by using English equivalents only: 15) katapmiemai,

to throw quite away, throw away

but the first equivalent with quite is wrong. (The change in the diathesis of the entry word does not interest us here.) Only the edition of 1940 found good equivalents: 16) kataproi'emai,

throw away, abandon

Good translational equivalents can be gained and indicated by the interpretation of the examples. 5 Already Stephanus' entry (14) has many examples with various good translations (e.g., occasionem omittere aut neglegere 'to miss or neglect the occasion', opportunitates perdere, abjicere 'to lose, throw away opportunities'), but they are too complex to be analyzed here. Let us discuss the lexicographic treatment of another Greek word. The 1865 edition of the Greek Thesaurus has the entry: 17) akatastasia,

tumultuatio, agitatio, qua res in quiete aliqua consistere non potest

The explanatory phrase qua res in quiete aliqua consistere non potest 'which does not allow a thing to remain in tranquillity' is per se good, because it captures the Greek idea that a state of affairs will not remain as it is because of its intrinsic proclivity to change. (Akatastasia is the key word for this idea; this is why St. Paul (1 Cor. 14, 33) contrasts the akatastasia of the world with the peace of God.) In the interpretation of one of the examples, the word instabilitas is used, which, of course, is an excellent equivalent, both translational and explanatory, as is shown by the entries in Liddell and Scott (1940) and Adrados et. al. (1980): 18) akatastasia,

instability, anarchy, confusion; unsteadiness

(19) akatastasia,

inestabilidad, inseguridad, anarquia; falta de firmeza, debilidad;

An explanation is particularly necessary if the translational equivalent offered is not an absolutely exact one. For instance, the (yet unpublished) Modern Greek-English dictionary of D. J. Georgacas (n.d.) has the entry:

5

This aspect is strongly stressed by Ponten (1976). He suggests that an efficient method by which to find good translational equivalents consists of a contrastive comparison of contexts in the two languages. Pasaeva (1968) advocates comparison of artistic translations of belleslettres as a source of translational equivalents, particularly those of idioms.

241

Bilingual Dictionaries 20) apsinthato,

fortified wine spiced with wormwood and other herbs, vermouth

"Vermouth" is the closest possible translational equivalent, but the preceding explanation contains even more specifications. Equally important is the explanation in cases where the mere translational equivalent, exact as it is, might remain only poorly intelligible. An example from Georgacas again: 21)

Babylona

... (2) (b) Place or scene marked by great variety or confusion of people,

Babel

Needless to say, only "Babel" is translational, the rest explanatory.) Another situation, also from Georgacas: 22) akhreioglössos

...using obscene language, talking bawdily, foul-mouthed, lewd

The first phrase, "using obscene language," fittingly gives the broad notion of the Modern Greek word, although it has only a low degree of insertibility. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968-1982) has the entry: 23) pugnaculum,

a place from which one fights, bulwark or fortification

The explanation "a place from which one fights" is necessary, because the expressions that attempt to reach the status of translational equivalents, "bulwark" and "fortification," either have a medieval connotation or, usually, denote some masonry, something built or constructed, etc., whereas a pugnaculum could simply be an earthen embankment that gives the advantage of an elevation. In the same way, the Oxford Latin Dictionary has the entry: 24)

oxyporum,a

food or medicine which promotes digestion, digestive

The explanation is necessary, or at least useful, in order to stress that the Latin word can be used in reference to food as well as to drugs, medicines, nostrums, etc., whereas the more translational (or insertible) English "digestive" tends to be more restricted in its usual application. We see from (24) that these explanations are not of etymological, or derivational, character: the meaning of the entryword is the real focus of attention. (An etymological interpretation would have to deal with the constituent morphemes, Greek oxüs 'sharp' and per do 'to go through'.) Sometimes, however, the etymology or derivation seems to play a role. This stems, at least partly, from the fact that there is a vast overlap between the indication of a derivation or etymology on the one hand, and the notional explanation on the other. For instance, in (22) above, the explanation "using obscene language" coincides with the fact that in Modern Greek (tä) dkhreia means 'obscenities, indecency' etc., and glössa 'tongue, language'. However, explanations of this type are sometimes nearly exclusively etymological. An example from Georgacas again: 25) akhtidobolos,emitting

rays, radiant, brilliant, shining

The first phrase, "emitting rays," constitutes an etymological explanation, because this is the meaning of the individual morphemes of the entryword. Whether it is also a notional

242

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

explanation is not certain (unless we take "emitting rays" to be synonymous with "radiant"), because even in the most fitting of the quoted examples, αράηοιι sto khäos toiito trigurizei ... ena ourdnio toxo akhtidobolo, the 'celestial arrow', ourdnio toxo that 'roams above the chaos', probably is "radiant," not "emitting rays." The treatment exemplified in (10) (enseignable) may also be a case that belongs to this category. A proclivity to offer etymological explanations in the guise of notional explanations, or even explanatory equivalents, can, however, be dangerous. The 1865 edition of Stephanus' Greek Thesaurus has the entry: 26) ankhipous,

prope nos pedem habens, adstans, propinquus, proximus

An English translation of the Latin text yields 'having one's foot close to us, standing by, near, nearest.' The 1940 edition of Liddell and Scott is similar to this: 27) ankhipous,

near with the foot, near

It is true that the individual Greek morphemes of the entry word have the meaning 'near' and 'foot" respectively. But the only important context in which the word appears is in Lycophron 318 dten ankhipoun stenagmdtön 'the mental blindness, which is nearest to groans', so that the concrete character of the meaning arrived at by the etymology is totally out of place. Consequently, Adrados et. al. (1980) in his Greek-Spanish dictionary is perfectly right in giving the entry the simple but excellent wording: 28) ankhipous,

que estä pröximo

The proclivity to etymological or derivational explanation is fully understandable and, with the exception of examples such as (26) and (27), even legitimate in dictionaries whose main purpose is to describe the source language. The main trouble with (26) and (27) is that they offer the etymology as a translation, or at least as an explanation. Compare with this an entry from J. Wolff's Cebuano Visayan-English dictionary (1972), whose main purpose is to describe, or even analyze, the source language: 29)

sanga,

branch; sanga ang dilä, be fierce and violent (like a snake with a forked

tongue)

In this case the explanation in parentheses tells us how the meaning of the idiom arose from its constituent parts, sanga 'branch' and dila 'tongue'; since it is clearly set apart by the parentheses, there is absolutely no harm in it.6 6

In this case, the element of the source language treated by a translational equivalent is an idiom. Indication of truly translational equivalents of idioms (with explanatory glosses, if necessary) is advocated by Pasaeva (1968), Kout ( 1 9 7 3 ) (who distinguishes various possible situations in respect to the availability or otherwise of a translational equivalent), Hessky (1980), and Kromann (1987) (who suggests different ways of treatment according to the type of dictionary, "active" vs. "passive," etc.). By the same token, "translational" treatment of proverbs (i.e., indication of their functional equivalents) is advocated by Malikovä (1953) and by Cervenä and Pokornä (1973); proverbs are treated in this way in many dictionaries: e.g., Liddell and Scott ( 1 9 4 0 ) indicates 'carry coals to Newcastle' as the equivalent of Greek glaük' eis Athenas, liter, 'an owl to Athens'.

243

Bilingual Dictionaries

Even a dictionary whose purpose is not descriptive, let alone analytical, may occasionally offer an etymological or derivational explanation. This is, e.g., the case in the following entry from Smirnitskij and Akhmanova's Russian-English dictionary (1957): 30) Mjasopitst,

Shrovetide (when eating meat is not allowed)

"Shrovetide" is the exact translational equivalent of the Russian entryword. Both Smirnitskij and Akhmanova were disciples of Prof. Scerba, an important theoretician of lexicography and a practical lexicographer, who so strongly advocated the principle of the absolute predominance of the translational equivalent (the so-called translational principle) that he was originally disinclined to admit any explanation whatsoever in his dictionaries. (See on this my Manual of Lexicography 318 ff.) In spite of this and in spite of the fact that the dictionary under discussion has no analytical aims, the parentheses contain an explanation of the morpheme-for-morpheme meaning of the Russian entryword mjaso 'meat', -pust 'fasting'. Again, since the parentheses clearly distinguish the etymological, or derivational, explanation as such, it is admissible if it is done in such clear-cut and informative cases and not in too many entries. The last two examples, (29) and (30), show at the same time that dictionaries of classical and similar languages are not the exclusive domain of etymological or derivational explanation. It is well known that the boundary between (linguistic) explanation as we have discussed it above and encyclopedic information about the things denoted by the respective words is a fuzzy one, and we shall not talk about it in this paper. It is also a well-known fact that in such types of bilingual dictionaries as dictionaries of technical and scientific terms, or exegetic dictionaries dealing with texts produced in a cultural setting different from that of the lexicographer's intended public, some degree of encyclopedic information is necessary. An important subtype of the latter type is the so-called ethnographical dictionary: a dictionary that tries to describe a culture in the entries of the individual relevant words. Such an aim can be usefully combined with an analytical linguistic orientation. We know from (29) that Wolff's Cebuano Visayan-English dictionary has such an analytical aim. The following entries show that it also has ethnographical interests: 31)

bahagbahag,

harmless k.o. long thin jellyfish, semi-transparent, resembling a

snake. Used in sorcery called

sampal

The entry is not encyclopedic in the usual sense of the word, because it does not try to identify the jellyfish by means of a Latin term; instead of this it only approximately localizes it in the (folk) taxonomy by means of the abbreviation k(ind) o(f), first used in English lexicography, to my knowledge, by Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The reference to the following entry allows the reader to pursue the topic of sorcery further, which stresses the ethnographic character of the dictionary even more: 32)

sampal,

k.o. magic charm tied to the branches of fruit trees to prevent the fruit

from being stolen. Stealing the fruit causes the victim to suffer swelling of the stomach and sometimes death.

The ethnographical interest is sometimes so strong that the information offered in an entry

244

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

goes rather far beyond what seems to be its legitimate scope. For instance, Lambrecht's Ifiigaw [i.e., Ifugao]-English dictionary (1978) has the following entry: 33)

hukhukyong, a variety of grass the leaves of which extend widely; should not be

used to cover roofs; the best grass for roofing is called gtilun (q.v.)

The last clause after the semicolon goes beyond the scope of the entry ; a mere cross-reference to giilun would be sufficient even in an ethnographical dictionary. There is a type of dictionary whose way of presenting the meaning of the entryword must be further discussed. Let us take as an example the following entry from the Oxford Latin Dictionary: 34) puella

(1) a female child, girl (b) a daughter (2) a young woman (married or otherwise), girl, maiden (b) (applied to nymphs, goddesses) (3) a young woman as an object of sexual interest (b) (spec.) one's girl, sweetheart (4) a slave-girl

The correctness of the indications the entry comprises is unimpeachable, of course. However, is what we read under (3), "a young woman as an object of sexual interest," really an explanation of a sense of the word puella? One of the best contexts quoted as an example in this section of the entry is taken from Propertius 1.1.5: (Amor) me docuit castas odisse puellas '(Love) taught me to hate chaste girls'. It may be that we learn from this much about Propertius, or the society in which he lived, or at least about the topics of such gallant poetry; but as far as the word puella goes, the only thing that we learn is that it collocates with casta: there is no perceivable semantic effect present here that would deserve a treatment by a separate numbered sense plus explanation. In a similar way, if we take (2b), we see that it has to do with antonomasy, not with any semantic effect: if I refer to the goddess Venus as say, "the divine girl, the source and ruler of love," it is the same antonomasy as if Elizabeth II is referred to as "the present Queen of Great Britain." Clearly, we are much more in the domain of the philosophy of language than in the field of semantics. We shall avoid falling into this snake-pit; may it suffice to repeat that this does not seem to have anything to do with the word puella and its meaning. The reason for presenting the meaning of the entryword in this way seems to consist in the fact that this is a dictionary that is closely attached to the interpretation of Latin texts: it helps the reader to understand them by grouping the attested contexts according to their contents. It is only natural that such text-oriented dictionaries are most frequently found in the field of the classical languages and their so overwhelmingly important texts. However, any dictionary that is closely connected with a corpus of texts can operate on this principle. The already mentioned Ifugaw-English dictionary of Father Lambrecht belongs to this type, because it is strongly based on a body of oral literature called hudhüd: these are "the long romantic stories chanted by women working in the rice fields ... and during funeral wakes." Father Lambrecht (whose description of the term we have just quoted) has the following

245

Bilingual Dictionaries entry in his dictionary: 35) hulbanit,

a queer hudhiid

word-base which conveys the meaning of presenting and

giving a girl in exchange for another girl to a young man who claims that he was legally married with the girl that was kidnapped by his opponent. This opponent, ... Aliguyun, kidnapped little Bugan while the husband, ... Guminigin, brought Bugan to his village. But now Guminigin followed Aliguyun and arrived at his house a few minutes later and insisted that Bugan should be returned to him since she was his wife. Aliguyun refused, but, because Guminigin did not give up: Inhulbam'tnah

Agindyan

udidiyana

...

"he (Aliguyun) gave Aginaya, his younger sister, in exchange (of Bugan to Guminigin without more ado)." Guminigin accepted little Aginaya, put her on his back, and went away saying "she is a beautiful girl anyway."

No doubt the entire way this entry is constructed shows the strong connection with concrete literary passages, because the meaning of this word is treated only in reference to the concrete text where it occurs. The main difference obtaining between this treatment of the text and that which is normal in dictionaries of classical languages consists in the fact that in the latter the text is condensed, only the most relevant context being given, whereas in this dictionary, it is quoted in extenso or at least extensively summarized; this goes well with the ethnographic character of the dictionary. What can the lexicographer do when there is absolutely no equivalent in the target language?7 One of the possibilities is to try to create an equivalent, frequently by borrowing the expression from the source language. An explanation then gives the user an understanding of the meaning. This is the way Smirnitskij and Akhmanova construct the following entry in their Russian-English dictionary: 36)

ässentuki,

essentuki (kind of mineral water)

In this case, they adhere more strictly to the translational principle than they did in [30]: they do not explain that Essentuki is the place close to the Caucasus where this mineral water is found.) However, the lexicographer can offer besides the attempted (i.e., borrowed) translational equivalent, less precise quasi-equivalents accompanying the explanation so that the user gets a better idea of the meaning. The same dictionary also has the following entry: 37) oblomovscina,

oblomovshchina (sluggishness, inertness, apathy, as of Oblomov,

the Goncharov character).

But it is quite legitimate to offer an explanation only, as does, e.g., the Cambridge Italian Dictionary (1962): 38) 7

coteghino,a

kind of boiling sausage

The following discussion does not have the purpose of stating and analyzing all of the means for filling lexical gaps in a language; the focus is on the translational equivalent, its presence, partial presence, absence, etc.

246

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

The fact that this dictionary is built on the translational principle adds importance to the decision of the editor to offer an explanation only and to leave it to the translator to cope with a concrete text. Steiner in his English-French dictionary proceeds in the same way: 39) escallop,

gratiner et cuire au four et ä la crfeme

That the English should have a culinary term for which there is no French equivalent is a mind-boggling discovery, but we cannot but accept it. The absence of an equivalent is frequently connected with differences in culture and in the surrounding world (e.g., [36], [37], [38]),8 but not necessarily so (e.g., [39]). An interesting group of words that frequently have no equivalents in other languages includes onomatopoeias, interjections, functional words, particles and similar lexical units. Two examples from Lambrechts Ifiigaw-English dictionary may suffice: 40) hukhuk, onomatopoeic word used by gamblers when they shuffle the cards liga,

squealing of pigs

Even in such a situation, the lexicographer may try to indicate a possible translation in an example; so, e.g., in Wolff's Cebuano Visayan-English dictionary: 41) aba,exclamation abaa,particle

of pleasure and surprise. Aba! Nakadang ku! "My! I won!"

indicating disapproval (literary). Abaa! Mahii ka gani diha! "Stop that!

You might fall!"

It can be said that if there is the space for it, it would be useful to give an explanation even if there are some equivalents at hand, because the onomatopoeias may vary rather considerably from person to person. Consider the following entry from Georgacas' Modem Greek-English dictionary: 42) apsioti, apsoit (excl.) sound produced when sneezing, kerchoo, (Br.) atishoo There are speakers of English who do not know the English onomatopoeias offered as equivalents, so the explanatory paraphrase "sound produced when sneezing" is highly useful. There is yet another situation in which some explanatory glosses and explanations are necessary. Let us compare the following entries from the English-Pilipino dictionary of the Institute of National Language (1974) in Manila 43) gun, baril gunner,

ganer

with the same entries from the English-Tagalog dictionary (1965) of Father English (the difference between "Tagalog" and "Pilipino" is a merely terminological one here; the reference is to the same language): 44) gun(

8

1) rifle riple, baril

Cultural differences as the main or one of the main sources of this absence were recently discussed by Tomaszczyk (1983) and Schnorr (1986).

247

Bilingual Dictionaries 2) a cannon kanyon gunner, a manganganyon man trained to fire artillery

The latter entry shows that gun is polysemous and that gunner is to be taken as a derivation from one of the senses only. Every speaker of English knows this, but these dictionaries are written for Filipinos, who may not. A similar point can be made in connection with the following entry from English's dictionary: 45) junket(

1) a pleasure trip pagliliwaliw 2) a pleasure trip to another country at the expense of the government pagliliwaliw sa ibang lansa sa gugol ng bay an, diyangket

In Filipino English, the word is not used in the sense of 'candy' or 'outing, banquet', so the explanations in both languages are useful. Notice the strong narrowing of meaning of the borrowing from English, diyangket (< junket). One more remark in this connection. Another entry in the English-Tagalog dictionary of Father English has the following form: 46) destroy, to ruin sumirä, sirain; puminsalä, pinsalain. NOTE: sumirä and puminsalä are, however, somewhat weak, because they may also mean simply "to damage" ...

One could wonder what the purpose of the "note" in this entry is, the more so since both sumirä and puminsalä are given elsewhere as equivalents of "damage." The reason for this is that in Filipino English, the verb "to destroy" is to my knowledge nearly always used in the meaning "to damage." A sentence like My plane was destroyed during the landing at Guam, so we had to wait there several

hours before it got repaired

is perfectly normal in

Filipino English. It is an important thing to recognize that there are several varieties of English used in various parts of the world. A dictionary prepared for speakers of one of them should take cognizance of the differences obtaining between it and the standard British and American varieties, and supply the user with the necessary information. The form in which this information is conveyed may, however, be less discursive than the note in this entry. One last remark on explanations. When we compare the following entry in the English-Pilipino dictionary of the Institute of National Language (1974) 47)

haberdasher,

negosyante ng mga kasuutang panlalaki

with its counterpart in the English-Tagalog dictionary of Father English 48)

haberdasher,

dealer in men's wear negosyante ng mga kasuutang panlalaki

we see that some waste of space is entailed, particularly in a case like this, where the English explanation says the same thing as the Tagalog one. Let us now turn back to the translational equivalent. When mere glossaries developed

248

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

into real dictionaries, the extensive use of the translational equivalent had its typical consequences. One of them is the tendency to indicate many equivalents as if they were synonymous, accompanied by the tendency to give as many collocations as possible, with yet other translations. This is well shown by the venerable French-Latin dictionary of Robert Estienne, or Robertus Stephanus, of 1539: It is natural that a dictionary that has the purpose of helping the user to write in good Latin offers him as many equivalents as possible. However, when we read the equivalents of the adverb abondamment, we cannot fail to see that while expressions like plena manu 'with a generous hand' or sine parsimonia 'without parsimony' can be successfully used in suitable contexts to convey the idea of abundance, they are not real equivalents of the French adverb. In the same way, (h)ubertas mammarum 'wealth of the breasts' provides a spectacular translation of abondance de lait 'abundance of milk', but unduly restricts its meaning. Similarly, luxuria foliorum has overtones that grand abondance de feuilles does not have: for the Latin expression to be applicable, the great quantity of the leaves must result in a pleasant impression, or a pleasant environment, whereas the French expression is not sensitive to that — I can use it when my backyard is full of fallen leaves with which I do not know what to do. And only someone who already knows both French and Latin will recognize that abondance de droit and copia causa: both refer to the strength of one's title to something. In short, this is a dictionary for a user who already knows much but wishes to improve his Latin style — a reasonable purpose for a dictionary published at that time and in that sociolinguistic and cultural situation, but not one to be imitated by everybody.

249

Bilingual Dictionaries

A Β

Abomination. Moire» abomination, Abominari.

Abonder.AborJant.Abondance. Abondamment. ibonder de tornt pars, Prefcatere. Qui abtsnde en qmlqite chofe,DapfiUs. Abondant,Affluent,Hubcr,Hubettur,Piofufas. Abondante nottrritnrt, A limentum largurn. Womme abondant £T ficAc,Copiofus. Tort abondant, Ρ ercopioibt. A bondant en fttlfte chofe, Affluent Εfireabondant,nxhubeuie. O'abonda»t,Ei fuperabundanri. A bmcknce, Abundantia, Affiuentia, Feraci'taj.Fertilitas.Hu bertas.Proflucntia. Abondancc de quelle chofe que ce[oit, Copia. Grande abondance detowerdw/ei,Cornucopfe. Abondance de droiü,Copi& caufae. Abondance de latÜ,Hubertas mammarum. Grande abondance defueilter,Luxuria foliorum. Τrop grande abondance, Nimietas,Supcrfluitas. Grande abondance de parollet,o»de Ungate,Tonis verbo runi.Flumen vcrborum.Magnifiecmia verborum. CAmir abondance V foijon de q*elq»c chofe que ce (oit Abundare.Afilucre. QHI ha abondance de goire, Gloria circunfluenj. Q«; ha grande abondance de jeamr, Homo abundant! doärina. Ca herbes fontauoir abondance de art. Ha: hethx ccras eihubcrant, Bailter,on tetter flews en abondance,Fundcrc florcs. Porter fntiBz tn graue? dmimee,Exhubcurc pomit. Roigner la trop grade abondance de noflre parier parl'exercitation d'efcrtre,%Vjlo dcpafccrcluxuriam orationis. Cceß arbre rompt de trop grande abondance de fmCli, Immodicis fructibus rumpitur arbor. Εη abondance, Plena manu. ΐη grade abondace,Op\ileter,PtoMe, Maxima iargitate. Selon I'aboncUnce de poiffonqne ie uoiray ψt'dyattra, i'acheteray,Excopii pifcariaeonfulerclieebitquodemi. Vtrfcne n'en dine en plus grade abodace,Dat nemo largius foit qn'il n'ait ahndance,Ethm ii no abundc potitur. Abondamment, Abondantcr, Affluent«,Benigne, Copiofe, Cumulate,Kitufe.Facundc, Large,Liberaliter.Munitke,Opimi,Opiparc, Profluenter, Plena manu,Smc parfimonia. Vbts abondamment cxpj/e^Huberkis «plicata. Pbtrabondamment loner,Lau teamed, betaufe it is one oftb'ends of Frame. Bonne fin. fairc bonne fin. To tbmi, cbetut, in· (ttaft, or proper mil\ Excerpt 17: Entry Fin in A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues

We see that on the one hand, many equivalents or purported equivalents are offered, without a discrimination of their meaning. However, the juridical term fins de non proceder is treated by an explanation, and a strongly encyclopedic one at that. This is because the dictionary is intended for an English speaker who wishes to understand French. One of the greatest dangers of the translational equivalent consists in the possibility or even necessity of using many different expressions of the target language to get a really smooth translation in different contexts. That the number of equivalents increases with the number of contexts can be easily proved. The Greek Thesaurus of H. Stephanus of 1572 contains the following entry: 51)

koiiphismalevamen, Ex Euripide in

sublevamentum, allevamentum. Phoenissis

Its counterpart in the edition of 1865 goes: 52)

koiiphisma

levamen, sublevamentum, allevamentum.

Ex Euripide Phoen. 855. s o l a t i u m , Plut. Mor.

H. Stephanus knew one passage in which the Greek word occurred, the one in the tragedy by Euripides; he offered three equivalents to describe its meaning, all of them very close synonyms. The editors of the later edition found another context in Plutarch's Moralia and

251

Bilingual Dictionaries

added a new equivalent, solatium, to translate it. The three original equivalents levamen, sublevamentum, allevamentum, all have roughly the meaning 'alleviation'; solatium is 'consolation'. Liddell and Scott (1940) were able to contract the entry into the form: 53) koüphisma

lightening, alleviation, relief

'Alleviation' and 'relief go very well together. The first equivalent, 'lightening', seems to be inspired by the derivation of the entry word, because Greek koüphos means 'light'. In general terms, examples (34) (particularly the points concerning senses [2b] and [3(a)]), and (51) - (53) have shown that the number of equivalents is in direct proportion to the number of foreign language contexts and collocations translated and analyzed. Examples (49) and (50) are not so directly built on quoted source-language contexts; what they show, however, is that the number of equivalents increases in direct proportion to the number of registers and the variety of possible, potential texts to be created in the future by the user of the dictionary in as smooth a form as possible. All of these examples were quoted from old dictionaries or from dictionaries of ancient languages. However, the same phenomenon can be observed in modern dictionaries. Sometimes it results in a certain plethora of indications. The translational principle can result in entries like the following one, quoted from Saagpakk's Estonian-English dictionary (1982): 54)

tüdruk

1. girl; ( p o e e t . ) maid(en), (P.-Ingl.) lass, (Iir.) colleen; damsel; (Am. si.)

babe, skirt, chick; (elava loomuga, noor) filly(5/.); 2. ( t e e n i j a - ) maid (servant), domestic (servant); ... ~ -skaut of tüdruk);

girl guide, (Am.) girl scout; campfire girl (Am.)\ ~

girlie, little girl; lassie, (Am.fam.)

-uke(ne)(dim.

sissy

This dictionary has two stated "main objects: first, to enable Estonians to find the British and American words and idioms most closely corresponding to those in Estonian; and second, to provide ... a means of learning Estonian thoroughly" (xiii). For either of these purposes, the display of all these expressions taken from different slangs is hardly the best means. However, if the editor of the dictionary exercises reasonable constraint, the translational principle can yield useful results. Let us compare the corresponding entry in the English-Italian volume of the Cambridge Italian Dictionary (1981): 55) girln.

ragazza, fanciulla, giovinetta, giovane donna·,little —, bambina, ragazzina;

Girl Guide, Giovane Esploratrice / . ; (fam.) old —, vecchia mia; pin-up copertina; pick-up

—, ragazza da

—, peripatetica; call —, ragazza squillo; —friend, arnica, fidanzata,

(pop.) ragazza; (daughter) figlia; my eldest —, mia figlia maggiore. girl-child

n. bambina, femmina; figlia

The only problematic indication here 9 is giovane donna, which has the literal meaning of something like 'young woman/lady' (it is a shade less polite than 'lady', a shade more so than 'woman'). It is arguable whether this is not a question of a certain style that is customary in a language. It may be that a speaker of Italian will frequently tend to refer to a

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

252

giovane donna when the speaker of English simply refers to a girl — at least before the arrival of political correctness. The situation is absolutely clear in Austrian German, where junge Dame 'young lady' is very frequently used, with its polite meaning, in such contexts. 10 However it may be, there is no doubt that an entry like this supposes at least a degree of knowledge of Italian: without it, the user could not find out that arnica can be a woman's girl friend, whereas fidanzata cannot, and that fidanzata (lit., 'fiancee') is a more serious thing than a mere ragazza. There are specific linguistic or cultural situations in which an amassing of many equivalents can be defended. We shall quote as an example the entry for muchacho 'boy' from Alberti's Spanish-Catalan dictionary (1961): 56)

muchacho

nen, nin, vailet, noi, marrec, xic, brivall,brivant, menut, pärvul, ninoi,

allot, criatura; noi, minyo, allot, xic, xicot, xaval, gojat, bordegäs, galifardeu, bergant, bergantell

There is no need to analyze the differences obtaining between all these Catalan words and their literal meanings, etc. It is at first glance clear that such an accumulation of undiscriminated words of the target language would not be admissible under normal conditions, even when we take into consideration that the dictionary is intended for a Catalan user. The real point is that the use of Catalan as a standard literary language had been discouraged for many years before the publication of the dictionary. Speakers of languages that have not been used in some situational and social contexts sometimes have difficulty in selecting the words appropriate to some such registers once the ban on the language, or whatever the obstacle was, is lifted. Since there was no modern Catalan dictionary of synonyms at the time of the publication of Alberti's dictionary, there is some justification for the indication of such a huge number of equivalents. However, an at least partial discrimination and labelling as to style, register, etc. would be even more useful. The advantage of a translational equivalent is, as we have already stated, that it yields a smooth, truly good translation. However, if such a translational equivalent has no explanatory power itself, its value is limited to the context or collocation(s) for which it applies. Also, the search for a really natural-sounding translation in the target language can result in a movement away from the central meaning of the entry word. To show this, we shall discuss a few entries from the English-Russian dictionary (1982) of E.A.M. Wilson. The purpose of this dictionary is to provide for an English speaker the vocabulary he might want to use 9

The lapsus calami in ragazza da copertina (= 'cover girl' not 'pin-up girl') has nothing to do with problems of translational (or any other) equivalence and is immaterial to the present discussion.

10

This type of equivalence is defended, or even suggested, by some lexicographers. For instance, Poldauf (1973) maintains that since there is a proclivity to understatement in English style, a translational Czech-English dictionary should give as equivalents to Czech dobry not only the closest and fully translational 'good', but also 'not bad'. It will require some special enquiry to determine what consequences a broad application of this principle would have. N o doubt there are languages where a similar treatment is necessary; so, e.g., many of the languages of East Asia with many expressions completely synonymous, with the exception of the honorific connotations, and similar phenomena.

253

Bilingual Dictionaries

in speaking or writing Russian (p. 9). As the author is a lexicographic disciple of O. S. Akhmanova, she continues the line of Scerba's doctrine. True to the expectation, her dictionary is fully based on the translational principle. It is the practice of perhaps all dictionaries based on the translational principle (and of many other dictionaries as well) that an entry word for which there is no good equivalent that would cover many possible contexts is followed by a colon. The meaning of the colon is this: what follows is a mere exemplification of the entryword's use(s), with translation(s); a generalization is impossible or too complicated. Accordingly, we read in Wilson's dictionary, e.g., the following entry: 57) admittedly,

admittedly

it's not easy priznat'sja, eto nelegko

The literal meaning of the Russian translation is 'to confess' (i.e., 'to tell the truth'), 'this is not easy'. There is no doubt that the choice of this example is an adroit one, because this use of admittedly is most frequent. The translational equivalent offered here has, then, the advantage of being statistically central, so to speak: there will be many English contexts directly parallel to this example. The translational principle has the advantage of forcing the lexicographer to check whether an equivalent is needed at all. Let us compare the following entry from Wilson's dictionary: 58) socket {of eye) glaznaja vpadina, electricity

(wallsocket)

rozetka, (for bulb) patron;

he wrenched my arm almost out of its socket, on cut' ne vyvikhnul mne ruku

There is no equivalent of socket in the Russian translation of the sentence, only "he almost wrenched my arm out" (vy- = 'out'): this is idiomatic Russian. Good as all these (and other) translations are, there are still some points in the dictionary under discussion that deserve scrutiny. For example: 59) shaky: ...my Russian is shaky j a podzabyl russkij

The literal meaning of the Russian translation is "I have somewhat forgotten Russian." However, my Russian can be shaky not because I have forgotten it but because I have never learned it well enough. So the excellent smoothness of the translation is its weakness as well, because it is too narrow. We have already seen in (49) that the chain of translational equivalents can get too far away from the entryword. Compare in Wilson's dictionary the following entry: 60) upheaval:

social/political

upheavals

social'nyje/politiceskije sdvigi; I don't want

to move again - it's such an upheaval, ja ne khocu bol'se pereezzat', eto ocen' tjazelo

The literal meaning of the Russian translation of the example is Ί don't want to move again; it is very difficult'. In the same way, we read in the same dictionary:

254

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary 61) girl...

he has a new girl every week u nego kazduju nedelju novaja simpatija/novoe

uvlecenie

The literal meaning of the Russian translation is 'He has every week a new "sympathy"/ a new enchantment' (or 'love'). Both (60) and (61) are excellent Russian; but they are examples of Russian colloquial sentences, or advice on how to use Russian as it is really spoken, rather than examples of equivalents of the entry words. No one will fail to perceive that all this is connected with the problem of the functional equivalence of a translation. A translation should convey to its reader the same message with the same esthetic and other values that are conveyed by the original. Since languages differ in all imaginable respects, the translator must sometimes use means quite different from those used in the original in order to obtain the same results. If the different means do produce the same effect, the texts are functionally equivalent. The experience of, e.g., Bible translators abounds with cases of this type, but to discuss them here would lead us too far afield. To return to the simple example above, (55): if the cultural situation in which Austrian German is spoken brings the speaker to refer to a junge Dame 'young lady' in some contexts in which an English speaker would refer to a girl, are these two expressions equivalent? Functionally, yes; in respect to lexical semantics, hardly. How far a dictionary will go on the scale of increasing functional and decreasing semantic equivalence depends on its purpose. Estienne and Wilson attach high value to the good style of the texts produced in the target language; therefore they go rather far in this direction. This is not meant as an undue criticism of Wilson's dictionary, which for its purpose is admirable. (After the present paper had been delivered, I had occasion to learn from the author that she planned it as a learner's dictionary and that only the publisher's veto prevented this from being mentioned in the title.) This discussion only aims at showing that the translational principle can cause the translations to be equivalent to the original functionally, by their performance as wholes, but not necessarily insofar as their individual components are concerned. Ultimately, one can easily imagine that in the same way as Latin dictionaries that offer help in writing in good Latin style developed into manuals such as Krebs's [1771-1850] (1886) Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache (basically a collection of useful phrases excerpted from impeccably good classical authors alphabetically, arranged and richly glossed as to synonymy, style level, etc.), strongly translational dictionaries of modern languages, particularly those with the purpose of helping in the acquisition of the ability to speak the foreign language fluently, could come very close to the conversation manuals that offer ready-made expressions and sentences in the foreign language as wholesale equivalents of the original expressions and sentences of the source language. There is no doubt that the translational principle has its limitations, of which the lexicographer should be aware; one of the greatest of these is that a dictionary based on it can be used practically for two purposes only: either to translate texts into one's mother tongue, or to produce texts in a foreign language of which one already has quite a good knowledge. Sometimes one wonders whether a less strict application of the translational principle would'not enhance the dictionary's usefulness even within the limits of the individual

255

Bilingual Dictionaries

purpose for which it is constructed. In order to exemplify this, we must analyze a rather complicated entry from the same dictionary by E.A.M. Wilson. It is the entry for the transitive verb fray, about which the reader is correctly informed that it is usually used in the past participle. The entry word is followed by a colon, and all the examples contain the form frayed: 62)

frayed

cuffs obtrepannye/potertye manzety; a frayed

collar/rope

end potertyj

vorotnik, razlokhmacennyj konec kanata; the carpet is badly frayed kover ves' vytersja; (fig.) my nerves are frayed u menja nervy istrepalis1

Since the entryword is followed by a colon, the user is not offered any real equivalent to be freely used in various contexts, but only these concrete examples of collocations, and only the correctness of these is guaranteed. However, in this case it was not possible to find what we called a statistically central translational equivalent in (57): five English collocations need five different Russian translations. The problem that arises here is that if the user tries to translate any other English collocation, he will run only a 1:5 chance of guessing correctly which Russian translation to use. Therefore, would it not be useful if he were offered not only these excellent, absolutely colloquial translations, but also a Russian explanation of what frayed at least roughly means, say, 'damaged by wear and tear', which he could use in absence of a better, smoother Russian expression to make himself at least understood? Palpably, this reflection brings us to the point where we started: there is a tension between the translational equivalent of the entryword and the explanation of its meaning. This purpose, the explanation of the meaning, can be achieved by various means. Explanatory paraphrases and equivalents with high explanatory power have already been discussed above. Let us now compare the treatment of the same entryword in four different dictionaries. In Collins' German-English dictionary (1981) we find: 63)

Pumpernickel

pumpernickel

Wildhagen and Heraucourt's German-English dictionary (1965) has: 64)

Pumpernickel Westphalian rye bread

Langenscheidt's German-English dictionary (1962) offers: 65)

Pumpernickel

The Oxford-Harrap 66)

gastr. pumpernickel, Westphalian rye bread

Standard German-English Dictionary (1977) has:

Pumpernickel

comest. (bread) pumpernickel

Collins gives a purely translational equivalent, with no explanatory material added. Wildhagen and Heraucourt offer no equivalent, only an explanation. Langenscheidt labels the register, offers a translational equivalent, but adds the explanation. Oxford-Harrap seems to offer only the equivalent, but in reality the register label and the semantic gloss "(bread)" supply the reader with a part of the explanatory information. Thus, the same purpose is, at least partly, achieved by other means.

256

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary

The additional information necessary for the user's orientation can be supplied by an explanatory addition to the equivalent. This can be illustrated by the following entry from Wolff's Cebuano Visayan-English dictionary: 67)

pyait squeal to the authorities, betray a secret about a crime

The simplest translational equivalent here would be just squeal; betray a secret can perhaps also be considered a translational equivalent. To the authorities and about a crime are explanatory additions, although they are not marked as such: the lexicographer expects — not without justification — that the user will recognize the difference. A particularly propitious situation obtains in cases where the lexicographer finds an equivalent that is translational but has explanatory power as well. This is the case in the following entry from Steiner's English-French dictionary: 68) Dutch treat: to have a Dutch treat (coll.) faire suisse, payer son ecot

The equivalent faire suisse is merely translational, but payer son ecot, while fully insertible and therefore translational as well, is at the same time explanatory. A subtype of this situation can be exemplified by another entry from the same dictionary: 69) dunceäne, cancre

In this case, no explanation is needed and both the equivalents are fully translational. But they support each other, because the polysemy of the first is eliminated by the monosemy of the latter. This is probably the most favorable situation in which bilingual lexicographers can find themselves: having the possibility of constructing entries in such a way that the concatenation of equivalents both serves the translational principle and has sufficient explanatory power. But the application of several methods will do no harm, if space is available. Consider the beginning of the following entry from Smirnitskij and Akhmanova's Russian-English dictionary: 70) duskacoU.

(prijatnyj celovek) dear, love, duck ...nice fellow; ... nice woman/girl

The first three equivalents offered are purely translational and have no explanatory power; however, the two equivalents nice fellow and nice woman/girl are not only fully insertible, but also have so strong an explanatory power that the entry is sufficiently clear. It is interesting to notice that even such adherents of the translational principle as the authors of this dictionary found it necessary to add in parentheses the Russian explanatory gloss, which means "a pleasant person." I think that given the availability of sufficient space, the gloss is useful, particularly in the case of a colloquial entryword with a transparent derivation, or morphemic structure, which in this case suggests something like "little" or "dear soul." Let us wind up our discussion. A dictionary constructed on the pure translational principle, e.g., the Cambridge Italian Dictionary (1981), will have in its English-Italian part entries like:

257

Bilingual Dictionaries 71) batterbattere;

percuotere; colpire ripetutamente; malmenare; maltrattare; frantumare;

sformare, rovinare, disfare, guastare, sciupare, demolire; ammaccare; (mil.) battere; battere in breccia, atterare

Clearly, this is best suited to a user who has some knowledge of Italian (or who has it as his mother tongue), who is trying to understand English texts, because the polysemy of the English entry word will be disambiguated by the contexts in which the user finds it, and he will sufficiently know the Italian equivalents. I have no doubt as to the usefulness of such entries, because for years I used an English-Czech dictionary of this type for the same purpose. However, I cannot imagine that an Anglophone would use this type of dictionary in order to produce Italian texts. By the same token, an entry from the Italian-English part of the same dictionary, such as the following, will be most useful to English speakers in their comprehension of Italian: 72)

coscienza

consciousness, awareness, conscience; direttore c. di spiritual director,

confessor; uomo di c. conscientious man; caso di c. case of conscience

It is perhaps less suitable as an aid to Italians in the production of English texts, because there is no indication as to which of the three translational equivalents belongs to which sense in the multiple meaning of the Italian word, and the collocations do not fully disambiguate this, either: there is no collocation that would illustrate the equivalent awareness. A translational dictionary constructed for the production of texts in a foreign language, as exemplified above by Estienne and Wilson, can achieve much by the excellence of its translations insofar as the exemplifying collocations are well selected; but it tends to restrict its applicability to only the data indicated in it. Let us compare a larger entry from a translational dictionary with the same entry in a more explanatory one. The Italian-English part of the Cambridge Italian Dictionary (1962) will serve as the example of a translational dictionary:

258

Translational Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary 73)

spi-rit-o m. breath of life; spirit; ghost; mind; soul; wit; uomo di—, witty man; courage; temper; boldness; prontezza di —, ready wit; presenza di—, presence of mind; — depresso, low spirits; humour; head, leader, inspiration; egli fu lo — della rivolta, he was the leading spirit of the rebellion; — d'osservazione, power of observation; (theol.) — santo, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost; lo — di Dio, the Spirit of God; spirituality; darsi alio —, to devote oneself to spiritual things; filosofia dello —, mental philosophy; nutrire lo — con buone letture, to nourish (improve) one's mind by good reading; uomo povero di —, humble, (pop.) stupid; opinion, feeling; — di corpo, esprit de corps, corporate feeling, loyalty; — di parte, party spirit; lo — pubblico, public spirit; alcohol; una tassa sugli -i, a tax on spirits; lampade a —, spirit lamp; — di legno, methyl alcohol; — denaturato, methylated spirits; (Gk. gramm.) breathing; t(naut.) — della corrente, strongest part of the current, -ale adj. spiritual; holy, divine; inspired; soulful, -are [Ais] intr. (eaaynae

aei «nam ιβ-ΐοΒβκ (b cjiucjie: «sioä My;n») y uac «auip

JI ae r

δ ae c τ i e ο i η ae,

ae μ a

cί ηΧi

CTpaHM» Ii yKpauienne KBapxajia; unser Mann ist bei uns «das Fett des Landes» und die Zierde des Dorfviertels». *ßsecTVxai, ,u *6aecxixai. caxapv

pl. °jaei^rae s. 'AOM, 3/jaiiBe, nocxpoMita; Haus, Gebäude' Bipae

paecy^A

öaecxvxaeiATae

ic

,/IeniHr

«jinoro upaenBux uocTpoes Β «fleHHHipaAe; es gibt viele

schöne Gebäude in Leningrad». BaecTvxIii,ay

s.

'*Η318.ΙΒΗΠΚ

oö-iacxn, *rocyAapt; Herrscher;

ήγεμών'

Λ. *6aecTixenay. Β EC τ 6 a Η, *ό 9s τ Μ a Η A. S. ' c a n e ™ ,

*Kop3Hirea Η3 n p y n e n , y.ieä;

*Reisholzkorb, Bienenkorb, * — stock' cp. up. qvpgaea. Β sex,

pl. 0,rae s. 'jioinaAt, KOHI,; Pferd, Ross' Α. id. GR. 41. r . M. ST.

*X ο ρ 3 ö a e x v j i aeBeaep ö a p a e r Η ae φ i A a y r «xopouiefi jiouiajtHHe W i ω ο χ ο ϋ BcaAUBK; einem guten Pferd passt kein schlechter Reiter». * ® p 6 a — y H '(ueoiKiiAaiiHo) CTatt .ioiuaAE>io (o JKepeöeune); (plötzlich) zum Pferde werden (v. Füllen)'. Biexar

adj. 'AO-meHCTByiomuii c x a i t xopouieio jioinaAMo; + ( e i n Füllen),

das ein gutes Ross werden s o l l ' a. id. * B as χ ae μ 6 ae ρ 3 ao η s. 'nonoHa; Pferdedecke'. *B8exseMiiypcT

χ. CM. up. *0aexörpcx.

* E se χ ae ρ ä y 3 se r s. 'xojiocTiiTe.it JomaAeii; Pferdeausleger'. Β ae χ ae pA

y 3 ae r ö a i p a e r T a e y a j i A 3 a e A i K v ö a p A v c x a ae Excerpt 28: Entry in

Miller

Μ

ae

CTJI

-laeö-

292

Scholarly German Bilingual Lexicography in Imperial Russia

The somewhat unnatural sequence of equivalents in this entry is rather strange. It is quite possible that the entryword bästysoj is not a real lexical unit: soj is 'fat, grease;' (in modern contexts) 'lubrication'; bästy is the genitive of bästä 'land, country, earth'. The asterisks in the entry mark the information added by Freiman: his * 'des Landes Fett' is clearly the original (free, nonlexicalized) meaning of the collocation bästy soj; however, his informants must have known the collocation in the metaphorical meaning of 'outstanding man', which would then suggest that the collocation was lexicalized (and should therefore be spelled as one word). However, one cannot be sure that this metaphorical meaning was not just the idiosyncrasy of an isolated context. Excerpt 28 shows a simple entry without any particular polysemy. Still, the number of the added equivalents (those with asterisks) shows that Freiman's informants were familiar with the word in many contexts that required different translations, only some of which were exemplified. The lack of distinction between the typical free collocations and the ones lexicalized with transferred meanings permeates the whole dictionary. The sequence in the entry sau 'black' (II, 1043) exemplifies this: pi. sautä 'mourning', sautä isyn 'to stop wearing mourning garments', sauxox 'black mountain', sau bon 'black, unlucky day', saw barädzy dzuar 'the divinity protecting nocturnal theft', sau dur 'black stone, whetstone', sau k'oppa 'black head, a plant', sau läppu 'black boy; nimble, bold boy', etc. It is impossible to determine, for instance, whether 'black stone' or 'black boy' is merely the indication of the 'etymological' meaning of the collocations (as is 'black' in sau bon), or whether it is possible to refer in this way to any black stone or any boy with a black complexion. As frequently happens with dictionaries, the density of the vocabulary indicated increases as the work progresses. This can be easily shown: in III, 1318 there is an entry concerning the Digor expression *Uoinoni calx (a mythological being in the form of a flying wheel that was capable of killing any hero; literally, 'St. John's wheel'), the Iron form of which is said to be *Balsädzy calx; however, there is no such entry under the letter Β (that is, in volume I). The Iron expression was inserted into the entry of calx 'wheel' (III, 1627): in the Cyrillic alphabet, the letter that we transcribe as c (the dental affricate) is one of the last ones in the sequence. The asterisks accompanying the expressions reveal that in both cases, the expression was added by Freiman. Freiman was quite open-minded in his additions. For instance, in the entry for ämbälägkag (1,117 f.) the asterisks mark the additions (only the German version is here reproduced): 'so sagt man zum Jäger, *Dieb, *Räuber, welcher ein Stück Wild erlegt hat *(oder Beute gestohlen, geraubt hat) ...' etc. This is a useful amplification by Freiman, because up until quite recently, goods acquired through theft — unless committed within one's clan — were considered quite legitimate booty; and even in our days, the Ossetes are fond and quite proud of this part of their heritage. (Quid si prisca redit Venus, one is tempted to say). There are occasional observations on restricted language; e.g., the interjection ällo is said to be used mostly by women (I, 114); gino is said to be a cat, but only in children's speech (1,395). Object language (metalanguage) within a quotation is sometimes adroitly employed; e.g., in the entry for xuinyn 'to be called, to have the name' (III, 1599), there are quotations

Bilingual Dictionaries

293

informing the reader that from the sixth month up to the twelfth month of its life, a lamb is called dalys. Instances of such onomasiological excursus are not infrequent. Of interest for our topic is the observation that in this dictionary, German is the language that has simply been added and occasionally not handled well. It is not so much a matter of slips, such as 'meine klägliche Tage' (1, 15), which may be misprints, but that in some cases, the information provided in Russian is superior to that given in German. Thus, for instance, in the entry for asadän känyn (1,49), which is translated as 'dnevat' in Russian, 'den Tag zubringen' in German, there is a context bälccädtä bonasadän känync, which is translated into German as 'die Reisenden bringen den Tag zu', an equivalent which is not incorrect yet misses the point, captured more accurately by the Russian translation (rendered here in English): 'the travelers take a day's rest'. Another type of discrepancy consists of cases where the German information is correct but incomplete; e.g., Dig. azmodun is translated in German as 'durchsuchen, tasten', whereas the Russian translation (here rendered in English) adds the sense of 'to work leisurely'. On the other hand, the German translation of the collocation ak'ybar-k'ybur känyn (1, 25) 'mit den Zähnen knirschen' is too broad: the Russian translation (here rendered in English) adds a gloss on the semantic range, 'while eating'. Occasionally, the German equivalent is not well selected; e.g., Dig. alläjag and Ir. allyjag (I, 29) are translated 'beschimpft', whereas the Russian version more correctly gives (in translation) 'dishonored, discredited'. Corrupted passages such as the translation of aizär känyn 'die Zeit bis zum Abend werden vertreiben', lead to the assumption that the weaknesses of the German component came about during the final editing of the text. On the other hand, there are entries such as that for caldär (III, 1627), where the only given German equivalent bears the asterisk ('*einige'), leaving the impression that Miller's draft lacked any German equivalent for the given item. In spite of an occasional imperfection in the German, every scholar outside of Russia was thankful that Miller carried on the tradition of German scholarly lexicography and that the Academy was able to publish his dictionary in that form, even under the new political circumstances. Miller's dictionary had been the main source in its field up until the publication of Abaev (1958-1989). Abaev's dictionary contains nearly all the information offered by Miller, and in addition to that, it is explicitly historical (in the sense of Ernout [1879-1973]/ Meillet [1866-1936] 1932) and etymological; undoubtedly it is a better dictionary in every respect, but its translations and discussions are in Russian only.

5.5.4. Quasi-bilingual Dictionaries The three dictionaries (if we count PW and pw as one) belong to a type of lexicography that I sometimes term quasi-bilingual. What is the difference between a quasi-bilingual and (general, 'normal') bilingual dictionary? The primary purpose of a bilingual dictionary is: 1. to facilitate the transformation of a text (whether existing actually or virtually, i.e., if only partly present in the user's mind) couched in the source language, into a text in

294

Scholarly German Bilingual Lexicography in Imperial Russia

the target language; or 2. to help in the creation of a text by supplying lexical material of the target language; or 3. to facilitate the understanding of a text in the source language for the speaker of the target language; or 4. simply to offer target-language equivalents for source-language lexical units, for whatever purpose. The pair of languages comprised in a bilingual dictionary is selected for some purpose and the dictionary is constructed toward that purpose: I choose an English and French dictionary when I wish to work with those two languages; if I wished to work with Spanish and English, I certainly would not choose a French and English dictionary, but a Spanish and English one. This seems to be a paramount banality until one realizes that should one wish to work with Greek and face the possible selection of a Greek-English (Liddel/Scott/Jones 1940), Greek-German (Pape-Sengebusch 1880; Snell 1955), or Greek-Spanish (Adrados et. al. 1980) dictionary, one does not really care what the target language is (as long as one understands it), but rather in which of the available dictionaries Greek is best described; and indeed, ultimately one may use all of them, so as to get as complete a description as possible. This is, then, the main defining feature of quasi-bilingual dictionaries: they have a purpose similar to that of monolingual dictionaries of well-developed languages; they are bilingual because it would be impossible or unhelpful to describe the lexical units in the same language - say Sanskrit items in Sanskrit, in one case, and Ossetic items in Ossetic, in the other; the choice of target language is governed by external factors, so that, for instance, Hittite lexicographers in Munich (Friedrich/Kammenhuber 1975 et seqq.) compile a Hittite-German dictionary, while Hittite lexicographers in Chicago (Güterbock/Hoffner 1980 et seqq.), while largely of German origin themselves, compile a Hittite-English one, and all Hittitologists, naturally, use both such dictionaries. One of the outstanding features of quasi-bilingual dictionaries, one that is the conditio sine qua non of their success, is that they must be much more explanatory than most bilingual dictionaries are. Böhtlingk cannot have an entry such as gaganapusya 'Unding' (which would be perfectly legitimate in a normal bilingual dictionary of the practical type): he does, however, write gaganapusya 'eine Blume im Luftraum, s(o) v(iel) a(ls) ein Unding' (PIVII, 627). Radioff and Miller follow this pattern: we have repeatedly noted the presence, or indications, of what may be called 'derivational' or 'etymological' meaning in the entry; such information is necessary for bringing the learned reader - there are no other users of such dictionaries - to a better understanding of the language under study. A high degree of translational smoothness of the equivalents offered certainly adds to the quality of the dictionary, but only if it is not achieved at the price of the explanatory power of the overall entry. This is also the reason why trilingual dictionaries are possible in this category: the two target languages can be compartmentalized, so that the result is tantamount to there being two quasi-bilingual dictionaries collapsed into one text. Each of the three dictionaries here discussed is an outstanding example of the type of quasi-bilingual lexicography. Böhtlingk's, as a dictionary based exclusively on texts couched in a practically dead language; RadlofPs, as a comparative dictionary of several very close

Bilingual Dictionaries

295

languages, living and dead, most of them without written literature or codified norm; and Miller's, as a dictionary of a language as yet unable to produce a monolingual dictionary, but with incipient artistic literature and aspiring to a codified norm of a literary language. Since dictionaries can pursue more than one purpose, Miller's dictionary combines the purpose of a scholarly description of Ossetic with the purpose of fostering the native language and its usage; Freiman's editorial policies undoubtedly strengthened this component of the dictionary. Taken as a group, these three dictionaries illustrate the strength of the German presence in Russian scholarly life in the second half of the 20th century and its later gradual weakening. They also testify to the ability of the old (pre-1917) regime to act quite expeditiously, and in a sense, quite liberally, when it was deemed useful to win the cooperation of a scholar. There is good reason to believe that given the propitious circumstances, and assuming their felicitous further expansion, one can expect a favorable situation for such cultural contacts to redevelop; a discussion of such possibilities and some necessary future efforts is offered by Wiegand (forthcoming).

5.5.5. Lexicography's Stability In concluding these observations, let me touch on one further topic. Towards the end of his obituary for Böhtlingk, Berthold Delbrück (1904, 258) deliberates on the attitude future generations of scholars may have toward the deceased scholar, or the appreciation they may have for him. Delbrück quite clearly allows the reader to understand (in the subtlest possible words and only obliquely) that a man of Böhtlingk's abilities could perhaps have applied his genius to worthier problems than the compiling of a dictionary. We read there: Das Eigentümliche an einem Wörterbuche ist ja, daß eine Fülle einzelner Probleme vorliegt, welche nicht durch ein natürliches Band verbunden sind, sondern in der zufälligen Reihenfolge des Alphabets zur Erscheinung kommen. Es ist natürlich, daß jemand, der dreißig Jahre einem Wörterbuch widmet, seinen Sinn vor allem auf das einzelne Erkennbare richtet... In English: The specific property of dictionaries is that they entail a plethora of individual problems which are not connected by a natural bond, but only by the arbitrary sequence of the alphabet. It is only natural that someone who devotes thirty years to [the making of] a dictionary focuses his mind chiefly on what is individually perceivable ...

We know today that the truth of such a judgement is only partial: the successful lexicographer must have a coherent understanding of the grammatical system and of the pragmatic and cultural embedding of the language; and the less known 'his' language generally is, the more explicit his understanding of these rather theoretical subjects must be.

296

Scholarly German Bilingual Lexicography in Imperial Russia

If, however, Delbrück the syntactician did not fully understand this (and it's no wonder that he did not, given the times in which he lived), and if one is not fully satisfied with his statement, one can only be astounded at his next observation: Ein Wörterbuch ... ist nicht ein Werk in dem die ganze Seele eines Mannes sich ausspricht, und es kann nicht wirken auf die Seelen der anderen wie etwa ein philosophisches System. Aber andererseits darf man vielleicht sagen, daß Wörterbücher länger zu dauern pflegen als philosophische Systeme. In English: A dictionary ... is not a work in which a man's mind reveals itself fully, nor does it have an impact on other people's minds similar to that of, say, a philosophical system. On the other hand, it is perhaps possible to say that dictionaries usually last [that is, are valid] longer than philosophical systems. When he wrote this, Delbrück must certainly have been inspired by a gift of prophecy; the fate of both Radloffs dictionary and Miller's confirms Delbrück's words: both works survived the "philosophic system" under whose aegis a campaign was waged to destroy their authors and their work. (It is quite possible that Böhtlingk's dictionary also survived the leading philosophical system of its day, positivism, at least in its 19th-century form; but I would not care to overstretch the point.) Be that as it may, one can proceed one step further and maintain that this high survival rate, or life expectancy, of dictionaries is connected with or conducive to yet another phenomenon, namely, that lexicography also offers some safety in times of turbulence and ideological pressure, in that the whole mind of the author is not revealed. This is undoubtedly at least a partial explanation for why some of the brightest linguists in the Soviet Union in the late thirties, the forties, and the early fifties turned to lexicography. It may suffice to mention two names, L. V. Scerba [1880-1944] and Ο. K. Smirnickij [1902-1954]. The safety afforded by the lexicographic enterprise was not absolute (see, for instance, the fate of the Dictionary of Modern Russian in 1937 [Farina 1992]), but still, it was a safety of sorts. But that is another topic (see Farina 1995). For our purpose it is, however, important to note that, like Delbrück, a theoretical linguist of our day may entertain a similar perception of lexicographers as students of isolated bits of data lacking a cohesive theoretical cement. If that indeed be the case, one could also respond with the observation that the survival rate and life expectancy of dictionaries in relation to the rate and life expectancy of the linguistic theories and frameworks of our day may stand in the same ratio as those one holding between the life expectancy of dictionaries and that of philosophical theories.

297

Bilingual Dictionaries

5.6. The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography (Sväkosavidyäsästrakaranyam)*

In the late forties and in the fifties, the number of Czechs who knew Chinese and who needed it for professional purposes kept slowly but constantly growing. The reason for this lies, of course, in the general tendency of the states of the then Eastern bloc to increase their mutual contacts and ties. In addition to this, the politically dominant figure of Oriental studies in Prague was Professor Jaroslav Prusek [1906-1980], a Sinologue who had a thorough autoptic knowledge of pre-war China and who enjoyed excellent relations with the cultural leadership of the post-1949 regime. He used all of his considerable influence to build up cultural relations with China. For a Czech undergraduate student of Chinese, it was at that time quite normal to spend two or more (sometimes up to five) years in China, and to go again as a graduate and postgraduate student. In addition to this, students (undergraduate and graduate) of various other subjects (genuine, political, or pretended) went to China in droves. Some of them married Chinese girls and brought them back home. (It did not work the other way around: I heard of only one case of a Czech girl marrying a Chinese there: at that time, no young man would have gotten permission to leave China for reasons of marriage.) All this continued even after the rupture between Khrushchev (and his European satrapies) and the Beijing regime: politically, the rupture (mainly after 1961) was sharp and abrupt, but its practical cultural reverberations were much slower. It was only the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) that put an end to all cultural contacts. Thus, in the late fifties, there was a certain need for a Czech and Chinese dictionary. For its compilation, there were Sinologues who had spent years in China, native speakers to be used as informants, and — at least at the beginning — a willingness from the Chinese side to cooperate; but there was nobody among these people who would have been specialized in semantics, or in applied linguistics, let alone in lexicography. As for the last point, there was one exception: Dana St'ovickovä (later Heroldovä; 1929-1976), who spent several years in China, had already done much preparatory work for a Czech-Chinese dictionary that was published later on (St'ovickovä 1961). However, this was an onomasiologically organized dictionary whose purpose was mainly to present nomenclature by as simple equivalents as possible, without any grammatical, stylistic, or other information. Dana St'ovickovä — or Dasella, as I called her — although she herself launched the idea of the dictionary, did not assume responsibility for the larger project: it gives testimony to the ripeness of her judgement that she realized that her excellent knowledge of the Chinese language itself did not fully compensate for the lack of linguistic training and accepted Prusek's suggestion of another person to become head of the project. Given this situation, I was approached in 1958/59 by Prusek with the idea that I should become the head of the lexicographic team. What qualified me for such an offer? Certainly not knowledge of Chinese: it was (and is) nil. Nor political clout: in the big purge of 1958, * Reprinted from: International Press, pp. 85 - 128.

Journal

of Lexicography,

Vol. 5, No. 2 1992, Oxford University

298

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

I was deposed from an executive position and my salary was curtailed by 1/6, because I was a self-proclaimed liberal (in the old European, not necessarily American, sense), not to mention other sins and misdemeanors of mine, putative and actual. Among the reasons that I was approached for the project was probably my known interest in semantics, my reasonably successful publications (although they were in the area of Indo-European studies [e.g., Zgusta 1955a] - a book is a book is a book in any Academia), and my having been the head of various teams before. (The order of the reasons was probably the reverse of this sequence, but never mind.) Why did I accept, and with neither hesitation nor compunction at that? First, I was genuinely interested in semantics, and its projection into the practical application was attractive. Secondly, I had always been puzzled by the claim raised by American structuralism, to wit, that with a good method and efficient procedures, the linguist can undertake the analysis of any language, irrespective of whether he knows it or not, provided he has informants: an intriguing stance for someone like myself, trained in the art of philological interpretation, trying to get not only the grammatical description of a text, but also the exegesis and hermeneusis to the very last detail. And thirdly, let us admit a non-academic reason. The life of any Czech wage-earner in general and of a non-Marxist intellectual in particular was not only characterized by constant political and ideological harassment, but also punctuated by a sequence of purges; and I understand that more or less the same was the case in the other states of the East. Given the nature of the regime, it was only logical that a person like myself had to expect that he would always be hit again, in the next purge; and indeed, I was never disappointed in this expectation. Consequently, pure reason dictated the importance of acquiring, between two purges, a headship or some similar position: in the next purge, one was deposed from this headship, but the core of existence remained more or less intact; without such a 'buffer', the very core could have been jeopardized, whereas taking the 'buffer' away usually assuaged, although certainly did not satiate, the malevolence of the Beast. These were the main reasons for my acceptance. Thus, in 1959 a lexicographic group was established in the Oriental Institute in Prague. It consisted of myself, Dana St'ovickovä (later Heroldovä, usually called Dasella), Zdenka Novotnä (later Hermanovä, usually called Talafiis), and Pavel Kratochvfl (usually called Tweedledum). Apart from various other colleagues who worked with us over the years for some shorter periods of time (the names of the more important ones of these can be found on the title pages of Heroldovä et al. 1974-84), our group was supported by some other scholars, such as Jarmila Kalouskovä [1909-1989] and, above all by Oldrich Svarny. All of these were Sinologues; Novotnä and St'ovickovä more philologically oriented, Kalouskovä, Kratochvil, and Svarny more linguistically oriented. My task was to find or create the lexicographic models suitable for our purposes, give direction to the necessary research, and organize the whole flow of work; St'ovickovä, Novotnä, and (in the first years) Kratochvil bore the whole brunt of the daily work; they carried the burden of lexicography by supervising the excerption, working with the informants, pre-editing the preliminary versions of entries, and later on editing them; Kalouskovä and Svarny participated in meetings where broader linguistic problems were discussed. Svarny was particularly helpful in establishing the tones and in regularizing the piny in orthography. Within some two years, we were able

Bilingual Dictionaries

299

to establish a set of editorial policies and translate them into editorial instructions. A summary of our policies was published in Kratochvil et al. 1962; these policies, although partially modified by later practice, remained the basis of the work on the dictionary during the whole gestation of the project. At this juncture, it will be useful to give a short synopsis of the main so-to-say external events that marked the progress of the project. Sometime in 1963, Kratochvil got a teaching position at the University of Cambridge, reached his goal, undertook a few precarious journeys back to Prague, but in 1964 stayed in England for good; sometime in 1965 I stepped down as the head of the group, retaining the more informal position of the leader of a linguistic group in the Institute (which, in its turn, was shaken by the next smaller purge - or period of particular trouble - in 1966: again my expectations were confirmed); St'ovickovä took over and was head until her tragic death in 1976; I immigrated to the United States (treading on dangerous paths) after the Russian invasion of the country; finally, Hermanovä (to whom I owe much information concerning these events) assumed the headship and held it up to the completion of the dictionary in 1984, not without herself experiencing the constant harassment described above; I understand that the year 1979 was particularly critical: at that point of time, work on the project was nearly stopped by the authorities, with only a favorable review from abroad (Richter 1979) helping some reasonable editors (particularly J. Vacha) in the publishing house of the Academy to salvage the situation. (The formerly so powerful J. Prüsek lost all influence in 1971, so he could no longer provide any help.) In 1969, I started preparing my emigration and succeeded in putting the plan into operation (by devious and risky paths) in early 1970. In 1974, the first volume of the dictionary was published (Heroldovä et al. 1974—84). By this time I was a defector and technically a jailbird: illegal emigration (i.e., defection) was a punishable crime, and so I got 5 1/2 years of jail, luckily in absentia, while my wife got only 4 1/2 years: an outrageous case of an unjustifiable disparity between the treatment of a man (considered by the court the instigator) and that of a woman (demeaningly considered, without any foundation, a mere follower). This is why my name does not appear in the volume at all. It should be understood that this was the normal treatment of political nonpersons, wherever they resided, and not soemthing specially constructed against me; however, Dasella had the immense decency to have a letter smuggled to me in which she apologized and told me that the censorship would not allow even a short remark buried deep in the Preface, let alone the abomination of the nomen taetrum appearing on the title pages. Later I will discuss my participation in the Chinese-German Dictionary; at this juncture, I wish to say that upon its publication (Beutel et al. 1986), the situation was repeated: any mention of the nomen taetrum was forbidden, but one member of the Berlin Group, G. Olafson Richter, acknowledged everything in a private dedication of the book. Anyhow, the first volume of the Czech-Chinese Dictionary was published in 850 copies; remarkably, it sold quite well. (Obviously, a number of copies were bought by people ignorant of Chinese: This was no wonder in a market offering only party-line propaganda, plus Czech and Russian classics; when a Hebrew and Aramaean grammar was published in the late fifties, thousands of copies were sold for the same reason.) The subsequent volumes

300

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

were then published in 1,200 copies. As I have already mentioned, I understand that the publication of the following volumes of the Dictionary was severely jeopardized several times by the unwillingness of the powers that be to continue expenditures for the undertaking, and by political aversion to China, the former friend that had become something like a foe (not to mention the aversion to some members of the lexicographic group in general and Hermanovä in particular). However, the last head of the group, Hermanovä, brought the work to completion by the ninth volume, in 1984. One of the basic decisions that we had to make was whether to compile first a Czech-Chinese and later a Chinese-Czech dictionary, or whether the sequence should be reversed. (The original idea was to have, ultimately, both 'directions'; the long duration of the project and all the numerous political upheavals made it impossible.) There were two main reasons for the choice of the Czech-Chinese direction; one of them was some uncertainties about the Chinese language at that stage. Firstly, nobody knew what the ultimate number of simplified characters would be or what would be the fate of the Romanization of Chinese: pinyin, the Romanized spelling, was sometimes more, sometimes less fostered, and sometimes it was nearly completely neglected. Romanization entails delimitation of words and word-like units by spaces, something not established at that point of time. (Therefore, Svamy's rules—as mentioned above—were used in the later stages of the project; they largely coincide with the Chinese rules, ultimately worked out in 1988.) Secondly, the dictionary had to comprise contemporary language, which, however, was full of neologisms, some of them of clearly —but some of them not so clearly—ephemeral character. Succinctly stated, the language was in a state of rapid change and development. Thirdly, there was at that point of time no reliable Chinese description (one that could be called normative) of the contemporary language; the first experiment in that endeavor was published only in 1963 (Hanyu Pinyin Cihui, Beijing). Hence, it was clear to us that we would have to walk on some untrodden paths. In this situation, we thought it safer to have a? the source language Czech, a stabilized language, and somehow to venture forays into the Chinese uncertainties, having the firm bases of the indisputable facts of Czech. If we consider the situation as a purely linguistic problem, the decision was undoubtedly right. The second main reason for the choice of the Czech-Chinese direction consisted in the consideration that a Czech Sinologue would be expected to know English and—at that point of time—Russian, so that he could avail himself of the existing dictionaries for comprehension of Chinese texts. This second reason was the ultimately decisive one, the more so since one could expect a Czech-Chinese dictionary to be a useful aid for a Chinese reader of Czech texts. This proved to be the case; but the capriciousness of politics is such that what originally was considered an additional advantage turned out to be a dangerous aspect to cope with, when later, in the years of estrangement, the Prague authorities disliked the idea that the Chinese were using a dictionary compiled with Czech money. Right or wrong, for me personally the decision as to the direction of the dictionary was very important, although I did not and could not know it at that time. The Czech-Chinese dictionary gave me experience in the compilation of an 'active' bilingual dictionary, to be used in the production of texts in a foreign language. A few years later, sometime in 1961,1 was invited by the then head of the Sinological Department, H. Bräutigam, and by the then

Bilingual Dictionaries

301

Vice-President of the Academy in Berlin, W . Steinitz [1905-1968]—an accomplished lexicographer himself (see Steinitz 1962-88 and Steinitz/Klappenbach 1964-77)—to become the 'wissenschaftlicher Leiter' of a group which was preparing a Chinese-German dictionary in East Berlin. (The dictionary was published in 1985 and had a second edition in 1986, Beutel et al. 1986.) The principal participants there, during the time of my activity, were Helga Μ . Beutel, Christiane A e . Schwartz, Gunnar Olafson Richter, and Gottfried S. Spies. M y activities in Berlin related to the German dictionary (which continued up to my emigration) gave me, in contrast to the Czech dictionary, immediate experience in the compilation of a 'passive' bilingual dictionary, a dictionary for the interpretation of a foreign text. There is nothing like such a personal experience. Nothing can replace the hours spent, for instance, over a f e w candidates for equivalence while trying to decide how accurately they really correspond to the source language expression, what the degree of their translationality or explanatoriness is, what the differences between them and the source language expression are, and how to inform the user about these differences and instruct him about how to overcome them. That I did not know Chinese proved to have a value of its own: my poor colleagues had to make every feature of the meaning, application, stylistic value, etc., quite explicit for me. (Luckily, not in the whole extent of the two dictionaries.) The next important decision was to base the Chinese part of the dictionary largely on material gained from native speakers used as informants. (I am here talking about the Prague Czech-Chinese dictionary; but the same applies to Berlin, mutatis mutandis.) The dictionary was conceived as a tool for a Czech to help in producing a Chinese text; therefore, a mere indication of equivalence of the Czech-Chinese pairs of expressions as to their denotative meaning was not sufficient; the user had to get real advice on how to use the Chinese equivalent. This means that the syntactic pattern and the collocability of each Chinese expression, its range of application, its value in the subset of its near synonyms, etc., - all this had to be explored. T o gain all this information from literary or nonliterary but written sources would have entailed a massive excerption, far beyond the means at hand, whereas it was, and is, possible to elicit from an informant the information needed by exploring with him (in our case it was always 'her') the acceptability of collocations, etc. As anything in this world of ours, this method has its disadvantages, because of which, for instance, a modern English dictionary such as COBUILD

takes pride in being based exclusively on a

corpus of texts; the argument is that in this way, there is evidence that, e.g., a collocation really was used in an independent, so-to-say uninfluenced, way by a native speaker and was not concocted by the linguist or lexicographer. It seems to me that the apprehension about the linguist's concocting what an independent speaker would not say has been greatly exacerbated in recent years, when transformational grammarians explored the semantic acceptability of sentences by pushing the limits as far as possible: one can (nearly) always postulate a context, or a possible world, in which a sentence per se absurd becomes acceptable, and it is always possible to construct something that nobody would ever say but that, being system-conforming, cannot be rejected. In contrast to these dangers, the factual attestation of an expression in a natural, unelicited context has a strong force. However, the COBUILD

project could proceed as it did because there is a constant, rich f l o w of English

texts produced in all imaginable registers, styles, varieties, etc., and because there were

302

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

technical and financial means at hand to perform a vast excerption quickly, so that the texts grasped were not antiquated in the space of time between the (beginning of the) excerption and the editorial work. In a small project like ours and without the scanners, computers, and other paraphernalia of the latter days' science, a sufficient excerption to cover all the needs was out of the question. There were 230,000 slips with contexts in our files, stemming from the early stage of the project, but in each case the information contained in them had to be supplemented by work with an informant: indeed more information contained in the dictionary was gained from this work with the informants than from the excerption slips. Our informants were mostly the Chinese wives of former students who followed their husbands to Prague. We soon found out that it would have been useful to send each of them back to China for half a year or so, every two or three years, to refresh their native speakers' competence (if innatism allows something like that to happen; if not, anyone is welcome to reword the statement of fact according to his creed); however, the politics of the time rendered this impossible. At the beginning, there was also some help from the Chinese side, either by their sending an informant to Prague, or allowing one of the editors to work in Beijing. (Occasionally, at the very beginning of the work on the project, there was some trouble with these informants, when they took a strong interpretation of their political duties and maintained, for instance, that there was no contemporary Chinese word for 'suicide' or 'criminal neglect of duty', since the denotata did not exist anymore. But these were isolated cases that did not occur later.) This help ceased after 1963, but work continued with the informants resident in Prague. The purpose of the sessions with the informants was sometimes to establish the equivalents themselves, but mostly to establish their collocability, syntactic patterns, and anisomorphism in contrast with the source language, to find other partial equivalents to cover the whole range of the meaning of the source language expression, and to work out all the details of the information the Czech user would need to express himself in Chinese. In the late sixties there was a file containing the equivalents and the pre-edited material elicited from the informants. In its day, it was to my knowledge the most analytical description of the core part of the Chinese lexicon perhaps outside of China, with one exception: the collections of Prof. Alexis Rygaloff in Paris were in respect to covering the lexicon probably nearly as extensive as ours (in 1968, when I visited), but the description of syntactic patterns was based on more fine-grained categories than ours. I do not know how far the Rygaloff file contained groupings of near synonyms and similar lexical relations, because the file was based on Chinese lexical units. However that may have been, the syntactic part of the description was excellent; it is a great pity that this Chinese-French dictionary —at least to my knowledge—has never been published. I shall not go on describing every single decision that had to be made. Every lexicographer knows that rosary of agonizing choices that must be taken every time a decision is to be made and there is no time to do what would be the only reasonable thing to do, namely to research the problem for a year or two. At the end of this article, I shall offer some substantive excerpts from Kratochvfl, et al. 1962, that will show more in this respect. May it suffice to say that the 25 years (1959-1984) of work produced the nine volumes of the Czech-Chinese dictionary, more than 6,000 pages in total. This seems to be

Bilingual Dictionaries

303

outrageously large, but it is not so. There are some 40,000 entries in the dictionary, so even if we consider that these entries are long because of the rich indication of collocations and idioms etc. within them, this is not too large a number. The huge number of pages was brought about by the impossibility of having the text reasonably printed: a continuous printed text was out of the question, both for technical and budgetary reasons, so the book was 'printed' from a camera-ready typed copy and the text is distributed into three columns (Czech, piny in, characters), an arrangement which entails loss of much space. If printed in the normal way, the book would have fewer than 2000 pages. At the end of this article, there are some specimens of the text of the dictionary. The question that now arises is the following: was it worthwhile? The question is legitimate, because 25 years is a good part of any individual's life, and the money and other requirements involved in sustaining a staff etc. for a quarter of a century is a non-negligible item in any institution's budget. If we start with the latter concern, we must make the following points. First, a good small dictionary that can be quickly prepared usually comes into existence as a reduction of a large one. This is particularly the case if the language in question, in this case contemporary Chinese, was rather unexplored. Therefore, the call for a small dictionary first and a large one (perhaps) later puts the cart before the horses, at least in this situation. Second, it is true that a Czech-Chinese dictionary is useful to a few hundred people in our generation. However, cultural enterprises do not necessarily have to go by quantitative considerations. After all, an Assyrian dictionary also serves a few hundred specialists at best and nobody is boorish enough to say a word. True, I am the first person to accept the particularity of an old language like Akkadian that opens for us a dead civilization. But the element of chance, of a favorable constellation of circumstances, enters into any human undertaking and should be made use of. The element of luck, of a lucky constellation, is necessary. No lesser lexicographer than Jacob Grimm when writing the Preface to his Dictionary (Grimm 1854, p. Ill) knew that "Über eines solchen werkes antritt musz, wenn es gedeihen soll, ein heilbringendes gestirn schweben." ( Ά lucky star must hover over the start of such a work, if it is to succeed.') And indeed: What is the reason that of all the languages of the Caucasus it is just Ossetic, a language of some 300,000 speakers, that has one of the best etymological dictionaries of any language, Indo-European, Semitic or other, in existence? (Abaev 1958-89, four volumes). That it is Lahu, a language of a few hundred thousand speakers scattered in separate pieces of territory in the backcountry of China, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam that has an excellent, superbly detailed dictionary of nearly fifteen hundred pages (Matisoff 1988), to the compilation of which the author gave 23 years of his life? That it is Lapp that has a dictionary in five volumes (Nielsen 1932-62), work on which started in 1906? There must have been a coincidence of various propitious factors; and once the authors felt confident of their ability to do the job and there was a good constellation of external circumstances, it would have been unreasonable and even irresponsible not to use the opportunity. The same applies even more to the Czech-Chinese dictionary: in addition to what has been said, if one sees, as we did in those years, how much money was wasted either on nonsense (bureaucracy, propaganda) or on things detrimental if not deleterious (secret police, terrorism), one knows that a penny saved for an honest cultural enterprise of whatever nature is a penny truly

304

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

gained. The first question, whether the undertaking was worthwhile for the individual persons involved, must be answered by each of them individually. Speaking for myself, I must say that while it is true that I intensively participated only a few years, and not full time, the experience was of the greatest value to me. (This goes equally, as explained above, for the Prague as for the Berlin undertaking.) Also, it was a highly pleasing activity: to probe into the intricacies of a modern language that one does not know, trying to find the underlying regularity, or rule, in a (sometimes only seeming) chaos or randomness, gave me as much pleasure as interpreting Lydian inscriptions (Zgusta 1955b) or deciphering Pisidian ones (Zgusta 1957). Together with these intellectual delights came other advantages as well. Being of the old school, reinventing the wheel is not my cup of tea; accordingly, a bibliographical search is for me one of the first things to do in a new enterprise. In this case, the harvest was poor: even the Problems in Lexicography (Householder & Saporta 1962), the first modern and rich treatment of lexicography in general, did not exist then and reached Prague only when our decisions had already been made. The works by Scerba (1940), Devoto (1946), Chapman [1881-1960] (1948), Casares [1877-1964] (1950), Migliorini (1951), Hulbert [1892-1978] (1955) and others, while valuable, are all limited in their scope; the French works of Dubois, Rey-Debove, and others were still hidden deep in the lap of the gods. It was necessary to study many dictionaries and generalize the observations. This suggested to me the idea of writing a handbook of lexicography of my own: in 1964 I published my two books on Anatolian anthroponymy (Zgusta 1964a, b), so I was free from that task; in 1966,1 squeezed through an (only small-scale) purge with only a minor capitis deminutio, so I remained the head of a group of linguists in the Oriental Institute and had, apart from the Sinologues, many colleagues whom I could ask for lexical and structural examples from many languages. I will not go on talking about the Manual of Lexicography (Zgusta 1971), which was the result of this decision - that's another story. (Let us note, however, that in 1971, I was already persona non grata in Prague, so the book was published without my reading the proofs: hence all those shocking misprints, unfilled cross-references, unedited English, absence of an index, etc.) In this context, it is necessary only to say that the practical experience on which the book is based largely stems from my fling with Chinese lexicography. When I met for the first time Günter Drosdöwski, the main lexicographer of the Duden group, he said to me that when he read the Manual it was clear to him that the author had an immediate, practical knowledge of lexicography, so he undertook a search for a dictionary by this author and found nothing: How could that be? The preceding pages give the explanation of that mystery. So, my answer to the question posed above is unrestrictedly positive: for me, all that was highly worthwhile. I hope and trust that as well it was for all the other colleagues participating in those enterprises. * *

*

What follows are excerpts from Kratochvil et al. (1962). It should be remembered that the article was written for a public which largely consisted of nonlexicographers, and also that

Bilingual Dictionaries

305

the article was written in 1961, so that forty years of constant progress in lexicographic theory stand between the wording of the text and the present-day reader. Also, the article was written before Svarny developed his rules as to where to write spaces between words and word-like units and long before the respective Chinese rules were established. Note P. Kratochvfl, one of the co-authors of the article Kratochvil et al. (1962), who read the text of the present article as one of the referees, expressed his wish that the following footnote be published: 'L. Zgusta was the sole author of the first draft of the text; the other three contributed only by selecting or checking the Chinese examples and their translations contained in the paper, and by comments on the wording of the first draft. The final version of the paper was again due solely to Zgusta's judgement.' Excerpts from Kratochvfl et al. 1962 [/Numbers/ as in List of Characters of the original version; in this edition, the characters immediately follow the romanized transcription.]

Excerpts from pp. 261-63 It is generally known that the purpose of a bilingual dictionary is to indicate lexical equivalents of two languages; and lexicography has attained a very high standard in this work. However, we think that it will not be out of place to remark upon some specific features occurring in the search for the Czech-Chinese equivalents, especially since Chinese bilingual dictionaries have not yet in all cases been free of sins against the principles which may be more known and more easily to be observed in other languages. It is very necessary to observe not only the semantic equivalence, but also the grammatical distributional properties of the terms under consideration. Let us for example take the Czech word jakmile, 'as soon as'. We have to give two equivalents, i.e. i ...[chiu] /5 ill ..(git) / with the distributional note 'in the past tense' and teng tao /6 ^ f l j / with the distributional note 'used in the future tense'. The entry is followed by the following examples: jakmile slunce vyslo, oteplilo se, 'as soon as the sun rose, the weather became warmer', Chinese t'ai yang i ch 'u lai, t'ien ch 'i chiu nuan la Π jz ^'ΛΜΙΕΤ/; jakmile mne zahledl, cely zbledl, 'as soon as he saw me, he turned pale', Chinese t'a i k'an wo, lien tou pai la /8 Itil — B a f f θ Τ Λ jakmile vesla do svetnice, ucitila plyn, 'as soon as she entered the room, she smelt gas', Chinese t'a i tsou chin wu chiu wen tao mei ch'i /9 -ftfc — ΐ ί ϊ Μ Μ ϋ Ι ί ^ ' Λ Λ jakmile budu mit trochu casu, hnedmu odepisi, 'as soon as I have time, I'll write him a letter immediately' Chinese teng tao woyu i tien kungfu, wo chiu kei t'a hui hsin /10 ^JlJfi^— ini. Another example is the Czech word jako which means 'like', 'as .. as' or 'as i f . There are the following Chinese equivalents: hsiang ...na yang ... /11 ..J or hsiang ...i yang /12 Hi...—#/ with the distributional note 'when connecting the members of the clause' and haohsiang ...ssu ti /13 ΊΒίδ^/or fangfu /14 ftjKi / with the distributional

306

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

note 'when connecting the clauses, the expression fang fit being always put before the verb'. The entry is followed by the following examples: cerveny jako jablicko, 'as red as an apple', Chinese hsiangp'ingkuonayanghung /15 /; oblicej bttyjakopapir, 'a face as white as paper' Chinese lien se hsiang chih na yang pai /16 fä&M.^MWQl jako ve snu, 'like in a dream', Chinese hsiang tsai tso men iyang /Π Λ bylo svetlo jako ve dne, 'there was light just like in daytime', Chinese liang te hsiang pai t'ien i yang /18 ^ ί Ι ^ , θ ^ — ^ /; jako by se nie nestalo, 'as if nothing happened', Chinese hao hsiang mei yu shen mo shih /19 i f M ^ - W i f ^ t · Λ ζ ddlky to vypadd jako maid hora, 'from the distance it looks like a small mountain', Chinese yiian yiian k'an ch'üfangfu hsiang tso hsiao shan 120 i S i f f i f l " U f i f ä f s i i ^ A ^ l U /; zdd se mi, ze jsem uz vds videl, Ί feel as if I had already seen you', Chinese wo fang fu chiieh te k'an chien kuo nin /21 S f t i S ^ /; utikal tak rychle, jako by ho nekdo honil, 'he ran so quickly as if somebody was chasing him", Chinese t'a p'ao te na yang k'uai, hao hsiang yu jen tsai chui t'a ssu ti 122 ftg^AiiiMi^J /; vypadd, jako by nie nevedel, '"he looks as if he knew nothing', Chinese k'an yang tzu t'a hao hsiang shen mo toupu chih tao 123 i f ^ - p

imm-Y^mmi....

The Czech-Chinese dictionary under preparation will generally list only those words which are as free of any emotional and other connotations as possible. Allow us to remark in this connection that the rules of equivalence are very often not observed as far as emotionality is concerned. For instance: the Czech word krimindl means 'jail' and is much more colloquial and emotional than the English word. Obviously, the Chinese expression chien yii /26 / would be an incorrect equivalent, because it is so free of emotionality that it can be used in any technical discussion of penology. Probably the correct Chinese equivalent would be ta lao m /. In many cases a narrow-minded, too word-for-word conception of equivalence virtually blocks the way to a correct solution of a lexical problem. This is often the case when we try to indicate an equivalent of an idiomatic expression. Take, for example, the Czech idiomatic expression hledat ve vsem chlup (verbatim 'to seek a hair in everything'), 'to find fault with everything'. It would be incorrect to indicate as the Chinese equivalent an expression like chao maoping /28 / (literally, 'to look for faults'), which is neutral. Better equivalents of the Czech idiom seem to be: chi tan li chao ku t'ou /29 / (literally, 'to seek a bone in an egg'), t'iao tz'u erh /30 i t ^ U L / (literally, 'to look for prickles') and t'iao yen erh /31 MBIJL / (literally, 'to look for leaks'). Another example is the Czech idiomatic expression piti jako duha, 'to drink like fish' (literally, 'to drink like a rainbow'). It would be incorrect to indicate the neutral expression ho chiu ho te hen li hai 132 ^ M ^ l f f i f f i l i / (literally, 'to drink in a terrible way'). The best equivalent seems to be chiu liang ju hai 133 S Ä 5 t T Ä / (literally, 'to have sea-like drinking capacity').

Bilingual Dictionaries

307

Excerpts from pp. 265- 68 ... We generally and basically distinguish four types of entries. The simplest type consists of Czech words which do not have any polysemy (multiple meaning) and which have either only one Chinese equivalent or more, but of such character that they do not need any further semantic illustration. These words are not exemplified, though they may be specified. In the majority of cases, it is the terms which are either defined or at least sufficiently precise in the scientific and technical usage that do not have multiple meaning. Let us quote the following examples of such simple entries: Czech badminton, 'badminton' (the game), Chinese yü mao ch'iu /57 /, Czech bajonet, 'bayonet', Chinese tz'u tao /58 $!| JJ /· The given entries have no multiple meaning and therefore there is no need for further exemplification. Another type of entry consists of such words whose meaning cannot be said to be multiple in the full sense of the term, but whose Chinese equivalents nevertheless need an explanatory note. Entries which belong to this type in practically all cases contain examples illustrating the respective shade of meaning. For this purpose, preferably, if possible, very-frequently-occurring conjunctions of words are used. Let us adduce some examples which will illustrate what has been said. Czech exempldrni, 'exemplary' must have two Chinese equivalents, i.e. shih fan ti /71 /, with the explanatory semantic note 'model' (adj.), and ch'eng chieh hsing ti 111 Λ with the explanatory semantic note 'serving as warning'. These equivalents are followed by the examples exempldrni choväni, 'exemplary conduct', Chinese shih fan ti hsing wei /73 I, and exempldrni trest, 'exemplary punishment', Chinese ch'eng chich fusing ti tsefa Π4 iStÄMm^ /. ... There are cases when the respective Czech word which is the head of the entry can hardly be said to have a ramification of meaning or of use, but still two or more Chinese equivalents must be given. Of course, in our dictionary these equivalents will be followed by examples. Cases like the one under discussion are of extreme importance for the lexicographer, because with the Czech word showing neither multiple meaning nor different shades of meaning, it is easy to overlook the fact that Chinese requires more equivalents. ... the Czech word expondt, 'exhibited object' must have two Chinese equivalents which are differentiated according to where and how the object is exhibited. Thus the respective equivalents will be provided with the following explanatory notes: expondt, 'exhibited object', Chinese chan lanp'in /80 M ^ c m / (at an exhibition) and ch'en lieh ρ'in /81 cm / (in a museum). Some entries are even more complicated because the Czech word under consideration has multiple meanings. In this case the more divergent meanings are distinguished by numbers. It very often happens that such an individual (numbered) meaning of a word requires more than one Chinese equivalent all of which require in their turn the usual semantic explanatory

308

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

notes. In such entries there must be relatively many examples. It will probably be better to adduce some instances of such rather complicated entries than to describe them at length. ... the Czech word krize, 'crisis' has two basic meanings. The first meaning 'decisive moment' requires only one Chinese equivalent, i.e. chin yao kuan t'ou /88 l l t H ^ ^ ; /, which will be followed by the example poprestäle krizi nastalo ν nemoci zlepseni, 'after the crisis the illness took a good turn', Chinese kuo la chin yao kuan t'ou ping ch'ing chiu hao chuan la /89 Ü 7 ^ t t S t i F i ^ T /. The second meaning 'difficult situation' will require two Chinese equivalents, i.e. wei chi /90 j a f l Λ which will be followed by the semantic explanatory note 'produced by the clash of opposing forces', and * huang /91 * ^ /, followed by the semantic explanatory note 'caused by scarcity of something'. The following specifications will supply a clear illustration: Czech hospodäfskä krize, 'economic crisis', Chinese ching chi wei chi /92 ^ f f f a ^ R /; vladni krize, 'governmental crisis', Chinese cheng fu wei chi /93 McltffaiJl /; dusevni krize, 'psychic crisis', Chinese ching shen sheng huo ti wei chi /94 )ff /; bytovd krize, 'housing crisis', Chinese fang huang /95 βΐϊτι /; zasobovaci krize, 'supply crisis', Chinese liang huang /96 /. When a word does not have any terminological connotations, but on the contrary belongs to the general lexicon, its multiple meaning is dealt with in the same way; the only difference (a very slight one) is that it is useful to quote in the entry some examples of its colloquial use. Up to this point, we have considered cases of entries in which a Czech word is followed by its Chinese equivalent(s). But there are Czech words whose Chinese equivalent either does not exist or is difficult to find or unsuitable for citing. It is quite obvious that there is a fundamental difference between entries which indicate equivalents of a Czech word and those which do not. The latter are characterized by the colon. An equivalent is what we call a lexical abstraction. It can be used in the way indicated in the dictionary or according to the rules of grammar, also in other syntagms and phrases than those which are indicated in the dictionary. On the other hand, the colon warns the user of the dictionary that what follows is neither an equivalent nor a lexical abstraction; therefore, he is expected only to use what follows exclusively in the same way and in the syntagm or phrase which is indicated in the dictionary. Otherwise he is likely to make mistakes. An example will be useful here. The Czech adjective balisticky, 'ballistic' has no Chinese equivalent(s) which could be simply derived as lexical abstractions and indicated to the user of the dictionary, with a reasonable degree of certainty that he will use them correctly as far as lexicon and grammar are concerned. Therefore, in the respective entry, the word balisticky is followed by a colon, after which we quote what we consider to be the most frequently used syntagm, with a Chinese translation which we consider correct: mezikontinentdlni balistickd strela, 'intercontinental ballistic missile', Chinese chou chi tao tan 191 /· This is the fundamental difference between entries with a colon and those without it: if we indicate the Chinesepu chih ch'ien [ti] /68 ^{EfilfÖ^I] / with the semantic explanatory note "cheap" as an equivalent of the Czech adjective bezcenny, 'worthless', then, though we specify it only with the syntagm bezcennd vec, 'worthless thing', Chinese pu chih ch'ien ti tung shi /69 ^ { E f S s W ^ t S /, we instruct the user that he can form also other syntagms

Bilingual Dictionaries

309

according to the same pattern, say bezcennd tretka, 'worthless trinket', Chinese pu chih ch'ien ti wan i erh /98 /; bezcenny dar, 'worthless gift', Chinese pu chih ch'ien ti li wu 199 ^ { E t ^ S ^ i l ^ /, vel sim. and be reasonably sure that his constructions are correct. On the other hand, the colon warns the user that we guarantee only what follows; if he uses the adjective balisticlcy as attribute to other substantives, say balistickd drdha, 'ballistic trajectory', he risks making mistakes. It may be clear that what has been said about the colon is of fundamental importance for every user of the dictionary and we do hope it will be useful. In order that the user should not be too narrowly limited by the colon, it is sometimes necessary to indicate two or more syntagmas which are most frequent. For instance, the Czech adjective bridlicovy, 'slate'. There is no Chinese equivalent which could be considered a lexical abstraction in the sense described above. Therefore, we quote three syntagms after the colon: bridlicovd skdla, 'slate rock', Chinese yeh yen /100 5ΪΪΕΓ /; bridlicova strecha, 'slate r o o f , Chinese shih pan wu ting /101 Μ I® / and bridlicovd tabulka, 'slate slab', Chinese shih pan /102 5 f t /• Excerpts from pp.

273-74

In some cases, different Chinese equivalents or translations must be listed, not because the Czech expression itself is ambiguous, but because the Chinese equivalents may have a different range of use. Examples: the Czech phraseprohrdt na cele cdre, 'to lose absolutely', literally 'on the whole line' will have two Chinese translations, i pal t'u ti /141 — J&i&itii / and ch'iian chiinfu mo /142 /, the second with a remark to the effect that the phrase is used about an army. Similar explanatory remarks will be necessary to draw the user's attention to the fact that one of the equivalents or translations has a different stylistic level or some similar property which limits its range of use. Instead of long discussion, let us cite an example: The Czech phrase kolik je ti let? 'how old are you?' will have three translations: ni to ta suishu? /143 ? / ni to ta nien chi? /144 ? / and ni chi sui? /145 ?/· The last of them will need a remark that it can be used only when we are asking a child. In other cases, there must be semantic explanations, because the respective equivalents are synonyms which have the same denotation, but different connotations. For instance, the Czech work fddni, 'drab' will have four equivalents, each of them with a note as to what connotation it bears: tan tiao [ti] /157 / (monotonous), ρ'ing tan [ti] /158 ^ ^ [ K ] / (ordinary), wu liao [til /159 . S W M ] / (tedious), k"u tsao wu wei [ti] /160 tt^^cfttÖ^] / (uninteresting); with the examples fddni krajina, 'drab country', tan tiao tifeng ching /161 ^-ÜoJWjxlÄ /; fddnizivot, 'drab life', wu liao ti sheng huo /162 Λ fddniromdn, 'drab novel', k'u tsao wu wei ti hsiao shuo /163 tt®^GÖ'j/Jnii /; fddnipiibeh, 'drab story' p'ing tan ti ku shih /164 ^Ρϊ&β^ί&ίί /.

310

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

Excerpts from pp. 277-79 Sometimes the observation of the contexts does not allow the compiler of the dictionary to construct a lexical abstraction. Such cases are solved by the colon. ... The colon is to be used when the Czech word cannot even have a Chinese equivalent, the respective thing (and notion) being unknown in China. Then there are cases when it is impossible to derive a lexical abstraction from the examples we have. For instance, it is impossible to give a Chinese equivalent for the Czech adjective cukrovarnicky, 'sugar manufacturing', because it cannot be derived from the diverging translations of the most important examples: cukrovarnicM spolecnost, 'sugar manufacturing company', Chinese t'ang yeh kung ssu /215 M i k Ä P] /; cukrovarnicky prämysl, 'sugar manufacturing industry', Chinese chih t'ang kung yeh /216 ifrJMXik /; cukrovarnicke vyrobky, 'products of sugar manufacturing industry', Chinese t'ang ch'ang ti ch'anp'in /217 β Γ β ϋ ^ β /· We obtain the same result in those cases when we are unable to find an equivalent for a Czech substantive, though there are clear and sure equivalents of what is conceived, in Czech, as different specifications (by means of adjectives) of the basic substantive. For instance, we are unable to find an equivalent for the Czech substantive budka, 'box', though there are the following specifications (from the point of view of Czech): telefonni budka, 'call box', Chinese tien hua chien /218 ^LiSTS] / or tien hua shih /219 ΐ ϊ ί ^ /; strdznibudka, 'watch-house', Chinese kangt'ing 1220 p q ^ /; ndpovednibudka, 'prompter's box', Chinese t'i tz'u ch'u 1221 jUiwI&fc /. But sometimes it happens that the equivalent of a Czech word cannot be derived, since there exists only one Chinese term for what seems to be, regarded from the point of view of Czech, a specification: for instance, no equivalent can be found for the Czech adjective fakultativni, 'optional', though fakultativnipredmet, 'optional subject' (at school) has the Chinese equivalent hsuan hsiu k'e 1222 ilH^iSc /. All these difficulties can be satisfactorily solved by the proper use of the colon. The colon must very often be used when a translation of a Czech idiomatic phrase or expression is the only thing we can offer instead of an equivalent. For example, the substantivized form of the verb byti, 'to be', i.e. bych, derived from the auxiliary verbal form used in the conditional, conveying the idea of unreal condition (there is no equivalent in English, either), is usually used in the idiomatic expression pozde bycha honiti, in the sense of 'it is late to shut the stable door after the mare is gone', Chinese hou hui mo chi 1223 !SiMM& Λ chui hui mo chi /224 J&MM& Λ mu i ch'eng chou, hui chih wan i 1225 ^ Ε ΐ ^ Λ - , ^ ^ Β ^ , ^ /. Therefore the entry is handled with a colon, followed by the above-mentioned expressions. Yet another function of the colon is that it must be used in those cases in which the Chinese equivalent indicated is the best thing that can be derived as far as semasiology goes, but grammatically it belongs to an absolutely different category from the Czech word. For example, there is to our knowledge, no Chinese equivalent of the Czech word falsifikace, 'falsification', which would have a substantival character. Therefore, the dictionary

Bilingual Dictionaries

311

will quote, after a colon, two concrete examples of this word, in frequently used contexts, with the Chinese translation. The examples will be falsifikace bankovek je trestnä, literally 'the falsification of bank-notes is criminal', (i.e. is a criminal offence, is under the penalty of law), Chinese wei tsao chih pi shih fan fa ti /226 {Äia^lTiJilE'&fK /, literally 'to falsify banknotes is against the l a w ' ; . . . The function of the colon in our dictionary may now be quite clear, after this discussion accompanied by examples. But one remark is still necessary. It may be that the reader has perceived that the reasons for using the colon are different in different examples. This observation is quite true: the different reasons range from the non-existence of an equivalent, to the grammatical difference of the translation from the original Czech word. Theoretically, this may be considered a disadvantage or even an error: different phenomena should have different symbols. Nothing would be easier than to avoid a criticism like this by developing a system in which the different reasons which are now united by the uniform use of the colon would be treated separately by different symbols. But then, a practical dictionary is not a learned opus intended to be read by scholars only, who will appreciate every detail and will go into every detailed intricacy. Although the basis of every dictionary must be a sound theoretical approach to the problems of the languages concerned, the lexicographer must always have in mind that the book will be used for practical reasons by practical persons who wish to get the necessary information as quickly as possible. With this in mind, we think that the introduction of several symbols to fulfil the function of the present single colon would not be justified. The theoretician will find the explanation of the colon, of its function and the different reasons for which it is employed, in the introduction to the dictionary. For the practical user, the unified use of a colon in all these cases is justified by the fact that it has a single purpose: it serves as a warning. Excerpts from pp. 279-80 The choice of examples. From what has been said, it may be quite clear that the examples which will be quoted in the dictionary will not be something like a secondary appendix in an entry, but a part as important as all the other indications. It is necessary to choose these examples in such a way that they convey as much information as possible; the word 'information' being understood here as concerning the whole range of lexical, grammatical, and any other pertinent indications. Let us give an example: the Czech adjective krätky, 'short' and its Chinese equivalent tuan [ti] /230 Λ will be illustrated, in one of its meanings, by the following examples: krätky, 'short' 1. (of small length), Chinese tuan [ti] /230 /, krätke' saty, 'short clothes', tuan [ti] i f u /231 /; krätkä cesta, 'short way', Chinese chin [ti] lu 1232 jJf[Ötl]S& /; md krätke vlasy, 'he has short hair', Chinese t'a t'ou fa hen tuan /233 l Ä ^ Ä i S M /; krätky film, 'short film', Chinese tuan p'ien /234 feljt /; mit krätkou pamet', 'to have a bad memory', Chinese chi hsingpu hao /235 i f i t t ^ i F /; lez mä krätke nohy, 'a lie is short-lived', word-for-word: 'a lie has short legs', Chinese huang hua ch'uan pu yuan /236 t S i S f ^ ^ j S /; jsi na me krätky, 'you can't do anything with me', Chinese ni kuanpu liao wo /237 i ^ H f ^ F T S /, ni tui wo meipanfa /238 ^ F ^ t S ' S i ^ S Λ byto hlavu

312

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

kratsi, 'to be shorter by a head', Chinese pei k'an [la] t'ou /239 /; krätke spojeni, elektr., 'short circuit', Chinese tuan lu /240 /; krätke vlny, 'short waves', Chinese tuan po /241 j^M /. These examples are chosen in such a way that they show: 1) the typical combinations, as krätke saty, 'short clothes', krätke vlasy, 'short hair', krätkä cesta, 'short way', mit kräth kou pamef, 'to have a short memory', byt ο hlavu kratsi, 'to be shorter by a head'; and mainly those combinations which form single terminological units: krätkyfilm, 'short film', krätke spojeni, 'short circuit', krätke vlny, 'short waves'; 2) the most important idiomatic expressions: lez mä krätke nohy, 'a lie is short-lived', jsi na me krätky, 'you can't do anything with me'; 3) the most important grammatical properties of the Chinese equivalent: In the case under consideration, the Chinese equivalent is an adjective which has the optional [fi] /242 [ /. Therefore, it is exemplified a) in the attribute, with ti (krätke saty, 'short clothes'), b) in the attribute, without ti (krätkyfilm, krätke vlny, 'short waves'),

'short film', krätke spojeni, 'short circuit',

c) in the predicate (mä krätke vlasy, 'he has short hair', - actually the only reason for quoting this example is to show the respective Chinese adjective in the predicate). Excerpts from pp. 281-83 There are several features of the Czech language which must be respected by the lexicographer; one of the most important of these, at least as far as a Czech-Chinese dictionary goes, are the different constructions of the Czech verb.... The Czech verb mluviti has, praeter alia, the meaning 'to speak, to talk'. When it is used absolutely, without any object, the Chinese equivalents are: shuo hua /261 iftiff / and t'an hua /262 /. When it is used in the construction mluviti ο nekom n. necem, 'to speak about someone or something', then (a) if the object spoken about is only mentioned, the Chinese equivalents are t'i 1, 2 /263 1 1 , 2 / and t'i tao 1,2 /264 j g g ] 1, 2 /, both of which can be used irrespective of whether the object is a person or a thing; (b) if the object is more thoroughly discussed, the Chinese equivalents are t'an tao 1, 2 /265 isfcflj 1,2/, t'ao lun 2 /266 2/ and t'an 2 /267 ljfc 2 /, the first of which can be used irrespective of whether the object is a person or a thing, the second and third only if the object is a thing. The construction mluviti s nekym, 'to talk with somebody' has the Chinese equivalent ken 1 shuo hua /268 SS-HÄiS /; the construction mluviti na nekoho, 'to talk to somebody', has a Chinese equivalent tui 1 shuo hua /269 t^li&i^ /, the construction mluviti s nekym ο necem, 'to talk with somebody about something' has the Chinese equivalent ken 1 t'an 2 /270 J M m 21. ... It is necessary to develop a system of symbols which will convey the information needed. It is also necessary to indicate the position of the different members of the Czech construction in the Chinese equivalent. Symbols are necessary for the Czech substitution

Bilingual Dictionaries

313

words. Very luckily, these are a very clearly recognizable group of words. (E.g. nekdo, 'somebody',neco, 'something', ο nekom, necem, 'about somebody, about something', nekde, 'somewhere', nekdy, 'sometimes' etc.) This being so, the solution which we consider the best possible in a dictionary of this type is: to number the substitution words in a Czech construction and to indicate the respective position of their equivalents in the Chinese construction by the number of the respective Czech counterpart. For instance, let us take a Czech construction: uderit nekoho necim 'to strike someone with something'. We hope that in our system of symbols the formula yung 2 ta 1 i hsia /271 ffl 2 f j 1 Τ / renders it clear enough that in the Chinese construction, the equivalent of nekoho "someone" has the position indicated by the number 1 (nekoho being the first substitution word in the Czech construction), whereas the equivalent of nöcim 'with something' has the position indicated by the number 2 (necim being the second substitution word in the Czech construction). Excerpts from pp. 286-87 The Czech verb, as the verbs in all Slavonic languages, has the category of aspect. Different bilingual Czech-X dictionaries try, not without success, to unite in one entry those pairs of verbs which differ only as far as their aspect goes. We, however, have decided not to do this: every verb will have, in our dictionary, its own entry. The reason for this is that even without combining pairs of verbs, the arrangement of the entries will be a very delicate affair; and the structure of Chinese requires so many symbols that it would not be practical to introduce further symbols which would be necessary if pairs of verbs were to be combined. Let us discuss some examples. There is a pair of Czech verbs which mean 'to wave something'. The imperfectiveiterative verb is mdchati necim, the perfective mdchnouti necim. The Chinese equivalents of mdchati necim are pai 1 /297 1 / and hui 1 1298 f ? 7 /; those of mdchnouti necim are pa lipal ipai 1299 IE 1 - g 1 / and pa 1 i hui /300 ffl /· The typical combinations which will be quoted as specifications are also very similar. Cf. mdchati mecem, 'to wave the sword', Chinese hui chien /301 ffiM /; mdchati rukama, 'to wave hands', Chinese pai shou /302 / on the one hand, and mdchnout necim, 'to wave the sword' (once), Chinese pa chien i hui /303 JH&iJ—f?/; mdchnout rukou, 'to wave the hand' (once), Chinese pa shou ipai /304 ί Β ¥ · ^ ί ¥ / on the other. Up to this point, one could combine the two verbs in one entry, if there existed a proper system of symbols. But the imperfectiveiterative verb mdchati also has the construction mdchati neco which means 'to rinse something'. This construction requires Chinese ch'in 1 /305 § 1 / as its equivalent, with a specification mdchati prddlo, 'to rinse laundry', Chinese ch'in i f u /306 j S ^ K /. The noticeable fact is that neither this meaning nor this construction is present in the perfective form. And this circumstance would very much complicate the arrangement of the whole entry. This is a very simple case of a pair of verbs whose meaning and Chinese equivalents do not diverge very much. Let us now discuss a case of a pair of verbs which have more complicated multiple meaning. It is not an especially complex case, but rather just the

314

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

average case of polysemy in a more ample entry. The Czech indeterminate-iterative verb behati means 'to run'. Its equivalents are p'ao /307 SS / if it is just normal running and sai p'ao /308 IfSS / if it is running a race. Typical combinations and exemplifications of this meaning may be detibehaly cele dopoledne, 'the children were running the whole afternoon' (i.e. from one place to another), Chinese hai tzu men p'ao la i hsia wu /309 ίΜΨίίΊΆΤ "F'T" /; behat od kramu ke krdmu, 'to run from one shop to another', Chinese ts'ung i chia p'u tzu p'ao tao ling i chia p'u tzu /310 M. But this verb also has the meaning (2) 'to move, usually to go in different directions'. In this case the Chinese equivalents are p'ao /307 S& / and p'ao laip'ao ch'u /311 f & ^ S f j i i /; the examples will be: behat po lese, 'to saunter in the woods', Chinese tsaishu lin lip'ao lai p'ao ch'u /312 ^ W ^ M M ^ i S i /; mrdz mi behd po zddech, literally 'frost keeps running on my back', i.e. Ί tremble with fright', Chinese hsia te wopei shang mao liang The verb behati has yet another meaning (3) 'to be able to walk'. The Chinese equivalents will be tsou /314 τέ / and tsou lu /315 tJH£§ /, with the following examples: dtie umi behat, 'the child can walk', Chinese hai tzu hui tsou (tsou lu) la /316 /; babicka jeste cile behd, 'grandmother runs yet nimbly', Chinese tsu mu hai hen neng tsou (tsou lu) ni /317 ffl^Mflt. (j£Jfr)5B /. In the prepositional construction (4) behati po necem, the Czech verb has the meaning 'to make errands for a certain purpose.' In this case the Chinese equivalent is p'ao pien 7/318 ί&ϋΐ 1 I. The exemplification will be behati po obchodech 'to run from one shop to another', Chinese p'ao pien shang tien /319 /• The same Czech verb sometimes occurs with preposition za i.e. behati za nekym, 'to run after someone', Chinese chui 1/320 Ü /. The construction occurs in the frequent idiomatic phrase, which can be usefully listed here, behati za devcaty, 'to run after girls', Chinese chui ku niang /321 ÜSfeif! /. Let us now compare with this the imperfective verb bezeti. It means (1) 'to run' and its Chinese equivalent is p'ao /307 /. An example would be deti bezido skoly, 'the children run to school', hsiao hai tzu p'ao tao hsiieh hsiao ch'ii /322 S H J ^ ^ i i /. But our verb quite often means (2) simply 'to go', and in this case it requires Chinese ch'u /323 i / as its equivalent. As examples we can quote: bez tarn! 'go there!', Chinese ni tao na li ch'ii pa! /324 i/pi'JSPMi"E· 1 /; bez otevrit! 'go open (sc. the door)', Chinese ni ch'ü k'ai men pa! /325 fäi^f ΠΡΕ! /. The very frequent construction (3) bezetpro neco, literally 'to run for something', i.e. 'to go and fetch something', requires two Chinese equivalents, i.e. ch'ii na 1 /280 1 /, if the thing needed can be simply taken, but ch'ii mai 1 /281 1 / if it must be bought. Exemplifications of this could be bezet pro papir 'to go and fetch paper' (simply from one's desk), Chinese ch'ii na chih /326 / and bezet pro noviny 'to go and fetch the newspaper' (from the newspaperman), Chinese ch'ii maipao chih /327 i ^ f R i S /. Our verb bezet can mean, however, also (4) 'to run, to work'. In this sense, the Chinese

Bilingual Dictionaries

315

equivalent is yiin chuan /328 /; it can be illustrated by the typical specification motor bezi, 'the motor runs, works', Chinese ma ta tsai yiin chuan /329 /. Still another necessary thing to mention (5) is that one can use the verb impersonally in the prepositional construction bezeti ο neco. The meaning of this construction will be clearer from the following individual phrases. The verb in this construction has no equivalent in Chinese. Behind the colon, the most frequent Czech phrases would be quoted, i.e.: oc bezi? 'what is the matter?' Chinese shen mo shih ch'ingl /330 f f ^ i f f f f ? /; bezi ο to, ze ..., 'the point is that ...', Chinese shih ch'ing tsaiyii ... /331 ^-'ImttT' /; bezi ozivot, 'it is a question of life', Chinese tao la shen ssu kuan t'ou /332 ill /. It is quite clear from these examples that a combination of these entries in any way is absolutely out of the question. We may lose some space by the repetition of the Chinese equivalents in some very simple cases of pairs of verbs which differ only by aspect. But we are quite sure that this loss is really a gain on the part of the user of the dictionary, who would otherwise be confused in the maze of very long and complicated entries.

Excerpts from pp. 289-90 ... The majority of entries will contain more than one equivalent of their respective Czech word. It is practical to arrange the single equivalents according to the relative frequency, i.e. according to the probability that the user will need them. The specifications of the typical combinations, examples, etc. will then follow in the order of the equivalents they contain. Again, let us discuss a part of the entry of the Czech verb jeti (necim). This verb has the meaning of 'to go' (by, in something). When it refers to a person who is going in some sort of a vehicle, the Chinese equivalents are tso 1 /358 / /, ch'eng 1 /359 1 / and ch'eng tso 1 /360 ^ ^ 1 /; ch'i 1 /361 IF? 1 / (only when astraddle of something). The examples will be: jeti lodi, 'to go in a ship' Chinese tso (ch'eng) ch'uan /362 /; jeti autem, 'to go by car', Chinese tso (ch'eng, ch'eng tso) ch'i ch'e /363 ^ ( S I . S S M ) } 1 4 ^ /; jeti vlakem, 'to go by train', Chinese tso (ch'eng, ch'eng tso) hao ch'e /364 jfe^) ik^f /; jeti na koni, 'to ride on horseback', Chinese ch'i ma /365 Inf5, /; jeti na kole, 'to ride a bicycle', Chinese ch 'i tzu hsing ch 'e /366 IS § i f $ /. The preceding example illustrates also another important principle: if there is one or more Chinese bound morphemes which must be cited among the equivalents, it is better to quote them last. The reason for this is that these bound morphemes are more likely to cause trouble to the Czech user of the dictionary than the other equivalents. Therefore, they should not be offered as the first choice, if there are other possibilities. This must not be understood as through semantics will have to cede to rather practical considerations: this rule is applicable only if semantic and other considerations do not require that the bound morpheme be put somewhere else than at the end. For instance, the word capka, 'cap' requires two equivalents which do not have any further properties to be mentioned. One of them is a bound morepheme. There being no

316

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

semantic or other reasons which would demand that the bound morpheme be put in the first place, it is preferable to indicate the equivalents in this order: mao tzu /367 ΨΙ^Ρ Λ * mao /368 * If / and the examples with the bound morpheme will be put as last: mmornickd capka, 'sailor's cap', Chinese hai chiiti mao /369 /; zimni capka, 'winter cap', Chinese tung mao /370 . Excerpts from p. 291 The ... intention to save space led us to introduce a special s y m b o l for synonyms. We have had occasion several times in this paper to mention the fact that Standard Spoken Chinese is lexically a very rich language. Therefore, there are many synonyms which cannot be altogether omitted, not even by the severest lexicographer, and consequently it is worthwhile to treat them in a special way, i.e. with a symbol. The best thing will be to show it in an example. There are two possible translations of the Czech phrase byt bez sebe strachem, 'to be beside oneself with fear', Chinese hsia te yao ssu /393 Γ Μ Ι ϋ ί Έ / and hsia te pu te liao /394 P T ^ I ^ I T /• These two expressions, being synonymous as regards their meaning and having the same structure as regards grammar, can be stated in a single formula, which is hsia te yao ssu (pu te liao) /395 B K f J U K ^ f # 7 ) / · The symbol ( ) is the symbol of synonymy. Its precise meaning is this: the element underlined on the one hand, and the element in parentheses on the other are synonymic; you can use the whole expression either with the element underlined, dropping what is contained in the parentheses, or, vice versa, with the element in parentheses, dropping what is underlined, without any discernable difference in meaning. Excerpts from pp. 302-4 In our dictionary we not only indicate the Chinese equivalents of Czech expressions as lexical material, but also try to instruct the user how to use them. Consequently we must take into consideration the fact (and indicate it for the reader) that some Chinese equivalents of Czech expressions are not "free", but "bound", i.e. that they can be used only in connection with some other expression. While doing this, we do not intend to solve somehow the whole problem of Chinese bound morphemes. We only consider the respective Chinese equivalents in their occurrence as equivalents of the respective Czech words and indicate for the reader whether they are, in the given situation free or bound. The free elements will not be indicated by a special symbol. The symbol of boundness will be the asterisk *. It is also necessary to indicate the relative position of the other morphemes which the bound morpheme is to be combined with. The latter is as necessary as the former, because the position of the morpheme which the bound morpheme is to be combined with varies. This double function is fulfilled by the symbol of asterisk: it shows that the morpheme that precedes or follows is bound, and indicates the relative position of the morpheme with which it is to be combined. Probably the majority of these bound morphemes will be equivalents of Czech adjectives.

Bilingual Dictionaries

317

The Chinese equivalent of the Czech adjective cajovy, 'tea' will be ch'a * /630 ^ * /. The examples will be: cajovd konvice, 'tea pot', Chinese ch'a hu /631 ^ a B /; cajovy pribor, 'tea set', Chinese ch'a chu /632 ^ H · /; cajove plantdze, 'tea plantations', Chinese ch'a shan /633 HlL| / and ch'a yiian /634 ^[31 /. The Chinese bound morphemes are not always monosyllabic. For instance, the Chinese equivalent of the Czech adjective bakteriologicky, 'bacteriological' will be hsi chiin * /635 äHH * /, with the examples: bakteriologickä välka, 'bacteriological warfare', Chinese hsi chiin chan /636 Λ bakteriologickä zbran, 'bacteriological weapon', Chinese hsi chun wu ch'i /637 i f f l H ^ t l r /· The Chinese equivalent of the Czech adjective bezesvy, 'seamless' will be wufeng * /638 */; these may serve as examples: bezesvd trubka, 'seamless pipe', Chinese wu feng kuan /639 ^ l i t l f /; bezesve puncochy, 'seamless stockings', Chinese wu feng ssu wa

/64o nmmn /.

But there is not a small number of Chinese bound morphemes which are equivalents of Czech substantives. For instance, the Chinese equivalent of the Czech word esence, 'essence' (in Czech, only the meaning "extract obtained by distillation" is usual) will be * ching /641 * If /; the examples will be: νοήανά esence, 'fragrant essence', Chinese hsiang ching /642 If f t /; octovd esence, 'vinegar essence', Chinese ts'u ching /643 U f f /. The Chinese equivalents of the Czech word energie, 'energy' (in the meaning of power) will be neng liang /644 MM / (which is free) and * neng /645 * f a / (which is bound). They will be illustrated by the following examples: atomovd energie, 'atomic energy', Chinese yiian tzu neng /646 ®-f-fla /; elektrickd energie, 'electric energy', Chinese tie η neng /647 Näfis /; kinetickä energie, 'kinetic energy', Chinese tung neng /648 zfrfla /; molekulärni energie, 'molecular energy', Chinese fen tzu neng /649 ft-f /; mechanickd energie, 'mechanical energy', Chinese chi hsieh neng /650 iJlMfb Λ tepelnä energie, 'thermal energy', Chinese jo neng /651 f&fla /; slunecni energie, 'solar energy', Chinese t'aiyang neng /652 /; zäkon ο zachovdni energie, 'the law of preservation of energy', Chinese neng liang shou heng lü (pu mieh Iii) /653 f f c ι Β τ Ρ Μ ^ Γ ^ W f t ) /. It is sometimes possible to mention some Chinese bound morphemes only in the examples of an entry, in which different phrases and expressions are quoted. For instance, the practical arrangement of the entry for the Czech verb nabaziti se neceho, 'to be sick and tired of is yen chüan 1 /654 1 I, tui 1 yen chüan /655 ^f I Κ fit /, with the examples: nabazil se prdzdneho zivota, 'he has had enough of empty, shallow life', Chinese t'a tui k'ung chien ti sheng huo yen chüan la /656 jTPS^ifetS RfilT /; uz se nabazil takoveho zahdlciveho zivota, 'he has had enough, he is sick of such an idle life', Chinese t'a yen chüan le che chung wu liao sheng huo /657 {tkRiir T Ä W ^ C / · On the other hand there is also the Chinese formant * ni la /658 * M T /, which stands behind the verb denoting the activity of which one has had enough; but it is probably better not to lead the Czech user of the dictionary to a frequent use of this formant; the Chinese equivalents quoted will be sufficient. Therefore, the said formant will be quoted only in some phrases, as nabazil se podivane, 'he has got sick and tired of looking',

318

The Czech-Chinese Dictionary and the Theory of Lexicography

Chinese t'a k'an ni la /659 flfc^fMT Λ techhle jidel se uz nabazil, 'he has had enough of all these dishes', che hsieh tung hsi t'a i ching ch'ih ni la /606 S . ^ ^ f l M ' f l f e S ^ l f e l C T /. Some Chinese modal particles can be regarded as equivalents of Czech words; they will be quoted in the respective entry for the Czech word, and the position of the modified expression will be indicated by three dots. For instance, the Czech word jiz, 'already' will have the Chinese equivalents i ching /661 / and ...la /662 Τ / (the modal particle). The examples will be: vlak se jiz rozejel, 'the train has already started moving', Chinese huo ch'e i ching k'ai tung la /663 ffiSÖT jizisme ta 'he r c we are already, Chinese too la /664 3\T /•

319

Comprehensive Bibliography

1962 = A A R S L E F F , H A N S : 1962. The early history of the Oxford English Dictionary. Bulletin of the New York Public Library 66:417-439.

AARSLEFF

The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Reprint of 1967 edition, with a new preface.)

AARSLEFF 1 9 8 3 = AARSLEFF, HANS: 1 9 8 3 .

= A B A E V , VASILIJ IVANOVICH: 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 8 9 . Istoriko-etimologicheskij Slovar' Osetinskogo Jazyka. Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vol. I 1 9 5 8 [ 6 5 5 pp.]; Vol. II 1 9 7 3 [ 4 4 8 pp.]; Vol. Ill 1 9 7 9 [ 3 5 8 pp.]; Vol. IV 1 9 8 9 [ 3 2 5 pp.],

ABAEV 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 8 9

1 9 7 0 = A B A E V , VASILIJ IVANOVICH: 1 9 7 0 . Russko-osetinskij Slovar'. Moscow: Gos. izd. inostrannykh i nacional'nykh slovarej, 1950. Ed. Μ. I. Isaev. 2nd edition. Parallel title: Wyryssag-iron Dzyrdwat. Moscow: Sov. Enciklopedija.

ABAEV

Quoted by R. L. Wagner. Les vocabulaires frangais, I. Paris: Didier, 1967. From Mario Roques, Recueil general des lexiques frangais du Moyen Age, I, II. Paris, 1936, 1938.

ABAVUS.

AcADfiMiE 1694 = Le Dictionnaire de l'Academie (franijaise). Paris: J.B. Coignard. 1977a = A D R A D O S , 1977), 185-196.

ADRADOS

FRANCISCO

R.: 1977a. Micenico. In: Adrados et al. (eds.

1977b = A D R A D O S , FRANCISCO R.: 1977b. Organization de los articulos del diccionario: Criterios a seguir. In: Adrados et al. (eds. 1977), 259-80.

ADRADOS

ADRADOS

1986

=

ADRADOS, FRANCISCO

Lexicographic Science. Lexicographica

R.:

1986.

The Greek-Spanish Dictionary and

2:8-32.

1991a = A D R A D O S , FRANCISCO R.: 1991a. Indo-European comparative dictionaries. Mox edetur in commentariis, quibus titulus. Lexicographica 7:11-24.

ADRADOS

1991b = A D R A D O S , FRANCISCO R.: 1991b. Dictionaries of Indo-European and their problems. In: Zgusta (ed. 1991d), 11-24.

ADRADOS

1997 = A D R A D O S , FRANCISCO R.: 1997. More on the Diccionario Griego Espanol. In: Hock (ed.) 1997,221-231.

ADRADOS

ADRADOS e t a l . 1 9 7 7 = A D R A D O S , F . R . , E . G A N G U T I A , J . L O P E Z F A C A L , AND C . S E R R A N O

Introduccion a la Lexicografia Griega. (Manuales y anejos de Emerita, 33.) Madrid: Instituto Antonio Nebrija.

AYBAR: 1 9 7 7 .

= A D R A D O S , F R A N C I S C O R. E T AL.: 1 9 8 0 et seqq. Diccionario Griego-Espafiol. Vol. I ff. Madrid: Instituto 'Antonio de Nebrija'. [Vol. I a - ajlla, p. 1 - 1 5 5 , 1 9 8 0 : Vol. II ajlla - ajpokoinwvnhto, p. 1 5 5 - 4 2 4 + Suplemento al volume I, p.

A D R A D O S ET AL. 1 9 8 0

Comprehensive Bibliography

320

3 - 6 , 1986], 1 9 8 7 . Words in the Mind: An Introduction Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

AITCHISON 1 9 8 7 = AITCHISON, JEAN:

to the

1965 =AKHMANOVA, O. S.: 1965. [Abstracts and Translations] From Publications in Russian. International Journal of American Linguistics, XXXI, 1965, 152-165.

AKHMANOVA

ALBERT/ SHAUL 1 9 8 5 = A L B E R T , R O Y , AND D A V I D L . SHAUL: 1 9 8 5 .

A Concise Hopi and

English Lexicon. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. ALBERT(

1961

=ALBERT1,

S.: 1961. Diccionari castella-catala-castella.

ALGEO 1 9 7 7 ( 1 9 8 0 ) = A L G E O , JOHN: 1 9 7 7 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

Blends:

A

Barcelona: Alberti.

structural and systemic view.

American Speech 5:47-64. The taxonomy of word making. Word 29:122-131. (63 different types of word making are distinguished.)

ALGEO 1 9 7 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) = A L G E O , JOHN: 1 9 7 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

ALGEO 1 9 8 0 = ALGEO, JOHN; 1 9 8 0 .

Where do all the new words come from? American

Speech 55:264-277. 1 9 9 4 . Training and scaling preference functions for disambiguation. Computational Linguistics 20:635-648.

ALSHAWI/ C A R T E R 1 9 9 4 = A L S H A W I , H I Y A N , AND D A V I D C A R T E R :

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English William Morris (ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Language.

1992 = The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Anne H. Soukhanov (ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Language.

AMERICAN HERITAGE 1 9 6 9 =

AMERICAN HERITAGE

1984a = AMSLER, ROBERT Α . : 1984a. Lexical knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of COLING 84:10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 458-459.

AMSLER

1984b = AMSLER, ROBERT A.: 1984b. Machine-readable dictionaries. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 19:161-209.

AMSLER

1996 = ANDREASSON, A . - M . : 1996. Svenska akademiens ordbok and Oxford English Dictionary·, a comparison of their microstructure. In: International Journal of Lexicography 9, 83-101.

ANDREASSON

APRESYAN/ M E L ' C U K / ZOLKOVSKY 1 9 6 9 = A P R E S Y A N , Y U . D . , I . A . MEL'CUK, AND A .

K.

Semantics and lexicography: Towards a new type of unilingual dictionary. In: Kiefer (ed. 1969), 1-33. ZOLKOVSKY: 1 9 6 9 .

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. A translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [XXXVII, 909 p.].

ARNDT/ GINGRICH 1 9 5 7 = ARNDT, WILLIAM, AND F . WILBUR GINGRICH: 1 9 5 7 .

321

Comprehensive Bibliography

1992/93 = A T K I N S , B. T. S.: 1992/93. Theoretical lexicography and its relation to dictionary-making. Dictionaries 14:4-43.

ATKINS

Australian Aboriginal Lexicography. (Papers in Australian Linguistics, 15; Pacific Linguistics, Series A, 66.) Canberra: The Australian National University.

AUSTIN 1 9 8 3 = AUSTIN, PETER ( E D . ) : 1 9 8 3 .

1890 = AUTENRIETH, G.: 1890. Lexikographie der griechischen Sprache. In: Griechische und lateinische Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd edition. Ed. by Karl Brugmann and Friedrich Stolze et al. München: O. Beck. 585-607.

AUTENRIETH

B A C H / HARMS 1 9 6 8 = B A C H , E M M O N W . , AND ROBERT T H O M A S H A R M S : 1 9 6 8 .

Universals

in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1 7 2 1 . An Universal Etymological English Dictionary Comprehending The Derivations of the Generality of Words in the English Tongue, either Antient or Modern, ... And Also A Brief and clear Explication of all difficult Words ... and Terms of Art ... Together with A Large Collection and Explication of Words and Phrases us'd in our Antient Statutes ..., London 1721.

BAILEY 1 7 2 1 = B A I L E Y , N A T H A N :

BAILEY 1 7 3 0 = BAILEY, N A T H A N : 1 7 3 0 .

technical words or terms of art...

Dictionarium Britannicum: ...explaining hard and words ... us'd in our antient charters . . . London.

1986 = BAILEY, RICHARD W.: 1986. Materials for the history of the Oxford English Dictionary. Dictionaries 8:176-250.

BAILEY

1894 = B A I L L Y , Μ. Α.: 1894. Dictionaire Grec-Frangais ... a Vusage des eleves des lycees et des colleges. Paris: Hachette. 26th edition by L. Sechan and P. Chantraine, 1963 [XXXII, 2215 p.].

BAILLY

Ottone Böhtlingk. Studi Italiani di Filologia Indo-iranica 6:v-xiii. [Here is to be found the only published portrait of Böhtlingk known to me.]

BALLINI 1 9 0 4 = B A L L I N I , AMBROGIO: 1 9 0 4 .

B A R B E R e t a l . 1 9 6 8 = Β A R B E R , Ε . Α . , Ρ . M A A S , Μ . S C H E L L E R , AND Μ . L . W E S T :

(Liddell/ Scott/ Jones) Greek-English [XI, 153 p.],

BARNHART 1 9 8 0 = B A R N H A R T , CLARENCE L : 1 9 8 0 .

In: Zgusta (ed.

1980),

1968.

Lexicon. A Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press What makes a dictionary authoritative?

33^2.

1997 = B A R N H A R T , CLARENCE: 1997. The American College Dictionary. New York: Random House. [This is the latest edition of the dictionary. One of the oldest editions is The Thorndike-Barnhart Comprehensive Desk Dictionary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1951. There are many varying editions of the smaller dictionaries; to list them all would require a special bibliographic enquiry. In the title they have the two names 'Thorndike-Bamhart1 and are distinguished as well by specifications such as 'junior dictionary', 'advanced junior dictionary', 'intermediate dictionary' in the title.]

BARNHART

BARTHOLOMEW/ SCHOENHALS 1 9 8 3 = BARTHOLOMEW, DORIS Α . , AND LOUISE C . SCHOENHALS:

1983. Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous

Languages.

Mexico, D.F.: Instituto

Comprehensive Bibliography

322

Linguistico de Verano. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Gieben 1928 (Fourth edition 1952; fifth edition 1958).

BAUER 1928 = B A U E R , W A L T E R : 1 9 2 8 .

B A U E R / A L A N D / A L A N D 1 9 8 8 = B A U E R , W A L T E R , K U R T A L A N D , AND BARBARA A L A N D :

1988. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur von Walter Bauer. 6., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung/ Münster unter besonderer Mitwirkung von Viktor Reichmann herausgegeben von Kurt Aland und Barbara Aland. Berlin. New York: W. de Gruyter [IX p., 1796 col.]. Die lebendige dimension toter sprachen: Zur pragmatischen analyse von Sprachgebrauch in historischen kontexten. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 11:1-21.

ΒΑΧ 1983 = B AX, MARCEL: 1983.

B E A R D 1981 = B E A R D , R O B E R T : 1 9 8 1 .

The Indo-European

Lexicon: A Full

Synchronic

Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1989 = B & O I N T , HENRI: 1989. The teaching of dictionary use: Present state and future tasks. In: Encyclopedia I, 208-215.

ΒΈJOINT

The place of the dictionary in an EFL programme. In: The Dictionary and the Language Learner: Papers from the EURALEX Seminar at.the University of Leeds, 1-3 April 1985. Ed. by A. P. Cowie. (Lexicographica, Series Maior, 17.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 97-114

B & O I N T / MOULIN 1 9 8 7 = B 6 J O I N T , H E N R I , AND A N D R 6 MOULIN: 1 9 8 7 .

BENNETT/ OLIVIER 1 9 7 3 = B E N N E T T , EMMETT L . , J R . , AND JEAN-PIERRE OLIVIER: 1 9 7 3 .

The

Pylos Tablets Transcribed. Part I: Texts and Notes. Roma, Edizioni dell'Ateneo 1973 [Incunabula Graeca, LI; 287 p.]. Part II: Hands, Concordances, Indices. Roma, Edizioni dell'Ateneo 1976. [Incunabula Graeca, LIX: 150 p.], BENSON e t a l . 1 9 8 6 = B E N S O N , M O R T O N , EVELYN B E N S O N AND ROBERT I L S O N : 1 9 8 6 . B B I

Combinatory Dictionary of English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Canon of Greek Authors and Works. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press [XII, 341 p.].

BERKOWITZ ET AL. 1 9 8 6 = BERKOWITZ, LUCY, ET AL.: 1 9 8 6 .

B E U T E L ET AL. 1 9 8 6 = B E U T E L , Η . , G A S D E , H . - D . , G L E B O F F , Α . , K A R L , I . , R I C H T E R , G . , S C H W A R Z , C . , S P I E S , G . , AND T R E P P T , Ε . 1986:

Chinesisch-Deutsches

Wörterbuch.

2nd. edition. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Ekvivalent slova Ν jazyce cflovem. In: Otdzky (no editor). Prague: Stätni Pedagogicke Nakladatelstvi.

BEZD&C 1 9 7 4 = BEZDÖK, JAROSLAV: 1 9 7 4 .

Lexikografie a VydavaniSlovnik" 139-213.

1970 = BIERWISCH, Μ.: 1970. Semantics. In: New Horizons in Linguistics. Ed. by John Lyons. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 166-184.

BIERWISCH

323

Comprehensive Bibliography B J A R K M A N / RASKIN

1986

= B J A R K M A N , P E T E R , AND V I C T O R R A S K I N ( E D S . ) :

Real-World Linguist: Linguistic Applications Publishing Corp.

in the 1980s.

1986.

Norwood, NJ:

The

ABLEX

1 6 5 6 . Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting all such hard words, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin ... also the terms of divinity, law, physich, mathematick, heraldry, anatomy, war, musick, architecture; and of several other arts and sciences explicated ... London: T. Newcomb for H. Moseley & G. Sawbridge.

BLOUNT 1 6 5 6 = B L O U N T , THOMAS:

Pänini's acht Bücher grammatischer Regeln. Bd. I. Pänini's Sütra's mit Indischen Scholien. Bonn: H. B. König ( 1 8 3 9 ) . Bd II: Einleitung, Commentar, Indices. Bonn: H. B. König ( 1 8 4 0 ) .

BÖHTLINGK 1 8 3 9 / 1 8 4 0 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1 8 3 9 / 1 8 4 0 .

= BÖHTLINGK, O T T O : 1 8 4 5 . Sanskrit-Chrestomathie. 1st edition. St. Petersburg: Gedruckt bei der Kaiserlichen akademie der Wissenschaften. [2nd edition. St. Petersburg 1 8 7 7 . 3rd edition by R. Garbe. St. Petersburg 1 9 0 9 . ]

BÖHTLINGK 1 8 4 5

1851 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1851. Über die Sprache der Jakuten. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

BÖHTLINGK

Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. Hrsg. von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, bearbeitet von Otto Böhtlingk und Rudolph Roth. Vol. I-VII. St. Petersburg. [In Indological works, reference to this dictionary is usually made by the abbreviation PW .]

BÖHTLINGK 1 8 5 5 - 1 8 7 5 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1 8 5 5 - 1 8 7 5 .

1863/1865 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1863/1865. Indische Sprüche. Sanskrit und Deutsch. Three volumes. 1st edition. St. Petersburg: Commissionäre der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [2nd edition: St. Petersburg: Commissionäre der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1870/1873.]

BÖHTLINGK

Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung. Hrsg. von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaft Vol. I-VII. St. Petersburg. Unveränderter Abdruck [bound in three volumes]. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt 1959. [In Indological works, reference to this dictionary is usually made by the abbreviation pw.]

BÖHTLINGK 1 8 7 9 - 1 8 8 9 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1 8 7 9 - 1 8 8 9

BÖHTLINGK 1 8 8 7 = BÖHTLINGK, OTTO: 1 8 8 7 .

Pänini's Grammatik. Leipzig:

H.

Haessel.

1973 = BOTTERO, J.: 1973. La lexicographie accadienne. In: Studies on Semitic Lexicography. Ed. by James Barr and Pelio Fronzaroli. (Quaderni de semitistica, 2.) Firenze: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Universitä di Firenze. 25-60.

BOTTÜRO

(1884), (1928) = B R A D L E Y , H E N R Y : (1884), (1928). Review of A New English Dictionary edited by James A. H. Murray, Part 1, A-Ant. In: The Collected Papers of Henry Bradley. (No editor) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1928.127-137. (Originally published in Academy, February 16, and March 1, 1884. Bradley's review of the second issue of OED published in Academy, November 28, 1885, is not reprinted in 1928; this second review deals more with individual data in the entries than with general principles.)

BRADLEY

Comprehensive Bibliography

324

1990 = B R A Y , L A U R E N T : 1990. La lexicographic frangaise des origines ä Littre. In: Encyclopedia II, 1788-1818.

BRAY

1966 = B R E K L E , H . E.: 1966. Syntaktische Gruppe (Adjektiv + Substantiv) vs. Kompositum im modernen Englisch, In: Linguistics, XXIII (1966), 5 sqq. - Addendum.

BREKLE

Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München: W. Fink.

BREKLE 1 9 7 0 = B R E K L E , H . E . : 1 9 7 0 .

= BROZOVIC, DALIBOR: 1 9 8 2 . Ο sadrzaju pojma norma u leksikologiji i leksikografiji. In: Leksikografija iLeksikologija: Zbornik Referata. Ed. by Darinka Gortan-Premk and Drago äupiä. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti.

BROZOVIC 1 9 8 2

15-20.

An English Expositor, teaching the interpretation of the hardest words vsed in our language. London: Printed by I. Legatt.

BULLOKAR 1 6 1 6 = BULLOKAR, JOHN: 1 6 1 6 .

1 9 7 2 . Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. University of California, Irvine. [Database of machine-readable Greek texts.]

BRUNNER 1 9 7 2 = B R U N N E R , T H E O D O R E F.:

Irvine:

Some aspects of the historical treatment of twentieth century vocabulary. In: Tavola Rotonda Sui Grandi Lessici Storici. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca. 31-35.

BURCHFIELD 1973 = B U R C H F I E L D , R O B E R T W . : 1 9 7 3 .

The art of the lexicographer. Journal of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts 123:349-361.

BURCHFIELD 1 9 7 5 = BURCHFIELD, ROBERT W . : 1 9 7 5 .

1986 = B U R C H F I E L D , R O B E R T W . : 1986. The New Zealand Pocket Dictionary. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press, [901 pp.].

BURCHFIELD

Oxford

1980 = B U T L E R , S H A R O N : 1980. Problems with headwords in Old English. In: Zgusta (ed. 1980a), 105-114.

BUTLER

An empirical approach to circularity in dictionary definitions. Cahiers de Lexicologie 31:118-128.

C A L Z O L A R I 1 9 7 7 = C A L Z O L A R I , NICOLETTA: 1 9 7 7 .

Acquiring and representing semantic In: Pustejövsky & Bergler (eds. 1991),

C A L Z O L A R I 1 9 9 1 = C A L Z O L A R I , NICOLETTA: 1 9 9 1 .

information in a lexical knowledge base. 166-197.

1962 = Cambridge Italian Dictionary (Italian-English). Ed. Barbara Reynolds. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.

CAMBRIDGE

1981 = Cambridge Italian Dictionary (English-Italian). Ed. barbara Reynolds. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.

CAMBRIDGE

1807 = C A M P E , JOACHIM HEINRICH: 1807. Wörterbuch der deutschen Braunschweig [5 vol; 4991 pp.].

CAMPE

Sprache.

1891 = C A P P E L L E R , CARL: 1891. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Based upon the St. Petersburg Lexicons. Strassburg: Trübner 1891. [Reprinted by the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Varanasi (India) 1972.]

CAPPELLER

Comprehensive Bibliography

325

Semantic relationships in Papago folk-definitions. In: Studies in Southwestern Ethnolinguistics. Ed. by Dell H. Hymes and William E. Bittle. The Hague, Paris: Mouton & Co.

CASAGRANDE/ H A L E 1 9 6 7 = CASAGRANDE, JOSEPH B . AND KENNETH H A L E : 1 9 6 7 .

165-193. 1 9 5 0 = CASARES Υ SANCHEZ, JULIO: 1 9 5 0 . Introduction a la lexicografia moderna. Revista de Filogia espaiiola, 52. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto "Miguel de Cervantes".

CASARES

Novedades en el Diccionario academico, "La Academia Espanola trabaja." Madrid: Aguilar.

CASARES Υ S ANCHEZ 1 9 6 3 = CASARES Υ SANCHEZ, JULIO: 1 9 6 3 .

1997 = C A S S I D Y , FREDERIC G.: 1997. labels in English dictionaries, In: Dictionaries

CASSIDY

F.

The rise and development of modern 18, 97-112.

1 6 0 4 . A table alphabeticall, conteyning ... hard usuall English wordes ... with the interpretation thereof by plaine English words. London.

C A W D R E Y 1 6 0 4 = C A W D R E Y , ROBERT:

1973 = CERVENA, VLASTA, AND EVA POKORNA: 1973. Ο ekvivalentech fraseologismü ν dvoujazycnem slovniku. In: Ruzicka/Poldauf (eds. 1973), 167-74.

CERVENA/ POKORNA

= CHADWICK, JOHN: 1 9 9 6 . Lexicographica Graeca, contributions to the lexicography of Ancient Greek, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

CHADWICK 1 9 9 6

CHADWICK/ BAUMBACH 1 9 6 3

f . = C H A D W I C K , J O H N , AND LYDIA BAUMBACH: 1 9 6 3 f .

The

Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary. Glotta 41 (1963), 157-271 (index pp. 259-271); L. Baumbach: The Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary II. Glotta 49 (1971), 151-190. 1970 = C H A F E , W. L.: 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CHAFE

1956 = C H A N T R A I N E , Librairie E. Klincksieck.

CHANTRAINE

CHAPMAN

1948 =

CHAPMAN,

PIERRE:

1956. Etudes sur le Vocabulaire Grec. Paris:

R. W. 1948: Lexicography. London.

1998 = C H E N , J E N N A N , AND JASON S . C H A N G : 1998. Topical clustering of MRD senses based on information retrieval techniques. In: Ide/ Veronis (eds. 1998), 61-95.

C H E N / CHANG

CHOMSKY 1 9 6 5 = CHOMSKY, NOAM: 1 9 6 5 .

Aspects of the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press. Proceedings of 1982 International Conference of the Chinese-Language Computer Society, Capital Hilton, Washington, D.C., September 22-23,1982 (Conference devoted to all aspects of computer processing of Chinese and oriental languages.) Montreal: The Chinese Language Computer Society.

C H U 1 9 8 2 = C H U , YAOHAN ( E D . ) : 1 9 8 2 .

1964 = COATES, W. Α.: 1964. Meaning in morphemes and compound lexical units, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists.(The Hague, p. 1064 sqq.

COATES

COBUILD 1987 = Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary : 1987. Ed. John Sinclair

326

Comprehensive Bibliography

and Patrick Hanks et al. London and Glasgow: Collins, (other editions and printings.) COCKER AM 1 6 2 3 = COCKERAM, H E N R Y : 1 6 2 3 .

The English dictionary: or an interpreter of

hard English words. London. = C O H N , L E O P O L D : 1 9 1 3 . Griechische lexikographie. In: Karl Brugmann: Griechische Grammatik, 4th edition by Albert Thumb. München: Beck. 6 7 9 - 7 3 0 .

COHN 1913

An English dictionary: explaining the difficult terms ... containing many thousands of hard words. London.

COLES 1 6 7 6 = C O L E S , ELISHA: 1 6 7 6 .

1981 = Collins German-English (and) English-German Dictionary. Ed. Peter Terrell, et al. London: Collins.

COLLINS

1997 = JOHN CONSIDINE, 1997. Etymology and the Oxford English Dictionary: a response, international Journal of Lexicography 10,234-236.

CONSIDINE

Les procedes semantiques dans la formation des mots. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 35:3-16.

COSERIU 1 9 8 1 = C O S E R I U , EUGENIO: 1 9 8 1 .

COTGRAVE 1 6 1 1 = COTGRAVE, RANDLE: 1 6 1 1 .

A Dictionarie of the French and English

Tongues. London: A Islip. 1980 = C O T T E Z , HENRI: 1980. Dictionnaire des structures du vocabulaire savant: Elements et modeles deformation. Paris: Le Robert [XXXIV + 515 pp.].

COTTEZ

1983 = C O W I E , A. P., AND R. M A C K I N : 1983. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, vol. I: Verbs with Prepositions and Particles. Oxford University Press 1976; vol II: Phrase, Clause and Sentence Idioms, A. P. Cowie; R. Mackin and I. R. McCaig. Oxford University Press.

COWIE/ MACKIN

1991a = T H O M A S B.I. C R E A M E R : 1991a. Bilingual Lexicography with Chinese. In: Encyclopedia III, 3107-3113.

CREAMER

1991b = THOMAS B.I. C R E A M E R : 1991b. Chinese Lexicography. In: Encyclopedia 111,2596-2611.

CREAMER

Usage in Dictionaries and Dictionaries of Usage. (Publication of the American Dialect Society, 63-64.) University of Alabama Press [pub. 1 9 7 8 ] ,

CRESWELL 1 9 7 5 = C R E S W E L L , THOMAS J . : 1 9 7 5 .

CRESWELL 1 9 7 7 = CRESWELL, THOMAS J . : 1 9 7 7 .

Usage in contemporary American dictionaries.

Babel 23:23-28. CRESWELL/ M C D A V I D 1 9 8 6 = C R E S W E L L , THOMAS J . , AND VIRGINIA M C D A V I D :

1986.

The

usage panel in The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition. In: Frawley/ Steiner (eds. 1 9 8 6 ) , 8 3 - 9 6 . Passow's Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, völlig neu bearbeitet. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1 9 1 2 - 1 9 1 4 [Three issues, a -... ajnav, 408 col.].

CRÖNERT 1 9 1 2 = CRÖNERT, WILHELM: 1 9 1 2 .

CRUSCA

1612 = Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca. Venezia: Giovanni Alberti.

327

Comprehensive Bibliography CRUSE

1992/93 =

CRUSE,

D. Α.: 1992/93. On polylexy. Dictionaries

14:88-96.

Word sense disambiguation using a second language monolingual corpus. Computational Linguistics 2 0 : 5 6 3 - 5 9 6 .

D A G A N / ITAI 1 9 9 4 = D A G A N , I D O , AND A L O N ITAI: 1 9 9 4 .

Tolkovyi slovar' zhivogo velikorusskago iazyka. 3rd edition, edited by Jean Baudouin de Courtenay. St. Petersburg. [The dictionary was later re-edited several times, both under Soviet rule and afterwards.]

D A L ' 1 9 0 3 = D A L ' , VLADIMIR IVANOVICH: 1 9 0 3 .

DARDANO e t a l . 1 9 8 3 = DARDANO, M A U R I Z I O , WOLFGANG U . DRESSLER, AND GUDRUN H E L D (EDS): 1 9 8 3 . Parallela. Akten des 2. Österreichisch-Italienischen Linguistentreffens: Atti del 2° convegno italo-austriaco SLI, Roma, 1.-4.2.1982. Tübingen: Narr.

1539 = Petri Dasypodii Lexikovn Graecolatinum in usum juventutis litterarum studiosae diligenter congestum. Argentorati.

DASYPODIUS

Graecarum

1986 = D E A N , CHRISTOPHER: 1986. The O E D , the study of local dialects and historical dialect dictionaries. In: Information in Data: First Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary; Proceedings of the Conference, November 6-7,1985, Waterloo. Warterloo, Ontario: UW Centre for the New OED.

DEAN

1904 = DELBRÜCK, BERTHOLD: 1904. Nekrolog auf O. Böhtlingk. In: Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 56:253-258.

DELBRÜCK

DEVOTO

1946 =

DEVOTO

G. 1946: Dizionari di ieri e di domani. Firenze.

Current Approaches to the Lexicon: A Selection of Papers Presented at the 18th LAUD Symposium, Duisburg, March 1993. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.

DIRVEN/ V A N P A R Y S 1 9 9 5 = D I R V E N , R E N Ö , AND JOHAN V A N P A R Y S ( E D S . ) : 1 9 9 5 .

The Lexicographic and Lexicological Methods and Procedures in John Wilkins' Essay towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language ( 1 6 6 8 ) . Urbana (Illinois).

DOLEZAL 1 9 8 2 = D O L E Z A L , FREDRIC: 1 9 8 2 .

Forgotten but Important Lexicographers, John Wilkins and William Lloyd: A Modern Approach to Lexicography before Johnson. (Lexicographica, Series Maior, 4.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

DOLEZAL 1 9 8 5 = D O L E Z A L , FREDRIC: 1 9 8 5 .

1986 = D O L E Z A L , FREDRIC: 1986. Towards a comprehensive and systematically defined lexicon. In: Frawley/ Steiner (eds. 1986), 112-130.

DOLEZAL

DOLEZAL 1 9 8 9 = D O L E Z A L , FREDRIC ( E D . ) : 1 9 8 9 .

The Dictionary as Text.

International

Journal of Lexicography 2(3). The dictionary as philosophy: Reconstructing the meaning of Our Father. In: Culture, Ideologies and the Dictionary. Ed. By Braj B. Kachru. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer-Verlag. 3 4 1 - 3 5 1 .

DOLEZAL 1 9 9 5 = D O L E Z A L , FREDRIC: 1 9 9 5 .

1981 = DRESSLER, WOLFGANG U.: 1981. On word formation in natural morphology. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 26:3-14.

DRESSLER

328

Comprehensive Bibliography

1846 = D R I S L E R , H E N R Y : 1846. A Greek-English lexicon based on the German work of Francis Passow by Henry George Liddell... and Robert Scott... with corrections and additions, and the insertion in alphabetical order of the proper names occurring in the principle Greek authors. New York: Harper & Brothers [XXIX, 1705 p.] (Other editions in 1860, 1872, 1874.)

DRISLER

DROSDOWSKI 1 9 8 3 = DROSDOWSKI, GÜNTER. 1 9 8 3 :

Duden Deutsches

Universalwörterbuch.

Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Dictionnaire et discours didactique. In: Rey-Debove (ed. [German translation: Das Wörterbuch und der didaktische Text. In:

DUBOIS 1 9 7 0 = D U B O I S , JEAN: 1 9 7 0 . 1970), 3 5 - 4 7

Zgusta (ed.

1985), 115-135].

DUBOIS 1 9 7 1 = D U B O I S , J E A N : 1 9 7 1 .

Introduction a la Lexicographie:

Le

Dictionnaire.

Paris: Larousse. 1983 = Duden Deutsches Mannheim: Duden verlag.

DUDEN

Universalwörterbuch.

Edited by Günter Drosdowski.

DuMfiziL 1968 = DuMfiziL, G E O R G E S : 1968. Mythe et Epopie: VIdeologie des trois fonctions dens les epopees des peuples indo-europeens. [Paris]: Editions Gallimard. E C H O L S , JOHN M.: 1 9 7 8 . Dictionaries and dictionary making: Malay and Indonesian. Journal of Asian Studies 3 8 : 1 1 - 2 4 .

ECHOLS 1 9 7 8 =

1975 = EILERS, WILHELM: 1975. Charakteristika der arabischen Nominalbildung. In: Proceedings of the VIth Congress of Arabic and Islamic Studies. (Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademiens handlingar, Filologisk-filosofiska serien, 15.) Stokholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. 155-195.

EILERS

I 1989, II 1990, III 1991 = Wörterbiicher-Dictionaries-Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Ed. by Franz Josef Hausmann/ Oskar Reichmann/ Herbert Ernst Wiegand/ Ladislav Zgusta. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.

ENCYCLOPEDIA

E N G E L / DE ENGE 1 9 8 7 = E N G E L , R A L P H , AND M A R Y ALLHISER DE E N G E : 1 9 8 7 .

Zoque de Francisco Leon. (Serie de vocabularies y diccionarios indigenes Silva y Aceves" No. 30.) Mexico, D. F.: Instituto Lingüistico de Verano.

Diccionario "Mariano

E N G E L M A N N / RACKEBRANDT 1 9 7 0 = E N G E L M A N N , G U D R U N , AND R E N A T E R A C K E B R A N D T :

1970. Zu einigen Problemen bei der Arbeit an einem Deutsch-Suaheli Wörterbuch. In: Probleme der Lexikographie. Ed. by Kaspar K. Riemschneider. (Protokollband der Sektion II der Tagung des Instituts für Orientforschung der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin anlässlich seines zwanzigjährigen Bestehens vom 2 3 - 2 5 . Oktober 1967. Institut für Orientforschung, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichung, 7 3 . ) Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 . 1965 = ENGLISH, L E O JAMES: 1965. English-Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: Dept. of Education, Rep. of the Philippines.

ENGLISH

E R N O U T / MEILLET

1932 =

E R N O U T , A L F R E D , AND A N T O I N E M E I L L E T :

1932.

Dictionnaire

329

Comprehensive Bibliography

etymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck. [Fourth edition 1959.] ESTIENNE 1 5 3 9

Frangois-Latin, Paris.

=

E S T I E N N E , ROBERT (ROBERTUS STEPHANUS): 1539. Dictionnaire contenant les motz et manieres de parier Frangois, tournez en Latin.

et al. 1 9 9 1 = E V E N S , M A R T H A ET A L . : 1 9 9 1 . For the lexicon that has everything. In: Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds. 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 7 9 - 1 8 7 .

EVENS

Das Deutsche Fachwort der Technik. Bildungselemente und Muster. Ed. by Werner Reinhardt/ Gunter Neubert. Leipzig: ΕΒ Verlag Enzyklopädie [ 3 9 5 pp.].

FACHWORT DER TECHNIK 1 9 8 4 =

1992 = F A R I N A , D O N N A Μ. Τ. CR.: 1992. The meaning of definition in Soviet lexicography: The Leningrad academic dictionaries. Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography 8:69-99.

FARINA

Shcherba's "Opyt". A contribution to theoretical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 8 : 3 0 4 - 3 1 3 .

FARINA 1 9 9 5 = F A R I N A , D O N N A Μ . T . C R . : 1 9 9 5 . L . V .

2001 = F A R I N A , D O N N A Μ. T. CR.: 2001. Dai's Dictionary. In: Censorship: A World Encyclopedia. Ed. By Derek Jones. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. [About Baudouin de Courtenay.] Vol. 3,2101-2103.

FARINA

FELBER 1 9 8 4 = FELBER, HELMUT: 1 9 8 4 .

Terminolog manualy. Paris:

UNESCO.

Fermor 1 9 7 7 = FERMOR, PATRICK LEIGH: 1 9 7 7 . A Time of Gifts: On Foot to Constantinople: From the Hook of Holland to the Middle Danube. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1982 = FILIPEC, JOSEF: 1982. Sprachkultur und lexikographie. In: Grundlagen der Sprachkultur: Beiträge der Prager Linguistik zur Sprachtheorie und Sprachpflege, vol. 2. Ed. by Jürgen Scharnhorst and Erika Ising. (Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft, Reihe Sprache und Gesellschaft, 8/2.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 174-202.

FILIPEC

FILLMORE

1968 =

FILLMORE, C . :

1968. The case for case. In: Bach/Harms (eds. 1968),

1-88.

1969 = 109-137.

FILLMORE

FILLMORE, C . :

1969. Types of lexical information. In: Kiefer (ed. 1969),

1970 = FILLMORE, C.: 1970. Verbes de jugement: Essai de description semantique. Langages 17:56-72.

FILLMORE

1977 = FILLMORE, C H A R L E S J.: 1977. Scenes and frames semantics. In: Antonio Zampolli (ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland Publishing. 55-81.

FILLMORE

1968 = F I R T H , J. R . : 1968. Selected Papers of J.R. Firth, 1952-59. (ed.). Bloomington; London: Indiana University Press.

FIRTH

F.R.

Palmer

330

Comprehensive Bibliography

FISIAK 1 9 8 5 = FISIAK, JACEK ( E D . ) : 1 9 8 5 .

Historical Semantics-Historical

Word-Formation.

Berlin; New York: Mouton. FORCELLINI/FACCIOLATI

1 7 7 1 = FORCELLINI E G I D I O AND J A C O B O FACCIOLATI E D S .

1771.

Totius latinitatis lexicon. 4 volumes. Patavii: Apud Joannem Manfr. 1771. 1990 = F O R S S M A N , B E R N H A R D : 1990. Das etymologische rekonstuierter Sprachen. In: Encyclopedia II, 1335-1341.

Wörterbuch

FORSSMAN

1926/1983 = F O W L E R , H. W.: 1983. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. New York: Greenwich House. Original edition 1926. Second edition revised by Sir Ernst Gowers. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1985). Original edition 1965.

FOWLER

1978 = F R A S E R , P . M . , AND E . M A T T H E W S : 1978. Λ Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Vol. I, The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [XXII, 489 p.]

FRÄSER/ MATTHEWS

FRAWLEY 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 = F R A W L E Y , WILLIAM (ED.): 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 .

of lexicography. Dictionaries

Forum on the theory and practice

14:1-159.

Advances in Lexicography.(Papers in Linguistics, International Journal of Human Communication, 19.) Edmonton: Boreal Scholarly Publishers and Distributors Ltd

FRAWLEY/ STEINER 1 9 8 6 = FRAWLEY, WILLIAM, AND R O G E R STEINER ( E D S . ) : 1 9 8 6 .

FRIEDRICH/ KAMMENHUBER 1 9 7 5 = F R I E D R I C H , JOHANNES, AND ANNELIESE KAMMENHUBER:

1975, 1984 et seqq. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Aufl. auf der Grundlage der edierten Texte. Vol. I—II. Heidelberg: Winter. The Development of American Lexicography (Janua linguarum, series practica, 37). The Hague; Paris: Mouton.

FRIEND 1 9 6 7 = F R I E N D , JOSEPH Η . : 1 9 6 7 .

1798-1864.

1973 = F R I S K , HJALMAR: 1973. Griechisches II. Zweite Auflage. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

FRISK

etymologisches

Wörterbuch. Vol. I,

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language. New York; London: Funk and Wagnall.

FUNK & WAGNALLS 1 9 2 8 =

1690 = F U R E T I I R E , ANTOINE: 1690. Dictionnaire ... contenant ... tous les mots frangois tant vieux que modernes, et les termes de toutes les sciences et des arts ... le tout extrait des ... auteurs anciens et modernes. La Haye; Rotterdam: Arnout et R.

FURETIFIRE

1980 = G A L L A R D O , ANDRES: 1980. Dictionaries and the standardization process. In: Zgusta (ed. 1980a), 59-69.

GALLARDO

The Standardization of American English (Serie Lingüistica, Universidad de Concepcion, 4.) Concepcion, Chile: Editorial de la Universidad de Concepcion.

GALLARDO 1 9 8 4 = G A L L A R D O , ANDRES: 1 9 8 4 .

1955 = G A R V I N , P. L.: 1955. Problems in American Indian lexicography and text edition, Anais do XXXI Congr. International de Americanistas.Säo Paulo, p. 1013 sqq.

GARVIN

GEERAERTS 1 9 8 2 = GEERAERTS, DIRK:

1982.

Stereotypes en prototypes.

Forum der

Comprehensive Bibliography letteren

331

23:248-258.

Type en prototype. Tijdschrift voor tekst -

GEERAERTS 1983 = GEERAERTS, DIRK: 1 9 8 3 .

en taalwetenschap

4:69-86.

1984 = G E E R A E R T S , DIRK: 1984. Dictionary classification and the foundations of lexicography. ITL Review 63:37-63.

GEERAERTS

GEERAERTS 1 9 8 5 A = G E E R A E R T S , D I R K : 1 9 8 5 A. COGNITIVE RESTRICTIONS IN THE STRUCTURE OF SEMANTIC CHANGE.

I N : FISIAK ( E D . 1 9 8 5 ) ,

127-153.

1985B = G E E R A E R T S , DIRK: 1985b. Les donnees stereoty piques, prototypiques et encyclopediques dans le dictionnaire. Cahiers de Lexicologie 46:27—43.

GEERAERTS

1987 = G E E R A E R T S , DIRK: 1987. Types of semantic information in dictionaries. In: Robert Ilson (ed.). Λ Spectrum of Lexicography. Papers from AILA, Brussels 1984. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. 1-10.

GEERAERTS

GEERAERTS 1 9 8 9 = GEERAERTS, DIRK: 1 9 8 9 .

Encyclopedia

Principles of monolingual lexicography. In:

I, 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 .

n.d. = G E O R G A C A S , D . J . : n.d. Modern 1-6800 (a-ballomenos). Grand Forks, ND.

GEORGACAS

Greek-English

Dictionary,

ms.

model for the interaction of lexical and non-lexical knowledge in the determination of word meaning. In: Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds.

GERSTL 1 9 9 1 = G E R S T L , PETER: 1 9 9 1 . A

1991), 165-178. G I N G R I C H / D A N K E R 1 9 7 9 = G I N G R I C H , F . W I L B U R , A N D FREDERICK W . D A N K E R :

1979.

A

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Second edition of Arndt/ Gingrich 1957, revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's fifth edition, 1958. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [XL, 900 p.]. 1983 = G O L D , D A V I D : 1983. Ordering the senses in a monolingual dictionary entry. In: Yeatman Anderson III (ed.). Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America, 1981. Terre Haute, IN: Dictionary Society of North America. 42-49.

GOLD

GOOSSE 1964 = GOOSSE, ANDR6: 1964.

Cahiers de Lexicologie

Pour dater la publication des fascicules du Littre.

5:53-56.

GORDON 1984 = GORDON, I A N

Α.:

1984.

The Collins New Zealand

Compact

English

Dictionary. Auckland, NZ. The dictionary of transplanted varieties of II, 1475-1499.

GÖRLACH 1 9 9 0 = G Ö R L A C H , M A N F R E D : 1 9 9 0 .

languages: English. In: Encyclopedia

The application of onomasiology to synonymy, word formation, and etymology. Word 32: 99-108.

D E GOROG 1981 = D E GOROG, R A L P H : 1981.

1991 = G O S H E N - G O T T S T E I N , In: Zgusta (ed. 1991c), 72-93.

GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

MOSHE:

1991. The lexicography of Hebrew.

Comprehensive Bibliography

332

1 9 6 1 . Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

G O V E 1961 = G O V E , PHILIP BABCOCK:

1966 = G O V E , PHILIP B A B C O C K : 1966. Usage in the dictionary. College English 27:285-292. [Reprint in: The Role of the Dictionary. Ed. by Philip B. Gove (The Bobbs-Merrill Series in Composition and Rhetoric). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill, 1967.]

GOVE

1969 = G R E E N , G E O R G I A . M.: 1969. On the notion of 'related lexical entry'. In: Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Ed. By R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, and J. L. Morgan. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago. 76-88.

GREEN

1989 = GREEN, GEORGIA M . : 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. (2nd ed. 1996.) Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

GREEN

1960 = G R E I M A S , A.J.: 1960. Idiotismes,proverbes,dictons, Cahiers de Lexicologie, Π , 4 1 - 61

GREIMAS

1854 = G R I M M , J A C O B : 1854 et seqq. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. I, 1854 - XVI, 1934. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. [Jacob wrote the entries A - Frucht, with the exception of the letter D, which was written by his brother, Wilhelm Grimm.]

GRIMM

GRIMSHAW 1 9 9 2 = G R I M S H A W , JANE: 1 9 9 2 .

Bright (ed.). International Press, vol. IV, 90-92.

Encyclopedia

GUSMANI 1981 = GUSMANI, ROBERTO: 1 9 8 1 .

Subcategorization and selection. In: William of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Saggi Süll' interferenza Linguistica.

Firenze:

Casa Editrice Le Lettre. 1984 = G U S M A N I , ROBERTO: 1984. A proposito della motivazione linguistica. Incontri Linguistici 9:11-23.

GUSMANI

1980 = GÜTERBOCK, H A N S , AND H . A. H O F F N E R : 1980 et seqq. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. III. Chicago: The Institute.

GÜTERBOCK/ HOFFNER

Spanische lexikographie. In: Encyclopedia II, 1738-1757. [In particular, Section 8: Die Lexikographie des amerikanischen Spanisch von den Anfängen bis Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts.]

HAENSCH 1990 = HAENSCH, GÜNTER: 1 9 9 0 .

1983 = H A I D E R , H U B E R T : 1983. Wortbildung in der Syntax oder Syntax in der Wortbildung? In: Dardano et al„ (eds. 1983), 26-36.

HAIDER

et al. 1 9 8 3 = H A L E , KENNETH, M A R Y LAUGHREN, AND DAVID Dictionary. Unpublished drafts, Boston, ΜΑ: MIT Press.

HALE

NASH: 1983.

Warlpiri

et al. 1 9 9 0 = H A L E , K E N N E T H ET A L . : 1 9 9 0 . Warlpiri to English Vocabulary with Grammatical Sketch and English to Warlpiri Wordlist. Alice Springs, Northern Territory: Institute for Aboriginal Development.

HALE

H A M P T O N 1 9 9 1 = H A M P T O N , JAMES: 1 9 9 1 .

The combination of prototype concepts. In:

333

Comprehensive Bibliography Schwanenflugel (ed. 1991), 91-116. HANKS 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 = HANKS, PATRICK: 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 .

Lexicography: Theory and practice. Dictionaries

14:97-112. HARRAS 1 9 8 9 = H A R R A S , GISELA: 1 9 8 9 .

Forschung. In: Encyclopedia

I,

Wörterbücher als Hilfsmittel der linguistischen

159-163.

= H A R T M A N N , R E I N H A R D R . K . : 1 9 7 9 . Who needs dictionaries? In: Dictionaries and Their Users: Papers from the 1978 BAAL Seminar on Lexicography. Ed. by Reinhard R. K. Hartmann (Exeter Linguistic Studies, 4: ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 4 4 - 5 ) . Exeter: University of Exeter; Belgium: Afdeling Toegepaste Lingu'fstiek. 1-8.

HARTMANN 1 9 7 9

1981 = HARTMANN, REINHARD R . Κ.: 1981. Style values: Linguistic approaches and lexicographical practice. Applied Linguistics 2(3):263-273.

HARTMANN

LEXeter '83 Proceedings: Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter, 9-12 September 1983. (Lexicographica Series Maior, 1.) Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer.

HARTMANN 1 9 8 4 = HARTMANN, REINHARD R . Κ . ( E D . ) : 1 9 8 4 .

HAUSMANN 1 9 8 9 = HAUSMANN, FRANZ JOSEF: 1 9 8 9 .

Wörterbuchtypologie. In:

Encyclopedia

11,968-981. HAUSMANN 1 9 9 0 = H A U S M A N N , F R A N Z JOSEF: 1 9 9 0 .

France. In: Encyclopedia

II,

Les dictionnaires du fran9ais hors de

1500-1505.

1978 = HAYASHI, TETSURO: 1978. The Theory of English Lexicography 1530-1791. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III: Studies in the History of Linguistics, 18.) Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. [Bei Hayashi finden sich einige gute Analys der Titelblätter entnommene Zusammenstellungen, vor allem: 1. welche Lexikographen den Ausdruck 'hard words', 'difficult, abstruse words' o.ä. und als Antonym dazu 'plain, vulgar, obstruse words' benutzten; 2. welcher Leserkreis in den Titelblättern erwähnt ist: 'ladies, gendewomen, unskillful persons' usw. (Der wesentliche Unterschied zwischen dem beabsichtigten Publikum Wesleys und dem der sonstigen Lexikographen ist dabei jedoch nicht erfabt.); 3. welche Fächer als Quellen der Fachterminologie angegeben werden; 4. welche Schrifttypen beim Druck benutzt werden (wobei jedoch z.B. der bei Bailey so wesentliche Unterschied zwischen den Majuskeln und den Minuskeln der Antiqua unerwähnt bleibt.]

HAYASHI

1979 = H E E S T E R M A N S , H A N S : 1979. Das woordenboek der nederlansche taal: Beschreibung eines historisch-deskriptiven Wörterbuchs. In: H. Henne, H. Sitta, and H. E. Wiegand (eds.). Praxis der Lexikographie: Berichte aus der Werkstatt. (Reihe Germanistische Lingistik, 22.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 68-80.

HEESTERMANS

1990 = H E E S T E R M A N S , H A N S : 1990. Niederländische lexikographie und lexikographie des Afrikaans. In: Encyclopedia II, 2010-2022.

HEESTERMANS

1964 = H E G E R , K L A U S : 1964. Die methodologischen Voraussetzungen von Onomasiologie und begrifflicher Gliederung. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 80:

HEGER

334

Comprehensive Bibliography

486-516. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.

HELBIG/ SCHENKEL 1 9 7 3 = H E L B I G , GERHARD, AND WOLFGANG SCHENKEL: 1 9 7 3 .

HELMREICH 1 9 9 1

= HELMREICH, STEPHEN:

Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds.

1991),

1991.

Interpretation without semantics. In:

34-37.

1984 = H E R B S T , THOMAS: 1984. Bemerkungen zu den patternsystemen des Advanced Learner's Dictionary und es Dictionary of Contemporary English. In: Dieter Götz and Thomas Herbst (eds). Theoretishce und praktische Probleme der Lexikographie. München: Max Hüber Verlag. 139-165.

HERBST

1985 = H E R B S T , T H O M A S : 1985. Das zweisprachige Wörterbuch als Schreibwörteibuch: Informationen zur syntax in zweisprachigen Wörterbuchern Englisch-Deutsch/ Deutsch-Englisch. In: Henning Bergholtz and Joachim Mugdan (eds). Lexikographie und Grammatik: Akten des Essener Kolloquiums zur Grammtik im Wörterbuch. (Lexicograhica, Series Maior, 3.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 308-331.

HERBST

1986a = H E R B S T , T H O M A S : 1986a. A proposal for a valency dictionary of English. In: Robert F. Ilson and Michel H.A. Blanc (eds). Λ Spectrum of Lexicography: Papers on Lexicography and Lexicology, Papers of the Seventh Triennial World Congress of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee, Brussels, 1984. (In: Polyglot 7,Fiche 1:C9-E12.) Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins

HERBST

1986b = H E R B S T , T H O M A S : 1 986b. Defining with a controlled defining vocabulary in foreign learners'dictionaries. Lexicographica 2:101-119.

HERBST

HERBST 1 9 9 0 = H E R B S T , T H O M A S : 1 9 9 0 .

In; Encyclopedia II,

Dictionaries for foreign language teaching: English.

1379-1385.

1972 = H E R I N G E R , Η. J.: 1972. York: De Gruyter.

HERINGER

Deutsche Syntax, 2. Auflage.

Berlin; New

1974-84 = Cesko-cinsky slovink. 1974—84: Prague, Ceskoslovenskä akademie v£d, Orientalnf ustav. Vol. I 1974 (664 pp.); II 1976 (652 pp.) by D. Heroldovä, Z. Hermanovä, D. Khestlovä, L. Hejzlarovä; III 1976 (680 pp.); by D. Heroldovä, Z. Hermanovä, D. Khestlovä, L. Hejzlarovä, W. Vochalovä; IV 1978 (673 pp.); V 1979 (707 pp.); VI 1980 (681 pp.); VII 1983 (715 pp.); VIII 1984 (689 pp.); IX 1984 (695 pp.), by D. Heroldovä, Ζ. Hermanovä, D. Khestlovä, L. Hejzlarovä, Tch. Ruslovä.

HEROLDOVA E T . AL.

1 9 8 0 = H E S S K Y , R E G I N A : 1 9 8 0 . Überlegungen zum idiom als problem der zweisprachigen lexikographie. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

HESSKY

30:163-171.

1861 = Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon, recensuit Mauricius Schmidt. Vol. ΠΙ, Halle 1861 [439 p.]. Vol. IV, Halle 1862, 1964 [368 + CXCII, 183 p.] Reprinted Amsterdam 1965 (In this edition, there is an onomasiological index to the alphabetic dictionary.).

HESYCHIUS

Comprehensive Bibliography

335

Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon, recensuit et emendavit Kurt Latte. I , Hauniae 1953 [LVIII, 509 p.], II, Hauniae 1966 [824 p.] (This edition goes up only to the letter omicron; for the rest, Hesychius 1861 must be consulted.).

HESYCHIUS 1 9 5 3 =

Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (trans. F. Whitfield). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

HJELMSLEV 1 9 6 1 = HJELMSLEV, LOUIS: 1 9 6 1 .

1997 = H O C K , H A N S H E N R I C H : 1997.(ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies. A festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997!

HOCK

1948 = H O R N B Y , A. S.: 1948. Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Third edition: A. S. Hornby with A. P. Cowie, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1974; numerous new printings.).

HORNBY

HORNBY e t a l . 1 9 6 3 = H O R N B Y , A . S . , Ε . V . G A T E N B Y , AND H . W A K E F I E L D :

1963.

The

Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press. Epea pteroenta, or, The diversions London, vol. I: 1786, 2nd ed. 1798; vol. II: 1805.

HORNE T O O K E 1 7 9 8 = HORNE T O O K E , JOHN: 1 7 9 8 [ 1 8 0 5 ] .

ofPurley.

Epea pteroenta or, The diversions of Purley. With numerous additions from the copy prepared by the author for republication ... revised and corrected, with additional notes by Richard Taylor, London: William Tegg.

H O R N E T O O K E ( 1 7 9 8 ) 1 8 6 0 = H O R N E T O O K E , JOHN: ( 1 7 9 8 ) 1 8 6 0 .

1952 = H O U S E H O L D E R , FRED: 1952. Review of Zellig S. Harris1 Methods in Structural Linguistics [University of Chicago Press, 1951]. In: International Journal of American Linguistics 18:260-269.

HOUSEHOLDER

HOUSEHOLDER/ SAPORTA 1 9 6 2 = HOUSEHOLDER, F R E D W . , AND S O L S A P O R T A ( E D S . ) :

1962.

Problems in Lexicography: Report of the Conference on Lexicography held at Indiana University, November 11-12, 1960 (Publication of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, 21). [Simultaneously published as Part IV of the International Journal of American Linguistics 28, 1962, No. 2. Several reprints.] HULBERT 1 9 5 5 = HULBERT, J . : 1 9 5 5 .

Dictionaries British and American. London.

1986 = HULTIN, N E I L C.: 1986. The web of significance: Sir James Murray's theory of word-development. In: Information in Data; First Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary: Proceedings of the Conference, November 6-7, 1985, Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario: UW Centre for the New OED. 21-35.

HULTIN

Special issue on word sense disambiguation. Computational Linguistics 24:1-166. Word sense disambiguation: The state of the art (introduction by the two editors), 1-40.

IDE/ VfiRONis 1 9 9 8 = I D E , N A N C Y , AND J E A N VERONIS (EDS.): 1 9 9 8 .

INSTITUTE

of National Language 1 9 7 4 = INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL L A N G U A G E , REPUBLIC O F An English-Pilipino Dictionary. Manila: Govt. Printing Off.,

THE PHILIPPINES: 1 9 7 4 .

336

Comprehensive Bibliography 1974. An unchanged reprint of An English-Tagalog 1960.

Dictionary, pub. by the INP in

A new English dictionary: or a complete collection of the most proper and significant words, commonly used in the language; with a short and clear exposition of difficult words and terms of art... London.

J. K[ERSEY?]. 1 7 0 2 =

X Syntax: A Study in Phrase (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 2.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

JACKENDOFF 1 9 7 7 = J A C K E N D O F F , R A Y S . : 1 9 7 7 .

Structure.

1987 = J A C K E N D O F F , R A Y S.: 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. (Explorations in Cognitive Science, 3.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

JACKENDOFF

Semantic Structures. (Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 18.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

JACKENDOFF 1 9 9 0 = JACKENDOFF, R A Y S . : 1 9 9 0 .

1992 = J A C K E N D O F F , R A Y S.: 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

JACKENDOFF

JACOBI 1 8 9 7

= JACOBI, H . G.:

indogermanische

1897.

Sprachentwicklung.

Compositum und Nebensatz, Bonn: Cohen.

Studien über die

Historische Lexikologie zum nordgermanischen Raum: Lexika als Kultur- und Sprachdokumente zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit: Einflüsse von Toledo bis Paris, von London bis Berlin. Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei Otto Harrassowitz.

JACOBY 1 9 9 0 = J A C O B Y , M I C H A E L : 1 9 9 0 .

J E S P E R S E N 1 9 0 9 = J E S P E R S E N , JENS O T T O H A R R Y : 1 9 0 9 .

Historical Principles.

Α Modem English Grammar on

Heidelberg: C. Winter.

A dictionary of the English language: in which the words are ... illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers ... London.

JOHNSON 1 7 5 5 = JOHNSON, S A M U E L : 1 7 5 5 .

JONES 1 9 4 0 = J O N E S , H . S . , AND R . M C K E N Z I E : 1 9 4 0 .

A Greek-English

Lexicon.

[A

new

edition.] Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1980 AND 1986 = JORRO, FRANCISCO A U R A : 1980 AND 1986. Diccionario Micenico (preliminary version of a supplement to Adrados 1980, mimeographed). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto de Filologia.

JORRO

Dictionnaire inverse de la langue (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 7.) The Hague: Mouton [564 pp.].

JUILLAND 1 9 6 5 = JULLIAND, ALPHONSE: 1 9 6 5 .

frangaise.

1995 = J U S T E S O N , J O H H S . , A N D S L A V A M. K A T Z : 1995. Principled disambiguation: Discriminating adjective senses with modified nouns. Computational Linguistics 21:1-27.

JUSTESON/ K A T Z

1980 = K A C H R U , BRAJ Β . : 1980. The new Englishes and old dictionaries: Directions in lexicographical research on non-native varieties of English. In: Zgusta (ed. 1980a), 71-101.

KACHRU

337

Comprehensive Bibliography

Toward a lexicon of Indian English. In: B . Kachru et al. (eds.). Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 3 5 2 - 3 7 6 .

KACHRU 1 9 7 3 = K A C H R U , B R A J : 1 9 7 3 .

1981 = K A C H R U , B R A J : 1981. 'Socially realistic linguistics': The Firthian tradition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 31:65-89.

KACHRU

1985 = K A C H R U , B R A J : 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In: R. Quirk, H. G. Widdowson, and Y. Cantu (eds.). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11-30.

KACHRU

1995 = K A C H R U , B R A J : 1995. Culture, Ideologies and the Dictionary. Max Niemeyer-Verlag.

KACHRU

Tübingen:

1982 = K Ä G E , O T M A R : 1982. Noch 'ugs.' oder doch schon 'derb'? Bemerkungen und Vorschläge zur praxis der stilistischen markierung in deutschen einsprachigen Wörterbüchern. In: Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie II. Ed. by Herbert Ernst Wiegand (Germanistische Linguistik, 3-6/80.) Hildesheim: G. Olms. 109-120.

KÄGE

K A H A N E / K A H A N E 1 9 7 7 = K A H A N E , H E N R Y , AND RENÄE K A H A N E : 1 9 7 7 .

in the American language: A history of attitudes. TESOL Quarterly

Virtues and vices

11:185-202.

1990 = K A R I , J A M E S M.: 1990. Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

KARI

KAROV/ EDELMAN 1 9 9 8

= K A R O V , Y A E L , AND SHIMON EDELMAN: 1 9 9 8 .

word sense disambiguation. In: Ide/ Veronis (eds. KARTTUNEN 1 9 8 1 = K A R T T U N E N , FRANCES: 1 9 8 1 .

Forum

Similarity-based

1998), 4 1 - 5 9 .

Nahuatl lexicography. Texas Linguistic

18:105-118.

KARTTUNEN 1 9 8 3 = KARTTUNEN, F R A N C E S E . : 1 9 8 3 .

An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press [349 pp.], 1980 = K A T R E , S U M I T R A M.: 1980. Current trends in Indian lexicography. In: Zgusta (ed., 1980a), 177-79.

KATRE

K A T R E 1 9 8 7 = K A T R E , SUMITRA M . :

1987.

Astadhyayi of Panini in Roman

Transliteration.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1948 = K E N Y O N , JOHN S.: 1948. Cultural levels and functional varieties of English. College English 10:21-26. [Reprint in: Harbrace Guide to Dictionaries .Ed. by Kenneth G. Wilson/ R. H. Hendrikson/ Peter Alan Taylor. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963. 114-118.]

KENYON

KERN 1 9 0 4 = KERN, H . :

1904.

Philologie en Geschiedenis KERSEY

1702, see also

KERSEY 1 7 0 8

Obituary of Otto Böhtlingk. Museum. Maandblad

voor

11:321-324.

J. K .

= K E R S E Y , JOHN:

1708.

Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum;

or a general

338

Comprehensive Bibliography

English dictionary, comprehending .. . all sorts of difficult words ..., as also, of all terms relating to arts and sciences ... words and phrases ... made use in our ancient statutes... London. Studies in Syntax and Semantics. (Foundations of Language, Series, 10.) Dordrecht, Reidel.

KIEFER 1 9 6 9 = KIEFER, F . : 1 9 6 9 .

Supplementary

1955 = K I R P F E L , WILLIBALD: 1955. Böhtlingk. In: Neue deutsche Biographie. Vol. II. Hrsg. von der historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, S. 396f. [Further references.]

KIRPFEL

1 9 7 3 = KOLLÄR, D E Z I D E R : 1 9 7 3 . Prekladovy vyznam-jeho podstata a problemy. Slovo a slovnik. Ed. J. Ruzicka and Ivan Poldauf. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej akademie vied. 1 2 1 - 1 2 9 .

KOLLÄR

1973 = K O R K I N A , Ε. I., AND N. E. P E T R O V (EDS.): 1973. O. N. Betlingk i ego trud Ό jazyke Jakutov'. Jakutsk: Institut jazyka, literatury i istorii.

K O R K I N A / PETROV

KOUT 1 9 7 3 = ΚΟΥΤ, JOSEF: 1 9 7 3 .

& Poldauf (eds.

1973),

Konfrontaäni pfiistup ke studiu fraseologie. In: Ruliäka

161-165.

KRATOCHVFL ET AL 1 9 6 2 = KRATOCHVIL, PAVEL T W E E D L E , ZDENKA T . NOVOTNÄ, D . ST'OVI'CKOVÄ, AND LADISLAV ZGUSTA:

Orientälni,

Some Problems of a Czech-Chinese

30: 258-331.

Dictionary.

In: Archiv

1962.

The Chinese Language Today.

London:

1 8 8 6 = K R E B S , J O H A N P H I L I P P : 1 8 8 6 . Antibarbarus der lateinischen [Many editions at different places and publishers.] 6th ed. Basel: Schwabe.

Sprache.

KRATOCHvfL 1 9 6 8 = KRATOCHviL, P A U L : 1 9 6 8 .

Hutchinson. KREBS

= K R O M A N N , H A N S - P E D E R : 1 9 8 7 . Zur Typologie und Darbietung der Phraseologismen in ÜbersetzungsWörterbüchern. In: Beiträge zur allgemeinen und germanistischen Phraseologieforschung. (Veröffentlichungen des Germanistischen Instituts, 7 . ) Ed. By Jarmo Korhonen. Oulu: Universität Oulu. 1 8 3 - 9 2 .

KROMANN 1 9 8 ^

1980 = K U B C Z A K , J A C Q U E L I N E : 1980., Benutzerkreis und Gestaltung eines Wöterbuchs. Mitteilungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 7, 18-26.

KUBCZAK

1962 = K U H N , T H O M A S S.: 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

KUHN

Chicago:

1991 = K Ü H N , P.: 1991. Die normativen Kommentare Jacob Grimms in Deutschen Wörterbuch" in Studien zum Deutschen Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, ed. A. Kirkness, P. Kühn and H. E. Wiegand. Band II. Lexicographica, Series Maior, 34. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 105-168.

KÜHN

Ifugaw-English Dictionary. Baguio City, RP: The Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province.

LAMBRECHT 1 9 7 8 = LAMBRECHT, FRANS H U B E R T : 1 9 7 8 .

LAMPE 1961 = LAMPE, G . W . H . :

Press [XLVIII, 1568 p.].

1961. Λ

Patristic Greek Lexicon.

Oxford: Clarendon

Comprehensive Bibliography

339

= L A N D A U , O . : 1 9 5 8 . Mykenisch-griechische Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 7.) Göteborg [305 p.].

LANDAU 1 9 5 8

LANDAU 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 = L A N D A U , SIDNEY: 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 .

lexicography. Dictionaries

Personennamen.

(Studia

Wierzbicka's theory and the practice of

14:113-119.

1962 = Langenscheidts Enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der Englischen und Deutschen Sprache. Begründet von E. Muret und D. Sanders. I, Englisch-Deutsch. Ed. by Ο. Springer. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

LANGENSCHEIDT

1976 = L A R A , L U I S FERNANDO: 1976. El Concepto de Norma en Lingiiistica. Mexico, D. F.: El Colegio de Mexico.

LARA

1 9 8 1 = L A R A , L U I S FERNANDO: 1 9 8 1 . Regional dictionaries: A lexicographical proposal for the Third World. In: Actes du 5e Congres de l'AILA. Quebec: universite Laval. 313-321

LARA

1983 = L A R A , L U I S FERNANDO: 1983. Activite normative, anglicismes et mots indigenes dans le Diccionario del espanol de Mexico. In: Edith Bedard and Jacques Maurais (eds.). La Norme Linguistique (Collection Vordre des mots). Quebec: Gouvernement du Quebec, Conseil de la Langue Fran^aise; Paris: Le Robert. 571-602.

LARA

1986 = L A R A , L U I S F E R N A N D O ( E D . ) : 1986. Diccionario Mexico. Mexico, D. F.: Colegio de Mexico [565 pp.],

LARA

Basico del Espanol de

Methodology in a non-Spanish dictionary of the Spanish language: The Diccionario del Espanol de Mexico. In: R. Ilson and M. Blanc (eds.). A Spectrum of Lexicography: Papers from AILA, Brussels, 1984. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. 11-28.

L A R A 1 9 8 7 = L A R A , LUIS FERNANDO: 1 9 8 7 .

La question de la norme dans le del Espanol de Mexico. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 17:61-93.

L A R A 1 9 8 8 = L A R A , L U I S FERNANDO: 1 9 8 8 .

Diccionario

1990 = L A R A , L U I S FERNANDO: 1990. Dimensiones de la Lexcicografia: A Proposito del Diccionario del Espanol de Mexico. Mexico, D. F.: El Colegio de Mexico.

LARA

1996 = L A R A , L U I S F E R N A N D O ( E D . ) : 1996. Diccionario Mexico. Mexico, D. F.: Colegio de Mexico [941 pp.].

LARA

del Espanol Usual de

Petit Larousse Illustre. Paris: Larousse. [This is the title of the newer editions, such as 1973, 1974, 1976, 1993, etc. Remarkably, the older editions of the dictionary, such as those of the years 1924,1925,1938,1948,1955,1958 have the title Nouveau Petit Larousse Illustre.]

LAROUSSE =

L A T T E / E R B S E 1 9 6 5 = L A T T E , Κ . , AND Η . E R B S E ( E D S . ) : 1 9 6 5 .

Lexica Graeca

Minora.

Hildesheim: Georg Olms [XVII, 372 p.]. Warlpiri dictionary project: Aims, method, organization and problems of definition. In: Austin (ed. 1983),

LAUGHREN/ N A S H 1 9 8 3 = L A U G H R E N , M A R Y , AND D A V I D N A S H : 1 9 8 3 .

109-133. LEACOCK e t a l . 1 9 9 8 = L E A C O C K , C L A U D I A , M A R T I N C H O D O R O W , AND G E O R G E A . M I L L E R :

340

Comprehensive Bibliography

1998. Using corpus statistics and WordNet relations for sense identification. In: Ide/ Veronis (eds. 1998), 147-165. = L E J E U N E , M . : 1 9 6 4 . Index Inverse du Grec Mycenien. National de la Recherche Scientifique [117 p],

LEJEUNE 1 9 6 4

Paris: Centre

Grammar in English Learner's Dictionaries (Lexicographica, Series Maior, 16.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

LEMMENS/ WEKKER 1 9 8 6 = LEMMENS, M A R C E L , AND HERMAN W E K K E R : 1 9 8 6 .

LESKO 1 9 7 7 = LESKO, L E O N A R D H . : 1 9 7 7 .

and the Humanities

The Berkeley late Egyptian dictionary. Computers

11:139-145.

1995 = L I P K A , L E O N H A R D : 1995. Lexicology and lexicography: Poor relations, competition, or cooperation? In: Dirven & Vanparys (eds. 1995), 381-411.

LIPKA

1843 = LIDDELL, HENRY GEORGE, AND ROBERT SCOTT: 1843. A Greek-English Lexicon based on the German work of Francis Passow. Oxford: Oxford University Press [XVIII, 1586 p.],

LIDDELL/ SCOTT

A Greek-English Lexicon. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press [XII, 1618 p.].

LIDDELL/ SCOTT 1 8 5 5 = LIDDELL, HENRY G E O R G E , AND ROBERT SCOTT: 1 8 5 5 .

LIDDELL/ S C O T T 1 8 8 3 = L I D D E L L , Η . , AND R . S C O T T :

1883.

A Greek-English

Lexicon.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1940 = LIDDELL, HENRY GEORGE, AND ROBERT SCOTT: 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. A new edition [i.e., ninth] by Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press [Published in issues 1925-1940; repeatedly reprinted to our day, with a Supplement compiled by E. A. Barber, P. Mass, M. Scheller, and M. L. West published in 1968 by the same publisher.] [XL VIII, 21 l i p . ] .

LIDDELL/ SCOTT

LISSANCE 1 9 4 9 = LISSANCE, ARNOLD:

1949.

The translator's dictionary. The German

Quarterly 22:134ff. Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise. Paris: Hachette (1873 is the date of the early printing of vol. I. that I use. Originally, the Dictionnaire was published in 30 issues, between early 1863 and late 1872: Goosse 1964) [4 vol. and supp.; 5 2 3 9 pp.]

LITTR£ 1 8 7 3 = LITTRFI, E M I L E : 1 8 7 3 .

W.: 1 9 0 4 . English dictionaries before Webster. Bibliographical Society of America, Papers 4 : 2 5 - 4 3 . (Es werden vor allem die Methoden der Lexikographen und ihre Quellen untersucht.)

LONG 1 9 0 4 = L O N G , P E R C Y

1978 = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Editor-in-chief Paul Procter. Harlow (Essex, England): Longman.

LONGMAN

1983a = Longman Active Study Dictionary of English. Harlow (Essex, England): Longman.

LONGMAN

1983b = Verbs - Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. Rosemary Courtney. Harlow (Essex, England): Longman.

LONGMAN

341

Comprehensive Bibliography

Facal 1 9 7 7 = L O P E Z F A C A L , JAVIER: 1 9 7 7 . Historia de la lexicografia griega moderna. In: Adrados et al. (eds. 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 0 7 - 1 4 7 .

LOPEZ

Louw 1995 = Louw, P I E T : 1995. How many meanings to a word? In: Β . B . Kachru and Henry Kahane (eds.), Dictionaries, Cultures, and Ideologies. (Lexicographica, Series Maior.) Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. 357-365. Louw/ N I D A 1 9 8 8 = Louw, JOHANNES, AND EUGENE N I D A : 1 9 8 8 . Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Rondal B. Smith, part-time editor, Karen A. Munson, associate editor. New York, NY: United Bible Societies. Vol. 1: Introduction and domains, vol. 2: Indices. [XVI + 845; IV + 275 p.; 4 maps.]. Zu normativen, konnotativen und stilistischen Angaben in Wörterbucheintragungen. In: Wortschatzforschung Heute: Aktuelle Probleme der Lexikologie und Lexikographie. Ed. by Erhard Agricola, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. 1 6 6 - 1 8 4 .

LUDWIG 1 9 8 2 = LUDWIG, K L A U S - D I E T E R : 1 9 8 2 .

LUNDBLADH

1 9 9 7 = C A R L - E R I K LUNDBLADH, 1 9 9 7 .

of OED, International Journal of Lexicography

Etymology and the historical

principles

10,231-233.

1984 = M A I E R , ELISABETH: 1984. Studien zur Sprachnormtheorie und zur Konzeption der Sprachnorm in Französischen Wörterbüchern. (Heidelberger Beiträge zur Romanistik, 17.) Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang.

MAIER

1980 = M A K K A I , A D A M : 1980. Theoretical and practical aspects of an associative lexicon for 20th century English. In: Zgusta (ed. 1980a), 125-146.

MAKKAI

Problem ekvivalentu Ν dvojjazycnom slovniku. In: Lexikograficky sbornik. Ed. by S. Peciar. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied. 119-125.

MALIKOVÄ 1 9 5 3 = M A L I K O V Ä , MARIA O L ' G A : 1 9 5 3 .

Distinctive features in lexicography: A typological approach to dictionaries exemplified with Spanish. Romance Philology 1 2 ( 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 ) : 3 6 6 - 3 9 9 ; 1 3 ( 1 9 5 9 - 6 0 ) : 1 1 1 - 1 5 5 .

MALKIEL 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 ; 1 9 5 9 - 6 0 = M A L K I E L , Y A K O V : 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 ; 1 9 5 9 - 6 0 .

M A L K I E L 1 9 6 2 = M A L K I E L , Y A K O V : 1 9 6 2 : A TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF DICTIONARIES ON THE BASIS OF DISTINCTIVE FEATURES. I N : HOUSEHOLDER/ SAPORTA (EDS. 1 9 6 2 ) , 3 - 2 4 .

Etymological Dictionaries: A Tentative Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MALKIEL 1 9 7 6 = MALKIEL, Y A K O V : 1 9 7 6 .

Typology.

1980= MALKIEL, YAKOV: 1980. The lexicographer as a mediator between linguistics and society. In: Zgusta (ed. 1980a), 43-58.

MALKIEL

MALKIEL 1 9 9 0 = M A L K I E L , YAKOV: 1 9 9 0 .

und Corpussprachen. In: Encyclopedia

Das etymologische Wörterbuch von Informanten II, 1 3 2 3 - 1 3 3 4 .

1991 = M A L K I E L , YAKOV: 1991. T W O attempts to cultivate and transcend lexicography. In: Zgusta (ed. 1991d), 60-71.

MALKIEL

MALLINSON

1979 =

MALLINSON,

G.: 1979. The dictionary and the lexicon: A happy medium?

342

Comprehensive Bibliography

ITL Review of Linguistics 45-46:10-18. 1973a = M A R C K W A R D T , ALBERT H . : 1973. Lexicographical method and the usage survey. In: Lexicography and Dialect Geography: Festgabe for Hans Kurath. Ed. by Harald Scholler and John Reidy. (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte, N. F. 9.) Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. 134-146.

MARCKWARDT

1973b = MARCKWARDT, ALBERT H . : 1973. Questions of usage in dictionaries. In: McDavid & Duckert (eds. 1973), 172-178.

MARCKWARDT

1985 = M A R C O - M A R I N , FRANCISCO: 1985. Etymology and semantics: theoretical considerations apropos of an analysis of the etymological problems of Spanish manero, maneria. In: Fisiak (ed. 1985), 377-395.

MARCO-MARIN

1982 = M A R E L L O , CARLA: 1982. Fare Italiano (anche) con i vocabolari monolingui. In: Edoardo Lugarini (ed.). Pariare e Scrivere. (Insegnare la Lingua, 1.) Milano: Mondadori. 72-83.

MARELLO

Dizionari Bilingui: Con Schede sui Dizionari Italiani per Francese, Inglese, Spagnolo, Tedesco. Bologna: Zanichelli.

MARELLO 1 9 8 9 = MARELLO, CARLA: 1 9 8 9 .

1 9 9 1 . Conventional metaphor and the lexicon. In: Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds. 1991), 56-66.

MARTIN 1 9 9 1 = MARTIN, JAMES H . :

1962 = M A R T I N , SAMUEL: 1962. Selection and presentation of ready equivalents in a translation dictionary. In: Householder/ Saporta (eds. 1962), 153-59.

MARTIN

1933 = M A T H E W S , Μ. Μ.: 1933. A Survey of English Dictionaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Die Erörterung erfabt die Wörterbücher bis zum Ende des 19. Jhs.)

MATHEWS

MATHIAS 1 9 8 4 = M A T H I A S , JIM: 1 9 8 4 .

materials. In: Hartmann (ed.

Computer-aided processing of Chinese lexicographic

1984), 371-376.

1973 = M A T H I O T , Μ.: 1973. Dictionary of Papago Usage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

MATHIOT

1988 = M A T I S O F F , JAMES Α.: 1988. The Dictionary of Lahu. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

MATISOFF

1991 = M A Y R H O F E R , M A N F R E D : 1991. Die neuen etymologischen Wörterbücher des Deutschen. In: Zgusta (ed. 1991c), 25-37.

MAYRHOFER

= M C A R T H U R , JENNIFER K . : 1 9 8 5 . A Tentative Lexicon of Mycenaean Placenames. Part One: The Knossos Tablets. Salamanca [Minos, Supplement, 7; Anexo a Minos XIX, p. 1-134],

MCARTHUR 1 9 8 5

Worlds of Reference: Lexicography, Learning and Language from the Clay Tablet to the Computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MCARTHUR 1 9 8 6 = MCARTHUR, T O M : 1 9 8 6 .

MCCAWLEY

1968 =

M C C A W L E Y , JAMES

D.: 1968. The role of semantics in a grammar. In:

Comprehensive Bibliography

343

Bach/Harms (eds. 1968), 125-169. 1971 = M C C A W L E Y , J. D.: 1971. Prelexical syntax. Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24.

MCCAWLEY

University

1986 = M C C A W L E Y , JAMES D.: 1986. What linguists might contribute to dictionary making if they could get their act together. In: Bjarkman/Raskin (eds. 1986), 3-18.

MCCAWLEY

1992/93 = M C C A W L E Y , J A M E S D.: 1992/93. How to achieve lexicographic virtue through selective and judicious sinning. Dictionaries 14:120-129.

MCCAWLEY

W.: 1 9 8 3 . 'Wise and learned cunctation': medical terminology 1547-1612 and the OED. Dictionaries 5:22-35.

MCCONCHIE 1 9 8 3 = M C C O N C H I E , R .

= McDavid, Raven I . , Jr., and AudreY R. Duckert (eds.): 1 9 7 3 . Lexicography in English. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 211.) New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

M C D A V I D / DUCKERT 1 9 7 3

1991 = MCKEOWN, MARGARET G.: 1991. Learning word meanings from definitions: problems and potential. In: Schwanenflugel (ed. 1991), 137-156.

MCKEOWN

Using multiple knowledge sources for word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics 18:1-30.

MCROY 1 9 9 2 = M C R O Y , SUSAN W . : 1 9 9 2 .

M E I J S / VOSSEN 1 9 9 1 = M E I J S , W I L L E M , AND PIEK VOSSEN: 1 9 9 1 .

Knowledge as a lexical

phenomenon. In: Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds. 1991), 113-126. MEL'CUK 1 9 7 4 = MEL'CUK, IGOR: 1 9 7 4 .

Das Wort: Zwischen Inhalt und Ausdruck. Johan

Biedermann (ed.). München: Fink. 1988 = MEL'CUK, IGOR Α.: 1988. Semantic description of lexical units in an explanatory combinatorial dictionary: Basic principles and heuristic criteria. International Journal of Lexicography 1:165-188.

MEL'CUK

1988 = M E L ' C U K , I G O R Α . , AND I A N M A C K E N Z I E : 1988. Crossroads of obstetrics and lexicography: A case study. (The lexicograhic definition of the English adjective pregnant.) International Journal of Lexicography 1:71-83.

MEL'CUK/ M A C K E N Z I E

Bemerkungen zur lexikographischen Beschreibung von Phraseologismen und zum Problem unikaler Lexeme (an Beispielen aus dem Deutschen). Wiener Linguistische Gazette 33/34:19-34.

MEL'CUK/ REUTHER 1 9 8 4 = MEL'CUK, IGOR Α . , AND TILMANN REUTHER: 1 9 8 4 .

MEL'CUK / ZOLKOVSKY

1 9 8 4 = MEL'CUK, IGOR Α . , AND ALEKSANDR K . ZOLKOVSKY:

1984.

Tolkovo-kombinatornyj slovar' sovremennogo russkogo jazyka: opyty semantikosintaksicheskogo opisanija russkoj leksiki. Wien: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien. Dictionnaire explicatifet combinatoire dufrangais contemporain : recherches lexico-semantiques. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Presses de l'Universite de Montreal.

MEL'CUK ET AL. 1 9 8 4 = MEL'CUK, IGOR ET A L . : 1 9 8 4 .

344

Comprehensive Bibliography

1973 = Meriggi, Piero: 1973. Un lexique de L'hittite cuneiforme. In: Linguistica Matematica e Calcolatori: Atti del Convegno e della Prima Scuola Internationale, Pisa, 16/VIII-6/IX 1970. Ed. by Antonio Zampolli. (Academia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere 'La Colombaria', 'Studi\ 28.) Firenze: L. S. Olschki. 111-113.

MERIGGI

MIGLIORINI MILLER

1951 =

1881 =

MIGLIORINI,

B.: 1951. Che cos' e un vocabolario. 2nd. edition. Firenze.

MILLER, VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH:

1881. Osetinskie etjudy. Vol. I. Moskva.

MILLER 1 8 8 2 = M I L L E R , VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH: 1 8 8 2 . MILLER

1887

= M I L L E R , VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH:

Osetinskie etjudy. Vol.

II.

Moskva.

1887. Osetinskie etjudy. Vol. III. Moskva.

MILLER 1 8 9 7 = MILLER, VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH: 1 8 9 7 .

Ocherki russkoj narodnoj

slovesnosti.

Vol. I. Moskva. MILLER 1 9 0 3 = M I L L E R , VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH: 1 9 0 3 .

Die Sprache der Osseten. Strassburg:

Triibner. MILLER 1 9 1 0 = MILLER, VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH: 1 9 1 0 .

Ocherki russkoj narodnoj

slovesnosti.

Ocherki russkoj narodnoj

slovesnosti.

Vol. II. Moskva. MILLER 1 9 2 4 = MILLER, VSEVOLOD FEDOROVICH: 1 9 2 4 .

Vol. III. Moskva. 1927-1934 = M I L L E R , V S E V O L O D FEDOROVICH: 1927-1934. Osetinsko-russkonemeckij slovar'. [Wsewolod Miller: Ossetisch-russisch-deutsches Wörterbuch.]. Vol I (1927); Vol. II (1929); Vol. III (1934) Pod redakciej i s dopolnenijami A. A. Freimana [Herausgegeben und ergänzt von A. Freiman.]. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

MILLER

MISH 1 9 8 3 = M I S H , FREDERICK C . (EDITOR-IN-CHIEF): 1 9 8 3 .

Webster's Ninth New

Collegiate

Dictionary. Springfield, ΜΑ: Merriam-Webster. 1978 = MITCHELL, T. F.: 1978. Meaning is what you do-and how Firthian view of pragmatics. Die Neueren Sprachen 27:224-253.

MITCHELL

I

interpret it: A

1985 = M Ö C K E R , H E R M A N N : 1985. Wittgensteins Beitrag zu einer Hierarchie der Buchstaben: Das 'Wörterbuch für Volksschulen' und die alphabetische Einreihung der deutschen Zusatzbuchstaben ä, ö, b, ü. Muttersprache 95:181-192.

MÖCKER

MONIER-WILLIAMS 1 8 7 2

= MONIER-WILLIAMS, SIR MONIER:

1872.

A

Sanskrit-English

Dictionary. Oxford. 1899 = M O N I E R - W I L L I A M S , S I R M O N I E R : 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. A new edition with the collaboration of E. Leumann, C. Cappeller and other scholars. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. [Reprinted by the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi 1965; and New Delhi 1976.]

MONIER-WILLIAMS

MONSON 1 9 7 3 = M O N S O N , SAMUEL C . : 1 9 7 3 .

In: McDavid & Duckert (eds. MORPURGO 1 9 6 3

Restrictive labels: Descriptive or prescriptive?

1973), 2 0 8 - 2 1 2 .

= MORPURGO, ANNA: 1 9 6 3 .

Mycenaeae

Grecitatis

Lexicon.

Romae

Comprehensive Bibliography

345

[Incunabula Graeca, III; 405 p.], The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

MORRIS 1 9 6 9 = M O R R I S , WILLIAM: 1 9 6 9 .

1 9 9 0 . "Die Definition ist blöd!" Herübersetzen mit dem einsprachigen Wörterbuch. Das französische und englische Lernerwörterbuch in der Hand der deutschen Schüler. (Lexicographica, Series maior, 37.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.

MÜLLICH 1 9 9 0 = M Ü L L I C H , H A R A L D :

M U R P H Y 1 9 9 1 = M U R P H Y , LYNNE: 1 9 9 1 .

American dictionaries. Dictionaries

Defining racial labels: problems and promise in

13:43-64.

et seqq. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. [Abbreviated NED, but usually called Oxford English Dictionary, abbrev. OED. After an edition in single issues (started 1 8 8 4 ) , there was an edition in ten volumes between 1 8 8 8 and 1 9 2 8 , and then an edition in twelve volumes in 1 9 3 3 . ]

M U R R A Y 1 8 8 4 ET SEQQ. = M U R R A Y , J A M E S : 1 8 8 4

The Evolution of English Lexicography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Eine sehr populär gehaltenen Übersicht.)

MURRAY 1 9 0 0 = MURRAY, J . A . H . : 1 9 9 0 .

Caught in the Web of Words: James Α. Η. Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

M U R R A Y 1 9 7 9 = M U R R A Y , K . M . ELISABETH: 1 9 7 9 .

Quechua word structure. In: Binding and Filtering. Ed. b y F . Heny. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 279-327.

MUYSKEN 1 9 8 1 = MUYSKEN, P I E T E R : 1 9 8 1 .

NEHRLICH

1993 =

NEHRLICH, BRIGITE:

1993. Kratylos 38.

et al. 1 9 9 3 = N E W E L L , LEONARD E „ AND FRANCIS B O N ' O G POLIGON: 1 9 9 3 . Batad Ifugao Dictionary with Ethnographic Notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

NEWELL

1991 = NGUYEN, DINH-HOA: 1991. The Role of Early Dictionaries of Vietnamese in the Standardization of the National Language. In: Zgusta (ed. 1991c), 50-59.

NGUYEN

1964 = N I D A , E U G E N E : 1964. Toward a Science of Translating, with a Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

NIDA

Lapp Dictionary. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, I 1932 (666 pp.), II 1934 (718 pp.); Ill 1938 (876 pp.); IV (Systematic part) 1956 (559 pp.); V (Supplement) 1962 (283 (pp.). IV, V co-edited by Asbj0rn Nesheim.

NIELSEN 1 9 3 2 - 6 2 = NIELSEN, KONRAD: 1 9 3 2 - 6 2 .

On lexicographic acceptability in modern Hebrew. In: Hebrew Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Ed. by Moshe Nahir. Washington, DC: University Press of America. 335-353.

NIR 1 9 8 1 = N I R , RAPHAEL: 1 9 8 1 .

NUYTS/ VERSCHUEREN 1 9 8 7 = N U Y T S , J A N , AND J E F VERSCHUEREN: 1 9 8 7 .

A

Comprehensive

Bibliography of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. OED = A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles was originally published in

346

Comprehensive Bibliography

issues (beginning with 1884) and then in ten volumes between 1888 and 1928; it was reissued in 1933 in twelve volumes. The main editor was James Murray; his work was later helped and after his death continued by H. Bradley, W. A. Craigie, and C. T. Onions. This edition was reissued in 1971 as The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary Complete text reproduced micrographically I, II; there were many subsequent reprints. The twelve-volume edition of OED is now (1989) available in electronic form, on a compact disc (ROM) from the Oxford Electronic Publishing division of the Oxford University Press: the electronic form allows searches for other items than the alphabetically ordered headwords, such as: searches by the authors of the pericopes, by a key-word used in many definitions, by a language involved in many etymologies, etc. R. W. Burchfield edited A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary I-1V, 1976 ff. This supplement was reissued as The Compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary vol. Ill in 1987. Finally, J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner provided in 1989 The Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition in twenty volumes. This second edition contains the identical text as the first edition, but with the entries of the Supplement distributed into their location given by the alphabetical sequence. This edition is available on CD-ROM discs as well. All these editions were published by the Oxford University Press (formerly also called Clarendon Press) in Oxford. Meanwhile, the University of Waterloo Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary (located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) is preparing a new version of the dictionary, based on new material and original conceptions. OLIVIER ET AL. 1 9 7 3

= OLIVIER, J E A N - P I E R R E , L . G O D A R T , S . S E Y D E L , AND C . SOURVINOU:

1973. Index generaux du lineaire B. Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo (Incunabula Graeca, 52) [413 p.], 1979 = O R S M A N , H. W.: 1979. Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. Auckland: Heinemann Educational Books [1339 pp.].

ORSMAN

1979 = O S S E L T O N , Ν. Ε.: 1979. John Kersey and the ordinary words of English. English Studies 60:555-561.

OSSELTON

1990 = OSSELTON, Ν. E.: 1990. The history of academic dictionary criticism with reference to major dictionaries. In: Encyclopedia II, 225-229.

OSSELTON

Oxford-Harrap Standard German-English Dictionary. Ed. Trevor Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

OXFORD-HARRAP 1 9 7 7 =

1975 = Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. Ed. Jessie Coulson, Dorothy Eagle, and Joyce Hawkins. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

OXFORD ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY

OXFORD LATIN 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 8 2 = OXFORD LATIN DICTIONARY

(from fasc. 4 onwards). Ed. P. G.

W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Diksyunaryo-Tesauro Lungsod Quezon, Pilipinas: Manlapaz Pub. Co. [1027 pp.].

PANGANIBAN 1 9 7 2 = PANGANIBAN, J O S 6 V I L L A : 1 9 7 2 .

Pilipino-lngles.

1863 = Wilhelm Pape's Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. 3. Auflage bearbeitet von Gustav Eduard Benseier. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg [LH, 1710

P A P E / Β ENSELER

Comprehensive Bibliography

347

Ρ·]· 1 8 8 0 = P A P E , W I L H E L M , AND Μ . SENGEBUSCH: 1 9 8 0 . Griechischdeutsches Handwörterbuch. 3. Auflage bearbeitet von M. Sengebusch. Braunschweig: Vieweg. [Reprinted Nachdruck Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1954.] [2 volumes, XVIII, 1548; 1424 p.],

P A P E / SENGEBUSCH

1968 = PASAEVA, M. M.: 1968. Ο principakh perevoda frazeologizmov ν russkoazerbajdzanskikh slovarjakh. In: Voprosy frazeologii i sostavlenija frazeologiceskikh slovarej. Ed. N. A. Baskakov, Α. M. Babkin, and Α. A. Orudzev. Baku: Izdatel'stvo Azerbajdzanskoj Akademii nauk. 88-93.

PASAEVA

Passow 1812 = Passow, Franz: 1812. Über Zweck, Anlage und Ergänzung Griechischer Wörterbücher. (Zweytes Programm des Conradinum bey dem Michaelis-Examen.) Berlin: F. Maurer. 1831 = P A S S O W , F R A N Z : 1831. Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache von Dr. Franz Passow. Leipzig: Vogel [2 volumes, XL, 1388; 1500, 36,76p.].

PASSOW

1841-1857 = Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache begründet von Franz Passow. Neu bearbeitet und zeitgemäb umgestaltet von Dr. V. Chr. Fr. Rost/ Fr. Palm/ O. Kreussler/ K. Keil/ F. Peter/ G. E. Benseier. Des ursprünglichen Werkes fünfte Auflage. Leipzig: Vogel.

PASSOW/ ROST

PETERS 1 9 8 7 = PETERS, ELIZABETH: 1 9 8 7 .

1964 = sqq.

PHAL

PHAL,

Trojan Gold. New York: Atheneum.

Α.: 1964. Les groupes de mots," Cahiers de Lexicologie, IV. 1964, 45

1 6 5 8 . The new world of English words: or a general dictionary: containing the interpretations of such hard words as are derived from other languages ... terms that relate of arts and sciences. London.

PHILLIPS 1 6 5 8 = PHILLIPS, E D W A R D :

1985 = POIRIER, C L A U D E : 1985. Dictionnaire du Frangais Quebecois: description et histoire des regionalismes en usage au Quebec depuis l'epoque de la Nouvelle-France jusqu'ä nos jours incluant un apergu de leur extension dans les provinces canadiennes limitrophes. Volume de presentation. Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l'Universite Laval [167 pp.].

POIRIER

POKORNY

1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 9 = P O K O R N Y , JULIUS: 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 9 .

Indogermanisches

Etymologishes

Wörterbuch. Vol. I, II. Bern: Francke. POLDAUF 1 9 7 3 = Ρ OLD AUF, IVAN: 1 9 7 3 .

Ovöroväni ekvivalence studiem textü. In: Ruzicka

& P o l d a u f (eds. 1973), 1 0 3 - 1 0 6 .

Pollard/ Sag 1987 = P O L L A R D , C A R L , AND I V A N SAG: 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. POLLARD/ S A G 1 9 9 4 = POLLARD, C A R L , AND IVAN S A G : 1 9 9 4 .

Head-Driven Phrase Structure

Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. POLLUX 1 9 0 0 =

Pollucis Onomasticon Edidit Ericus Bethe. Lipsiae, I ( 1 9 0 0 ) , I I ( 1 9 3 1 )

Comprehensive Bibliography

348

Stuttgart: Teubner [reprinted 1967; XX, 305; XVII, 418 p.], = P O N T E N , J A N - P E T E R : 1 9 7 6 . Das Übersetzungswörterbuch und seine linguistischen Implikationen. In: Probleme der Lexikologie und Lexikographie. (Sprache der Gegenwart, 39.) Ed. by Η. Moser. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwan.

PONTEN 1 9 7 6

200-210.

1978 = P O T T E R , B E R N A R D : 1978. Organisation semantique de I'article de dictionnaire. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique 73(1):339—366.

POTTIER

1960A = PRITSAK, O M E L J A N : 1960a. Vorwort zum nachdruck. In: Preface to the reprint of Radioffs Versuch (1893). Vol.1. Gravenhage: Mouton. I-XXVII.

PRITSAK

PRITSAK 1 9 6 0 B = PRITSAK, O M E L J A N : 1 9 6 0 B . W . RADLOFF'S 'VERSUCH EINES WÖRTERBUCHES DER T Ü R K - D I A L E C T E ' , SEINE Q U E L L E N UND DEREN W E R T . [ Q U O T E D AS FORTHCOMING IN PRITSAK 1 9 6 0 ,

p. X X V I I ; to my knowledge, never published.]

1978 = P R O C T E R , P . 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow (Essex, England): Longman.

PROCTER

Im Wörterbuch ist alles pragmatisch. In: Studien zur Neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie. Vol. IV. Edited by Herbert E. Wiegand. (Germanistische Linguistik, 1-3/1983.) Hildesheim; Zurich: Georg Olms. 361-380.

PÜSCHEL 1 9 8 4 = PÜSCHEL, ULRICH: 1 9 8 4 .

1995 = MA: MIT Press.

PUSTEJOVSKY

PUSTEJOVSKY, J A M E S :

PUSTEJOVSKY/ BERGLER 1 9 9 1

1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge,

= PUSTEJOVSKY, J A M E S , AND S A B I N E BERGLER ( E D S . ) :

1991.

Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation: Proceedings of a Workshop, 17 June 1991, University of California, Berkeley, California. Berkeley, CA: Assocation for Computational Linguistics. [Also published as: Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, James Pustejovsky and Sabine Bergler (eds.), Berlin: Springer; 1992.] P W = SEE BÖHTLINGK 1 8 5 5 . p w = s e e BÖHTLINGK 1 8 7 9 .

1952 = QUADRI, B R U N O : 1952. Aufgaben und Methoden der Onomasiologischen Forschung. (Romanica Helvetica, 37.) Bern: A. Francke.

QUADRI

QUEMADA 1 9 6 7 = QUEMADA, BERNARD: 1 9 6 7 .

Les Dictionnaires du Franfais

Moderne,

1539-1863. Paris: Didier. 1968 = Q U E M A D A , B E R N A R D : 1968. Les Dictionnaires du Frangais Moderne 1539-1863: Etude sur leur histoire, leurs types et leurs methodes. Paris: Didier. (Eine sehr eingehende Untersuchung der Methoden, Traditionen usw. Es wird ein vollständiges Verzeichnis der Wörterbücher geboten; allerdings sind ihre Titel sehr gekürzt.)

QUEMADA

Proben der Volksliteratur der nördlichen türkischen Stämme, [in some volumes, der türkischen Stämme Süd-Sibiriens', in yet other volumes, der türkischen Stämme.] 18 volumes. St. Petersburg: Commissionäre der Kaiserlichen akademie der Wissens.

RADLOFF 1 8 6 6 - 1 9 0 7 = RADLOFF, WILHELM: 1 8 6 6 - 1 9 0 7 .

349

Comprehensive Bibliography

Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Tiirk-Dialecte. Vasilij Vasil'evich Radlov, Opyt slovarja turkskix narechij. vol. I-IV. St. Petersburg: Commissionnaires de l'Academie imperiale des sciences. [Reprinted: Gravenhage: Mouton; I 9 6 0 . ]

RADLOFF 1 8 9 3 - 1 9 1 1 = R A D L O F F , W I L H E L M : 1 8 9 3 - 1 9 1 1 .

Dispatches from the Front: The Prefaces to the Oxford English Dictionary. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary.

RAYMOND 1 9 8 7 = RAYMOND, D A R R E L L R . : 1 9 8 7 .

The labeling of national and regional variation in popular dictionaries. In: Householder/ Saporta (eds. 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 1 7 - 2 2 7 .

R E A D 1 9 6 2 = R E A D , ALLEN W A L K E R : 1 9 6 2 .

1975 = R E A D , ALLEN W.: 1975. Dictionary. In: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia. Vol. 5. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 713 ff. (Gute Übersicht, Literatur.)

READ

REICHMANN 1 9 7 6 = REICHMANN, O S K A R : 1 9 7 6 .

Germanistische

Lexikologie.

Stuttgart:

J.

B. Metzler. Historische lexikographie. In: W. Besch, et al. ( e d s S p r a c h g e s c h i c h t e . Vol.I. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. 4 6 0 - 4 9 2 .

REICHMANN 1 9 8 4 = REICHMANN, O S K A R : 1 9 8 4 .

1990a = R E I C H M A N N , O S K A R : 1990a. Das sprachstadienwörterbuch I: Deutsch. In: Encyclopedia II, 1416-1429.

REICHMANN

1990b = REICHMANN, O S K A R : 1990b. Einige Thesen zur Bedeutungserklärung in dem von Jacob Grimm bearbeiteten Teil des Deutschen Wörterbuches und im Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache von Daniel Sanders. In: Elmer Antonsen, et al. (eds). The Grimm Brothers and the Germanic Past (Proceedings of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign International Bicentenary Conference on the Brothers Grimm, April 1986). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. 97-113.

REICHMANN

1990c = REICHMANN, O S K A R : 1990c. Formen und Probleme der Datenerhebung I: Synchronische und diachronische historische Wörterbücher. In: Encyclopedia II, 1588-1611. [In particular, Section 2: Formen und Probleme der Erhebung sekundärer Daten, p. 1590 f.]

REICHMANN

1990d = R E I C H M A N N , O S K A R : 1990d. Das gesamtsystembezogene Wörterbuch. In: Encyclopedia II, 1391-1415.

REICHMANN

La Grammaire de Panini (traduite du sanscrit avec des extraits des commentaires indigenes). Vol. Ι-Π. Paris: Ecole Fran9aise d'Extreme Orient.

RENOU 1 9 6 6 = R E N O U , LOUIS: 1 9 6 6 .

1979 = R E S E T O V A , L. V.: 1979. Ο principakh postroenija russko-uzbekskogo slovarja. Sovetskaja tjurkologija 1:50-56.

RESETOVA

R E Y 1 9 6 5 = R E Y , ALAIN: 1 9 6 5 .

Les dictionnaires: Forme et contenu. Cahiers de Lexicologie

7 : 6 5 ff.

REY 1972 = Rey, Alain: 1972. Usage, jugements et prescriptions linguistiques. Langue Frangaise 1 6 : 4 — 2 8 .

Comprehensive Bibliography

350

La Terminologie: Noms et Notions (Que Sais-je?, Paris: Presses Universitäres de France.

R E Y 1 9 7 9 = R E Y , ALAIN: 1 9 7 9 .

1780).

La definition lexicographique: Recherches surl'equation semique. Cahiers de Lexicologie 8:71-94.

R E Y - D E B O V E 1 9 6 6 = R E Y - D E B O V E , JOSETTE: 1 9 6 6 .

R E Y - D E B O V E 1 9 7 0 = R E Y - D E B O V E , JOSETTE: 1 9 7 0 :

La Lexicographie. (Langages,

19.)

Paris: Didier. Etude linguistique et Semiotique des Dictionnaires Frangais Contemporains. (Approaches to Semiotics, 13.) The Hague: Mouton.

R E Y - D E B O V E 1 9 7 1 = R E Y - D E B O V E , JOSETTE: 1 9 7 1 .

Le Robert Methodique: Dictionnaire Methodique du Frangais Actuel. Redaction dirigee par Josette Rey-Debove. Paris: Le Robert.

R E Y - D E B O V E 1 9 8 2 = R E Y - D E B O V E , JOSETTE: 1 9 8 2 .

et seqq. A New Dictionary of the English Language I, II. London: Pickering 1836,1837. (The first installment of the Dictionary is said to have been published already in 1819 in the 'Encyclopedia Metropolitana': non vidi.)

RICHARDSON 1 8 3 6 ET SEQQ. = RICHARDSON, C H A R L E S : 1 8 3 6

P.: 1 6 8 0 . Dictionnaire frangois, contenant les mots et les choses ... avec les termes les plus connus des arts et des sciences. Geneve: Chez J.H. Wideihold.

RICHELET 1 6 8 0 = R I C H E L E T ,

Review of Cesko-cinsky slovink. I - I V , 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 8 , zusammengestellt von einem lexikographischen Kollektiv des Orientalischen Instituts der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, Prag. In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 1979,531-532.

RICHTER 1 9 7 9 = RICHTER, G U N N A R : 1 9 7 9 .

Repertorium lexicographicum graecu: A catalogue of indexes and dictionaries to Greek authors. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiskell.

RIESENFELD 1 9 5 4 = R I E S E N F E L D , H . , AND B . RIESENFELD: 1 9 5 4 .

1 9 8 1 . The CONTA Conference: Proceedings of the Conference on Conceptual and Terminological Analysis in the Social Sciences. Frankfurt: INDEKS Verlag.

RIGGS 1 9 8 1 = RIGGS, FRED (ED.):

1981. Interconcept Report: A New Paradigm for Solving Terminology Problems of the Social Sciences. (Reports and Papers in the Social Sciences, 47.) Paris: UNESCO.

RIGGS 1 9 8 1 = R I G G S , F R E D :

Help for Social Scientists: A New Kind of Reference Process (Reports and Papers in the Social Sciences, 57.) Paris: UNESCO.

RIGGS 1 9 8 6 = R I G G S , F R E D : 1 9 8 6 .

Le Robert Methodique: Dictionnaire Methodique du Frangais Actuel. Redaction dirigee par Josette Rey-Debove. Paris: Le Robert.

ROBERT 1 9 8 2 =

Human categorization. In: Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Neil Warren (ed.). V o l l . London: Academic Press. 1-72.

ROSCH 1 9 7 7 = R O S C H , E L E A N O R : 1 9 7 7 .

351

Comprehensive Bibliography

1983 = R O S C H , E L E A N O R : 1983. Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In: Ellin K. Scholnik (ed.). New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 73-86.

ROSCH

1971 = R U B I N , J O A N , AND B J Ö R N JERNUDD: 1971. Can Language be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

RUBIN/ JERNUDD

RUBIN e t a l . 1 9 7 7 = R U B I N , J O A N , BJÖRN Η . J E R N U D D , JYOTIRINDRA D A S G U P T A , J O S H U A A .

A. F E R G U S O N ( E D S . ) : 1 9 7 7 . Language Planning Processes. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 21.) The Hague; Paris; New York: Mouton.

F I S H M A N , AND C H A R L E S

1 9 7 3 . Language Planning: Current Issues and Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

R U B I N / S H U Y 1 9 7 3 = R U B I N , J O A N , AND R O G E R S H U Y ( E D S . ) :

R U Z I C K A / P O L D A U F 1 9 7 3 = RUZIÖKA, J . , AND IVAN POLDAUF

(eds.):

1973.

Slovo a slovnik.

Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied. 1969 = R Y A N , 44:129-134.

RYAN

WILLIAM

M.: 1969. Where has all the usage gone? American

Eesti-inglise Sönaraamat. Dictionary. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

SAAGPAKK 1 9 8 2 = S A A G P A K K , P A U L F . : 1 9 8 2 .

Speech

Estonian-English

1966 = SABRSULA , J . : 1966. Un probleme de la peripheric du systeme morphologique: k propos des formations premorphologiques, Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, II 1966, 183 sqq.

SABRSULA

et al. 1 9 8 0 = S A G E R , J U A N , D . D U N G W O R T H , AND P . F . M C D O N A L D : 1 9 8 0 . English Special Languages: Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter.

SAGER

SAMPSON 1 9 8 5 = SAMPSON, G E O F F R E Y : 1 9 8 5 .

Writing System: A Linguistic

Introduction.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sansoni-Harrap Standard Italian and English Dictionary. Part English-Italian. Ed. Vladimiro Macchi. London; Florence: Harrap.

SANSONI-HARRAP 1 9 7 3 =

C.: City, Philippines [2675 pp.].

SANTOS 1 9 8 3 = S A N T O S , V I T O

1983.

Vicassan's Pilipino-English

Dictionary. Caloocan

1973 = SAUMJAN, S . K . : 1973. Philosophie und Theoretische Linguistik. Taschenbücher, 166.) München: W. Fink.

SAUMJAN

DE S A U S S U R E 1 9 1 6

= DE S A U S S U R E , FERDINAND: 1 9 1 6 .

II:

Cours de Linguisdque

(Uni-

Generale

(with A. Bally & A. Sechehaye). Paris: Klincksieck. SCAGLIONE 1 9 8 4

=

SCAGLIONE, A L D O :

1984.

The Emergence

of National

Languages.

(Speculum Artium, 11.) Ravenna: Longo. Lexicon graecolatinum novum in quo ex primitivorum et simplicium fontibus derivata atque composita ordine non minus naturali quam alphabetico breviter

SCAPULA 1 5 7 9 =

Comprehensive Bibliography

352

et dilucide deducuntur. Joannis Scapulae opera et studio. Basileae. SCERBA 1 9 4 0 = SÖERBA, L E V VLADIMIRO VI £: 1 9 4 0 .

Akademii Nauk SSSR 3:89-117.

Opyt obscej teorii leksikografii. Izvestija

Ϊ

Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as Test Cases. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

S C H Ä F E R 1 9 8 0 = S C H Ä F E R , JÜRGEN: 1 9 8 0 .

1 9 8 4 = S C H Ä F E R , J Ü R G E N : 1 9 8 4 . Documentation in the OED: supplementary studies. Dictionaries 6:145-149.

SCHÄFER

SCHIBSBYE 1 9 7 0 = SCHIBSBYE, K N U D : 1 9 7 0 . A

A

plea for

Modern English Grammar. 2nd ed. London:

Oxford University Press. SCHINDLER 1 9 7 2 = S C H I N D L E R , J O C H E M : 1 9 7 2 .

Gazette

Wortbildungsregeln. Wiener linguistische

1:39-57.

Zum Charakter 'stilistischer' markierungen im Wörterbuch. In: Lexikologie und Lexikographie: Vorträge der IV. Sprachwissenschaftlichen Konferenz DDR - Finnland, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 3-5 September 1986. Ed. by Klaus Welke and Renate Neurath. (Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, Arbeitsberichte, 160.) Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. 58-66.

S C H I P P A N 1987 = S C H I P P A N , T H E A : 1 9 8 7 .

1 9 8 6 . Wörterbuchproblem: Untersuchungen zu konzeptionellen Fragen der historischen Lexikographie. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik, 65.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

SCHMIDT 1 9 8 6 = S C H M I D T , HARTMUT:

SCHNEIDER

1797

=

Griechisch-Deutsches

GOTTLOB: 1797-1798. Kritisches Handwörterbuch. Züllichau. Jena. Leipzig. 2 volumes [847,

SCHNEIDER, JOHANN

1158 P.].

= Johann Gottlob Schneider's Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, nach der dritten Ausgabe des gröberen Griechisch-deutschen Wörterbuchs mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des homerischen und hesiodischen Sprachgebrauchs und mit genauer Angabe der Sylbenlängen ausgearbeitet von Dr. Franz Passow. Leipzig: Vogel 1819, 1823. 2 volumes [VIII, 928; VI, 1136 pp.].

SCHNEIDER/ PASSOW 1819

Translational equivalent and/or explanation? The perennial problem of equivalence. Lexicographica: International Annual for

SCHNORR 1 9 8 6 = S C H N O R R , VERONIKA: 1 9 8 6 .

Lexicography

2:53-60.

SCHOTT 1 8 3 6 = S C H O T T , WILHELM: 1 8 3 6 .

Versuch Uber die Tatarischen Sprachen. Berlin:

Veit. SCHOTT 1 8 4 6 = SCHOTT, WILHELM: 1 8 4 6 .

Älteste Nachrichten über Mongolen und Tataren.

Berlin: Veit. 1981 = S C H U H , RUSSELL G.: 1981. A Dictionary ofNgizim. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

SCHUH

SCHÜTZE 1 9 9 8 = S C H Ü T Z E , H I N R I C H : 1 9 9 8 .

Automatic word sense discrimination. In: Ide/

353

Comprehensive Bibliography Veronis (eds. 1998), 97-123. SCHWANENFLUGEL 1 9 9 1 = S C H W A N E N F L U G E L , P A U L A J . ( E D ) :

1991.

The Psychology

of

Word Meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1939 = C. Η. Beck.

SCHWYZER

SCHWYZER, EDUARD:

1939. Griechische Grammatik [...]. Bd. I. München:

1983 = SEEBOLD, E L M A R : 1983. Etymologie, Begriffs- und Funktionsbestimmung. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 11, ρ. 260-267.

SEEBOLD

1995 = SEELBACH, DIETER: 1995. Syntagmatic context information for computer assisted (human) translation. In: Dirven & Vanparys (eds. 1995), 337-378.

SEELBACH

SERIANI 1 9 8 3

=

SERIANI, LUCA:

Dardano et al. (eds.

1983.

Neologia e suffissazione: Alcuni appunti'. In:

1983), 5 1 - 6 3 .

1977 = SERRANO A Y B A R , CONCEPCION: 1977: Historia de la lexicografia griega antigua y medieval. In: Adrados et al. (eds. 1977), 61-106.

SERRANO A Y B A R

SHOBEN 1 9 9 1 = S H O B E N , E D W A R D J . : 1 9 9 1 .

In: Schwanenflugel (ed. SIBAYAN/ NEWELL

1992/

Predicating and nonpredicating combinations.

1991), 117-135. 1994 =

S I B A Y A N , B O N I F A C I O , AND N E W E L L , L E O N A R D :

1992.

Papers from the First Asia International Lexicography Conference, Manila, Philippines, 1992; Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines 1994, 3-15. SIMONE 1 9 8 3 = SIMONE, RAFFAELE.

Derivazioni mancate. In: Dardano, et al. (eds.

1983),

37-50. 1 9 8 7 . Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing and the Development of the Gollins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins ELT.

SINCLAIR 1 9 8 7 = SINCLAIR, J . M C H A R D Y :

SINCLAIR 1 9 9 1 = S I N C L A I R , JOHN:

1991.

Corpus, Concordance,

Collocation.

Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Dr. Johnson's Essays in the Biography of a Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dictionary:

SLEDD/ K O L B 1 9 5 5 = S L E D D , JAMES H . , AND G W I N J . KOLB: 1 9 5 5 .

SMADJA et

al.

1996

=

SMADJA, FRANK, KATHLEEN

R . M C K E O W N , AND V A S I L E I O S

Translating collocations for bilingual lexicons: approach. Computational Linguistics 2 2 : 1 - 3 8 . HATZIVASSILOGLOU: 1 9 9 6 .

SMIRNITSKIJ/ AKHMANOVA 1 9 5 7 = SMIRNITSKIJ, A .

I.,

AND O . AKHMANOVA.

A

statistical

Russko-anglijskij

slovar'. Moscow: Nauka. SMIRNITSKIJ/ AKHMANOVA 1 9 6 5

Russian-English

=

SMIRNITSKIJ, Α . I., AND

O . S . AKHMANOVA:

1965.

Dictionary, 7th edition, Moscow: Soviet Encyclopaedia.

SMIRNITSKIJ/ AKHMANOVA 1 9 8 2

= S M I R N I T S K I J , I . , AND O . A K H M A N O V A :

1982.

How

a

bilingual dictionary best serves the writer. In: Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America 1977. Ed. by Donald Hobar. Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University.

354

Comprehensive Bibliography

24-31.

Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,. Vol. I (issues 1 - 9 ) : 1 9 5 5 - 1 9 7 8 [XIV p. + 1 7 9 2 columns, with many pages of various addenda]; issues 1 0 - 1 2 : 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 7 [XVIII p. + 976 columns]. The editors of the later issues were: Ulrich Fleischer (2,3), Hartmut Erbse ( 4 , 5 ) , Eva-Maria Vogt ( 6 - 1 1 ) , Michael Meier-Briigger ( 1 2 ) .

S N E L L 1 9 5 5 = S N E L L , O . , AND H A N S JOACHIM M E T T E : 1 9 5 5

SOMMERFELDT/ SCHREIBER 1 9 6 6 = SOMMERFELDT, K A R L - E R N S T , AND H E R B E R T SCHREIBER:

1966. Wörterbuch der Valenz Etymologisch Verwandter Wörter: Verben, Adjektive, Substantive. Tübingen: Niemeyer. SOWA 1 9 9 1 = S O W A , JOHN F . : 1 9 9 1 .

Bergler (eds.

1991),

Logical structures in the lexicon. In: Pustejovsky &

38-55.

1 9 6 2 . Langenscheidts enzyklopädisches englischen und deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

SPRINGER 1 9 6 2 = SPRINGER, O . :

Wörterbuch der

1946 = SPACER, FRAMR J.: 1946. English Grammar for Advanced Learners. Prague: Kvasniäka a Hampl.

SPACER

STARNES/ NOYES 1 9 4 6

= S T A R N E S , D E W I T T T „ AND GERTRUDE E . NOYES:

1946.

The

English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson 1604-1755. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. (Es wird vor allem die Frage untersucht, wie die Wörterbücher voneinander abhängen. Wie Hayashi bietet auch dieses Buch beinahe vollständige Texte der Titelblätter, es wird jedoch eher der Entwicklungsgang der Wörterbücher als diese Texte analysiert.) der Inhalt. Traditio delectat or No Change at OUP [= Oxford University Press]. Anglia-Zeitschrift für Englische Philologie 1 0 2 : 3 9 2 ^ 4 - 0 5 .

STEIN 1 9 8 4 = S T E I N , G A B R I E L E : 1 9 8 4 .

1985 = S T E I N , G A B R I E L E : 1985. English-German/German-English lexicography: Its early beginnings. Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography 1:134—164.

STEIN

1987 = S T E I N , G A B R I E L E : 1987. Reference point and authorial involvement in John Palsgrave's Esclaircissement de la langue francoyse. In: Perspectives on Language in Performance: Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism, and Language Teaching and Learning: To Honour Werner Hüllen ... Edited by Wolfgang Lorscher and Rainer Schulze. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 530-546.

STEIN

John Palsgrave as Renaissance Linguist: Α Pioneer in Vernacular Language Description. (Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

STEIN 1 9 9 7 = STEIN, G A B R I E L E : 1 9 9 7 .

STEINER 1 9 7 2 = S T E I N E R , ROGER J . : 1 9 7 2 .

The New College French and English Dictionary.

New York: Amco. Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wöterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache. Unter Mitarbeit von Lieselotte Härtung, Gert Sauer und Brigitte Schulze. Lieferungen 1-12. Berlin.

STEINITZ 1 9 6 2 - 8 8 = STEINITZ, W O L F G A N G : 1 9 6 2 - 8 8 .

Comprehensive Bibliography STEINITZ/ KLAPPENBACH

355

1 9 6 4 - 7 7 = STEINITZ, W . , AND R . KLAPPENBACH:

Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache,

1961-1977.

Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 6 vols.

1572a = S T E P H A N U S , H E N R I C U S : 1572a. Thesaurus Graecae Linguae. Paris. [Graz 1954, 9 vol. 10 622 pp.],

STEPHANUS

1572b = STEPHANUS, H E N R I C U S : 1572b. Thesaurus Graecae Linguae. Ed. by C. B. Hase, G. Dindorfius, and L. Dindorfius. Paris [1865],

STEPHANUS

1964 = S T E R N , G U S T A F : 1964. Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (First published Göteborg: Elanders, 1931).

STERN

STINDLOVÄ, JITKA: 1 9 7 7 . Some problems of alphabetical arrangement. In: Lexicologie: Een bundel opstellen voor F. de Tollenaere ter gelegendheid van zijn 65e verjaardag door vrienden en vakgenoten. Ed. by P. G. J. van Sterkenburg. Groningen:

STINDLOVÄ 1 9 7 7 =

Wolters-Noordhoff.

259-263.

1986 = S T O R Y , G. M . : 1986. The role of the dictionary in Canadian English. In: In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Ed. by W. C. Lougheed. (Occasional Papers, Strathy Language Unit, Queen's University, 1.) Kingston, Ontario: Strathy Language Unit, Queen's University.

STORY

STORY/ KIRWIN/ WIDDOWSON 1 9 8 2 = STORY, G . M . , W . J . KIRWIN, AND J . D . A . WIDDOWSON 1 9 8 2 . Dictionary of Newfoundland Press [702 pp.]. (EDS.):

STOTZEL 1 9 7 0 = STOTZEL, G E O R G : 1 9 7 0 .

English. Toronto: University of Toronto

Das abbild des Wortschatzes: Zur lexikographischen

m e t h o d e i n D e u t s c h l a n d v o n 1 6 1 7 - 1 9 6 7 . Poetica

3:1-23.

STOVICKOVÄ 1 9 6 1 = STOVICKOVÄ, D A N A : 1 9 6 1 . Cesko-cinsky

thematicky

slovnik;

Jie-Han

fenlai cidian. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan (Commercial Prees). 1991 = S W A N E P O E L , P. H.: 1991. Polisemie in die woordebook -'n kognitiewe perspektief. In: Lexikos. (AFRILEX-Reeks, 1.) Ed. by P. Harteveld. Stellenbosch: Büro van die WAT. 221-280.

SWANEPOEL

Leben und Schaffen von Friedrich Wilhelm Radioff (1837-1918). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Türko-logie. Oriens 8:51-93.

TEMIR 1 9 5 5 = TEMIR, AHMET: 1 9 5 5 .

TESNI£RE 1 9 5 3 = TESNIERE, LUCIEN:

1953.

Esquissse d'une syntaxe structurale.

Paris:

Klincksieck. TESNIÄRE 1 9 5 9

=

TESNIERE, LUCIEN:

1959.

Elements

de syntaxe structurale.

Paris:

Klincksieck. Knowledge representation and knowledge of words. In: Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds. 1991), 1-8.

THOMASON 1 9 9 1 = T H O M A S O N , RICHMOND Η . : 1 9 9 1 .

1962 = Tietze, Andreas: 1962. Problems of Turkish lexicography. In: Householder/ Saporta, (eds. 1962), 263-272.

TIETZE

Comprehensive Bibliography

356

1 9 8 3 . Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Mit Beiträgen von Guenter Neumann. (Inssbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 20; Lieferung, 4.) Innsbruck: Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft.

TISCHLER 1 9 8 3 = T I S C H L E R , JOHANN:

DE

Tollenaere 1965 = DE T O L L E N A E R E , F.: 1965. Un dictionnaire historique de la langue allemande: le tresor des freres Grimm. Cahiers de Lexicologie 6(1): 105-110. The culture-bound element in bilingual dictionaries. In: Hartmann (ed. 1984), 289-297.

TOMASZCZYK 1 9 8 4 = TOMASZCZYK, J E R Z Y : 1 9 8 4 .

TOWELL/ VOORHEES 1 9 9 8

= T O W E L L , G E O F F R E Y , AND ELLEN

M.

VOORHEES:

1998.

Disambiguating highly ambiguous words. In: Ide/ Veronis (eds. 1998), 125-145. On Some Deficiencies in our English Dictionaries: Being the Substance of Two Papers Read before the Philological Society, Nov. 5 and Nov. 19, 1857. 2nd edition. London: Parker and Son. (Originally published in Transactions of the Philological Society [London] 1857,1-70.)

TRENCH 1 8 6 0 = T R E N C H , RICHARD CHENEVIX: 1 8 6 0 .

TRIER 1 9 3 1 = T R I E R , J O S T : 1 9 3 1 .

Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des

Verstandes.

Heidelberg: C. Winter. Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Wortfeldtheorie (Anthony van der Lee and Oskar Reichmann, eds.). The Hague: Mouton.

TRIER 1 9 7 3 = T R I E R , JOST: 1 9 7 3 .

TRUBETZKOY 1 9 3 9 = TRUBETZKOY, NIKOLAJ S . : 1 9 3 9 .

Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague:

Jednota Mathematiku. (ed.): 1 9 8 4 . The Australian Pocket Oxford 2nd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press [824 pp.],

TURNER 1 9 8 4 = TURNER, GEORGE W .

Dictionary.

UEMURA/ SUGAWARA/ HASHIMOTO/ FURUYA 1 9 8 0 = UEMURA, SYUNSUKE, YASUO S U G A W A R A ,

Automatic compilation of modern Chinese concordances. In: COLING 80: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Sept. 30-0ct. 4,1980, Tokyo. 323-329. MANTARO J . HASHIMOTO, AND AKIHIRO FURUYA: 1 9 8 0 .

DE

Vaugelas 1647 = DE V A U G E L A S , C L A U D E : 1647. Remarques sur la Langue Frangoise, Utiles ά ceux qui Veulent Bien Parier et Bien Escrire. Paris: Chez la veuve Jean Camusat et Pierre Le Petit. Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. In: Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, April 18,1974. Ed.by Anthony Bruck, Robert Allen Fox, and Michael W. La Galy. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 346-374.

VENNEMANN 1 9 7 4 = V E N N E M A N N , Τ Η . : 1 9 7 4 .

A Bibliography Philadelphia, PA: J. Benjamins.

VIERECK ET AL. 1 9 8 4 = VIERECK, W . , Ε . SCHNEIDER, AND M . GÖRLACH: 1 9 8 4 .

of Writings on Varieties of English, 1965-1983.

L. A . TE W I N K E L : 1 8 8 2 . Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. 's-Gravenhage-Leiden: Nijhoff, Sijthoff, and Sternberg. Vol. I, 1882. (First issue published 1864).

DE VRIES/ TE W I N K E L 1 8 8 2 = DE V R I E S , Μ . , AND

VOKOUN-DAVID 1 9 7 1 = V O K O U N - D A V I D , MADELEINE: 1 9 7 1 .

L'histoire de l'ecriture et les

357

Comprehensive Bibliography

textes du domaine linguistique chamito-semitique. In: Actes du Premier Congres International de Linguistique Semitique et Chamito-semitique. Ed. by Andre Caquot and David Cohen. The Hague: Mouton. 7 6 - 8 4 . 1967 = W A G N E R , R. L.: 1967. Abavus (quoted in) Les vocabulaires frangais, I. Paris: Didier. From: Mario Rogues. Recueil general des lexiques frangais du Moyen Age, I, II. Paris, 1936, 1938.

WAGNER

WAHRIG 1 9 6 7 = W AHRIG, G E R H A R D : 1 9 6 7 .

Neue Wege in der Wörterbucharbeit

.Hamburg:

Verlag für Buchmarkt-Forschung. 1968 = Bertelsmann.

WAHRIG

W A H R I G , GERHARD:

1968. Das grosse deutsche Wörterbuch. Gütersloh:

et al. 1 9 7 8 = W A H R I G , G E R H A R D , ET A L . : Sprache. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag.

WAHRIG

1978.

Wörterbuch

der

deutschen

= W A L D E , A L O I S , AND J . . B . H O F M A N N : 1 9 7 2 . Lateinisches Wörterbuch. Vol. I, II. Fuenfte Auflage. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

WALDE/ HOFMANN 1 9 7 2

etymologisches

1977 = W A S O W , T H O M A S : 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In: Formal Syntax. Ed. by P. Culicover, et al. New York: Academic Press. 327-360.

WASOW

1985 = W A T K I N S , C A L V E R T : 1985. The American Heritage Dictionary of IndoEuropean Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

WATKINS

Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language. Second edition, ed. William Allan Neilson. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam. Various printings between 1950 and 1960.

W E B S T E R ' S SECOND =

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Ed. Philip Babcock Gove. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co.. Various printings after 1961.

WEBSTER'S THIRD =

[9TH] 1973 = F. C. Mish (ed.): Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company.

WEBSTER'S

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. C Mish. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster 1983.

WEBSTER'S NINTH =

Dictionary.

Editor-in-chief Frederick

1989 = W E G N E R , IMMO: 1989. Lexicographische definition und frame-theorie im allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch. In: Encyclopedia I, 893-899.

WEGNER

WEINREICH

1963 =

WEINREICH,

U.: 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.,

1963. 1 9 7 3 . Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Tradition: A Study in English Usage and Lexicography. {Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 196.) The Hague; Paris: Mouton.

WELLS 1 9 7 3 = W E L L S , R O N A L D Α . :

1980-1981 = W E R N E R , R E I N H O L D : 1980-1981. Nicht ausschliesslich und ausschliesslich reflexiv-metasprachliches Semem? In: Homenaje a Ambrosio Rabanales.

WERNER

358

Comprehensive Bibliography

Ed. by Ambrosio Rabanales. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosofia, Humanidades y Education, Departamento de Lingüistica y Filologia. 5 9 9 - 6 0 9 . Complete English Dictionary, Explaining most of those Hard Words, Which are found in the Best English Writers. By a Lover of Good English and Common Sense. N.B.: The author assures you that he thinks that this is the best English Dictionary in the World, London.

WESLEY 1 7 5 3 = WESLEY, JOHN: 1 7 5 3 .

WHITNEY 1 8 7 9 = W H I T N E Y , WILLIAM DWIGHT: 1 8 7 9 .

A Sanskrit Grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf

& Härtel. A Sanskrit Grammar, Including both the Classical Language, and the older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

WHITNEY 1 8 8 9 [ 1 9 5 5 ] = W H I T N E Y , W I L L I A M DWIGHT: 1 8 8 9 [ 1 9 5 5 ] ,

WHITNEY/ SMITH 1 9 1 1 = WHITNEY, WILLIAM DWIGHT, AND BENJAMIN E . SMITH (EDS.): 1 9 1 1 .

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia. New York: The Century Company. WIEGAND 1 9 7 0

= W I E G A N D , HERBERT ERNST: 1 9 7 0 .

semasiologie. Germanistische Linguistik

Synchronische onomasiologie und

3:243-267.

1986a = W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1986a. Von der normativität deskriptiver Wörterbücher: zugleich ein versuch zur Unterscheidung von normen und regeln. In: Sprachnormen in der Diskussion. (Beiträge vorgelegt von Sprachfreunden.) ED. by Helmut Henne. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter. 72-101.

WIEGAND

1986b = W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1986b. Der frühe Wörterbuchstil Jacob Grimms. Deutsche Sprache 14(4):301-322.

WIEGAND

1989a = W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1989a. Aspekte der makrostruktur im allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch: Alphabetische anordnungen und ihre probleme. In: Encyclopedia I, 371—409.

WIEGAND

1989b = W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1989b. Der Begriff der Mikrostruktur: Geschichte, probleme, perspektiven. In: Encyclopedia I, 409—462.

WIEGAND

1989C = W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1989c. Formen von mikrostrukturen im. allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch. In: Encyclopedia 1,462-501.

WIEGAND

1989d= W I E G A N D , H E R B E R T E R N S T : 1989d. Die lexikographische definition im allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch. In: Encyclopedia 1,530-588.

WIEGAND

Der kulturelle Beitrag der Lexikographie zur Umgestaltung Osteuropas. Lexicographica: An International Annual for Lexicography 1 1 : 2 1 0 - 2 1 8 .

WIEGAND 1 9 9 5 [ 1 9 9 6 ] = W I E G A N D , HERBERT ERNST: 1 9 9 5 [ 1 9 9 6 ] ,

Wörterbuchforschung: Untersuchungen zur Wörterbuchbenutzung, zur Theorie, Geschichte, Kritik und Automatisierung der Lexikographie. Vol. I. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. (xx + 1162 pages.)

WIEGAND 1 9 9 8 = W I E G A N D , HERBERT ERNST: 1 9 9 8 .

1983 = WIERZBICKA, ANNA: 1983. Semantics and lexicography: Some comments on the Warlpiri dictionary project. In: Austin (ed. 1983), 135-144.

WIERZBICKA

Comprehensive Bibliography

359

WIERZBICKA 1 9 8 5 = WIERZBICKA, A N N A :

1 9 8 5 . Lexicography

and Conceptual

Analysis.

Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. 1988 = W I E R Z B I C K A , ANNA: 1988. the semantics and lexicography of'natural kinds'. In: Symposium on Lexicography III: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Lexicography, May 14-16, 1986, at the University of Copenhagen. Ed. by Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen and Arne Zettersten. (Lexicographica, Series Maior 19.) Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. 155-182.

WIERZBICKA

'Prototypes save': On the uses and abuses of the notion of 'prototype' in linguistics and related fields. In: Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Catergorization. Ed. by Savas L Tsohatzidis. London; New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 347-367.

WIERZBICKA 1 9 9 0 = WIERZBICKA, A N N A : 1 9 9 0 .

WIERZBICKA

1 9 9 2 / 9 3 = W I E R Z B I C K A , A N N A : 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 . What are the uses of theoretical

lexicography? Dictionaries WILDHAGEN/ H^RAUCOURT

Englisch-deutsches, Brandstetter.

14:44-78. 1965

=

WILDHAGEN, K A R L , AND

deutsch-englisches

WILKINS 1668 = W I L K I N S , JOHN: 1 6 6 8 .

Wörterbuch.

WILL

H£RAUCOURT.

Band I, Ε - D . Wiesbaden:

An essay towards a real character and a philosophical

language. London. WILLIAMS 1 9 7 5 = WILLIAMS, E D W I N B . : 1 9 7 5 .

Babel

The translator and the bilingual lexicographer.

21:126-127. 1 9 8 2 . The Modern Russian Dictionary Oxford: Pergamon Press.

WILSON 1982 = W I L S O N , ELIZABETH A . M . :

English Speakers. English-Russian.

for

1819 = W I L S O N , H . H . : 1819. A Dictionary of Sanskrit and English. Translated, emended, and enlarged from an original compilation, prepared by learned natives for the College of Fort Williams. Calcutta: Printed by P. Pereira at the Hindoostanee Press. [2nd edition 1832.]

WILSON

= W I L T S , O M M O : 1 9 7 9 . Lexikographie zwischen Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachpflege: Ein dilemma der nordfriesischen wörterbucharbeit. Us Wurk 28:197-206.

WILTS 1979

Sprachnorm und dialektwörterbuch: Zu einem aktuellen problem nordfriesischer dialektologie. In: Lexikographie der Dialekte: Beiträge zu Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis. Ed. by Hans Friebertshäuser and Heinrich J. Dingeldein. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik, 59.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 211-220.

WILTS 1 9 8 6 = W I L T S , OMMO: 1 9 8 6 .

WINDISCH 1 9 1 5 = W I N D I S C H , E R N S T : 1 9 1 5 [PUBLISHED 1 9 1 6 ] . Z u BÖHTLINGKS 1 0 0 . G E B U R T S T A G AM 11. J U N I 1 9 1 5 .

Indogermanisches

Jahrbuch

3:176-187.

Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie und indischen Altertumskunde. Teil I. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, Bd. 1, Heft 1. Β.) [Particularly Chapter 33, pp. 238-246; further references.]

WINDISCH 1917 = W I N D I S C H , ERNST: 1 9 1 7

360

Comprehensive Bibliography

1972 = W O L F F , J O H N U.: 1972. A Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. (Philippine Journal of Linguistics, Special Monograph no. 4.) Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

WOLFF

W Ö L K 1 9 7 2 = W Ö L K , ANTHONY: 1 9 7 2 .

Dictionary. College English W u 1 9 7 9 = Wu, JINRONG: Press [976 pp.]

Linguistic and social bias in the American

Heritage

33:930-935.

1979.

A Chinese-English

Dictionary.

Beijing: Commercial

1974 = W Ü S T E R , Ε.: 1974. Die allgemeine Terminologielehre - Ein grenzgebiet zwischen Sprachwissenschaft, logik, ontologie, informatik und den sachwissenschaften. Linguistics 119: 60-106.

WÜSTER

1955a = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1955a. Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste (Monografie Orientälniho üstavu CSAV 16). Prague: Nakladatelstvi Ceskoslovenske Akademie V£d.

ZGUSTA

1955b = pp. 510-544.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA 1 9 5 7 = 25. pp.

ZGUSTA , LADISLAV:

1955b. Lydian Interpretations. Archiv Orientälni 23.

ZGUSTA, LADISLAVV: 1 9 5 7 .

Die pisidischen Inschriften. Archiv Orientälni

570-610.

1964a = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1964a. Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Monografie Orientälniho üstavu CSAV 19). Prague: Verlag der tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

ZGUSTA

1964b = ZGUSTA, L A D I S L A V : (Dissertationes Orientales 2). Prague.

ZGUSTA

1964b. Anatolische

Personennamensippen

1967 = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1967. Multiword Lexical Units. Word, Volume 23, no. 1 - 2 - 3 (April-August-December 1967), pp. 578 - 587.

ZGUSTA

1971 = Mouton.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV:

1971. Manual of Lexicography.

The Hague; Paris:

1973 = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1973. Lexicology: Generating words. In: McDavid & Duckert (eds. 1973), 14-20.

ZGUSTA

1975 = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1975. Linguistics and bilingual dictionaries. Studies in Language Learning 1:95-109.

ZGUSTA

1980a = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV (ED.): 1980a. Theory and Method in Lexicography: Western and Non-Western Perspectives. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. [Particularly Introduction, 3-29],

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA

1980b = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1980b. SOME REMARKS 1980), 3-29.

ON THE CONTEXT OF LEXICOGRAPHY.

INTRODUCTION TO: ZGUSTA (ED.

1980c = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1980c. Die rolle des griechischen im Römischen Kaiserreich. In: Die Sprachen im Römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit. Ed. by Günter

ZGUSTA

Comprehensive Bibliography

361

Neumann and Jürgen Untermann. (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher, Rheinland-Verlag; Hablet. 121-145.

40). Köln; Bonn:

1982 = Zgusta, Ladislav. "Hard words" - "Schwierige Wörter" in der älteren englischen einsprachigen Lexikographie. In: Wortschatz und Verständigungsprobleme. Ed. by Helmut Henn and Wolfgang Mentrup. (Sprache der Gegenwart, Band 57.) Düsseldorf: Schwann. 220-236.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA

1984a =

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV:

DICTIONARY. IN: HARTMANN (ED. ZGUSTA

1984a. TRANSLATIONAL 1984), 147-154.

1984b = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1984b. 1981). Diachronica 1:103-110.

EQUIVALENCE IN THE BILINGUAL

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N LEXICON ( R E V I E W O F

BEARD

Probleme des Wörterbuchs. (Wege der Forschung, 612.) Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

ZGUSTA 1985 = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1985.

1986a = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1986a. Grimm, Littre, OED, and Richardson: A comparison of their historicity (Cätu§köyam). Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 8:74 - 9 3 .

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA

1986b =

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV.

1986b.

T H E LEXICON AND THE DICTIONARIES: S O M E

THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL O B S E R V A T I O N S . I N : F R A W L E Y & STEINER ( E D S .

1986),

67-81. 1986c = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1986c. Problems of the bilingual dictionary (introduction). Lexicographica 2:1-7.

ZGUSTA

1987a = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1987a. Derivation and chronology; Greek dictionaries and the Oxford English Dictionary (Dvädasakosyam). In: Theorie und Praxis des Lexikographischen Prozesses bei Historischen Wörterbüchern: Akten der Internationalen Fachkonferenz Heidelberg, 3. 6.-5. 6.1968. Im Auftrag des Forschungsschwerpunktes Lexikographie an der Neuphilologischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg. Ed. by Herbert Ernst Wiegand. (Lexicographica, Series Maior, 23.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 259-281.

ZGUSTA

1987b = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1987b. The Old Ossetic Inscription from the River Zelenäuk. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

ZGUSTA

1987c= ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1987C. Translational equivalence in a bilingual dictionary: Bähukosyam. Dictionaries 9:1-47.

ZGUSTA

1988a = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1988a. Pragmatics, lexicography and dictionaries of English. World Englishes 7:243-253.

ZGUSTA

1988b = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1988b. Copying in lexicography: Monier-William's Sanskrit Dictionary and other cases (DvaikoEyam). Lexicographica: An International Annual for Lexicography 4:145-164.

ZGUSTA

1988c = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V , WITH THE A S S I S T A N C E OF D . M . T . C R . F A R I N A : 1988c. Lexicography Today: An Annotated Bibliography of the Theory of Lexicography

ZGUSTA

362

Comprehensive Bibliography

CKaüsyasägaram). (Lexicographica, Series maior, 18.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (The 'Topical Index' lists 85 titles under the heading 'Learner's Dictionary1, 9 titles under 'Learner's Use of Dictionaries', and 6 titles under 'Learner's Attitudes and Preferences'; there are 31 titles under 'Users' Attitudes', 27 titles under 'Uses of Dictionaries', and 8 titles on the empirical tests connected with them.) 1989a = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1989a. The role of dictionaries in the genesis and development of the standard, in: Encyclopedia I, 70-89.

ZGUSTA

1989b = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1989b. The influence of scripts and morphological language types on the structure of dictionaries. In: Encyclopedia I, 296-305.

ZGUSTA

1989c = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1989c. The Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries (Aikokosyam). In: Fredric Dolezal, ed. (1989), The Dictionary as Text. International Journal of Lexicography 2(3): 188-230.

ZGUSTA

1989d= Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1989d. Idle thoughts of an idle fellow; or vaticinations on the Learners' Dictionary. In: Learner's Dictionaries: State of the Art. Ed. by Ed. Makhan L Tickoo. (Anthology Series, 23.) Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 1-9.

ZGUSTA

1989e = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1989e Ornamental pictures in dictionaries: Kausädhyäyacitrakarmanyam. In: Lexicographers and their Works Ed. by Gregory James. (Exeter Linguistic Studies, 14.) Exeter: University of Exeter. 215- 223.

ZGUSTA

1990a = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1990a. Onomasiological change: Sachen-change reflected by Wörter. In: Research Guide on Language Change. Ed. by Edgar C. Polome. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 48. Ed. by Werner Winter. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1990, pp. 389 - 398.

ZGUSTA

1990b = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV 1990b. Lexicography of Ancient Greek. In -.Dictionaries. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1990, Vol. II, pp. 1694 - 1704. Co-authorered by D. J. Georgacas

ZGUSTA

1990c = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1990c. Demetrios J. Georgacas (1908-1990). Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 12: 165-171.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA 1 9 9 1 a = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1 9 9 1 a . J A C O B G R I M M ' S DEUTSCHES W Ö R T E R B U C H AND AOTHER HISTORICAL DICTIONARIES O F THE 19th century: Dvitiyaikakosyam. In: Studien zum Deutschen Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm. Ed. by Alan Kirkness, Peter Kühn, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 595-626. ZGUSTA

V.

1991b =

Z G U S T A , LADISLAV:

1991b.

T Y P O L O G Y OF ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARIES AND

I . ABAEV'S OSSETIC DICTIONARY. IN: ZGUSTA ( E D .

1991), 38-49.

1991C = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1991c. Probable Future Developments in Lexicography. In: Encyclopedia, III, 3158-3168.

ZGUSTA

1991d= Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V (ED.): 1991d. Lexicography and History of Language. Thematic part of: Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography 7.

ZGUSTA

363

Comprehensive Bibliography 1991e = Z G U S T A , 7, 1-9.

ZGUSTA

LADISLAV:

1991e. The Polysemy of History. In:

Lexicographia,

1992a = Z G U S T A , L A D I S L A V : 1992a. History and its Multiple Meaning. In: History, Languages, and Lexicographers (ed.), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1-18.

ZGUSTA

1992b = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1992b. Sesquipedalian bilingualism: the difficult easiness of short words. In: World Englishes, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, 303 - 307.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 . LEXICOGRAPHY, ITS THEORY, AND LINGUISTICS. IN: W M . F R A W L E Y ( E D . 1 9 9 2 / 9 3 ) ,

Dictionaries 1994a = 5(1):3-13.

ZGUSTA

ZGUSTA

1994b =

Forum on the theory and practice of lexicography.

14:130-138. Z G U S T A , LADISLAV:

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV:

IN: SIBAYAN/ NEWELL

1994a.

Prototipos y lexicografia.

Voz y letra

1994B. LEXICOGRAPHY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

1992/1994 3-15.

1995a = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1995a. Scholarly German Bilingual Lexicography in Imperial Russia. Quasi-bilingual Dictionaries. In: Germanistische Linguistik 134/135, 262 - 272.

ZGUSTA

Zgusta 1995b = Zgusta, Ladislav: 1995b. (review of) Christoph Gutknecht and Lutz J. Rolle, Translating by factors. SUNY Series in Linguistics. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1996; In: Studies in linguistic sciences 25: 1, 1995, 163-166. = ZGUSTA, LADISLAV: 1 9 9 6 . The lexicographer's creativity. (Plenary speech). In: Martin Gellerstam et al. (ed.) Euralex '96, Proceedings I—II. Göteborg: Göteborg University, pp. 3 2 3 - 3 3 6 .

ZGUSTA 1 9 9 6

1998a = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1998a. Some developments in lexicography, past and present: (invited paper read at the Copenhagen Symposium on Lexicography, 1998).

ZGUSTA

1998b = Z G U S T A , LADISLAV: 1998b. (review of) Password: Anglicky ykladovy slovnik s ceskymi ekvivalenty [English monolingual dictionary with Czech equivalents]. Based on Chambers Concise Usage Dictionary (1985, 1986). Translated by Jaroslav Vacha. Praha: Mladä fronta, 1991. In: Dictionaries, No. 19, 258-261.

ZGUSTA, LADISLAV

ZÖFGEN 1 9 8 9 = ZÖFGEN, EKKEHARD: 1 9 8 9 .

Das KonstruktionsWörterbuch. In:

Encyclopedia

I, 1000-1010. 1986 = Z O R C , R. D A V I D : 1986. Yolngu-Matha Dictionary. Batchelor, NT: School of Australian Linguistics, Darwin Institute of Technology.

ZORC

Subject Index

Abaev, Vasilij Ivanovich (Vasso Abäjty).. 210-220, 237-238, 289-290 Abavus 237 Abkhaz 211, 288 aboriginal languages (of Australia) 91, 115, 299 abuse, terms of 96 Acad&nie frangaise (French Academy)... 9, 17, 19, 145, 176 Academies (Italian and French) 72 Accademia della Crusca. 10, 15-17, 19, 45, 82 adages 290 Adrados, Francisco 263 Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Hornby 1948, 1963) 108, 133, 223 advisory panels 196 Adyghe 213 Aelianus 267 Africa 189 Ahtna 108 Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary (Kari 1990) 101 Akhmanova, O. S 244, 254 Akhmanova, O. S. (Russian-English Dictionary 1965) 223 Akhmanova, O. S. (Russian-English Dictionary 1965) 222 (Russko-anglijskij slovar' 1957) 243, 245, 256 Akkadian 12, 200, 208 Aland, Barbara (Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen

Literatur 1988) 269 Aland, Kurt (Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur 1988) 269 Alexander the Great 265 Alexandria (Greece) 264 Alexandria, Library of 264 American College Dictionary (Barnhart 1997) 107 American Dictionary of the English Language (Webster 1828) 176 American Heritage Dictionary (1969, 1992) 1-2, 4, 112 176 analysis, direction of (typology of etymological dictionaries) 212 Analytical Nahuatl Dictionary (Karttunen 1983) 101 anaphoricity 89-90 Anglophone 203 anisomorphism 302 anthroponymy, Anatolian 304 Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache (Krebs 1886) 254 antonyms 56, 59, 98, 135, 217 Apollonius Dyscolus 101, 108 Aquinas, St. Thomas 151 Arabic... 143, 151, 191, 199, 204, 218, 282 arabic numerals (in OED) 60 Aramaean 299 archaic words 145, 188, 191-192, 196, 213 Aristophanes 264 Aristotelian philosophy 95 Aristotle 1, 118, 267 Armenian 211, 282 Arndt, William (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature 1957) 269

366

Subject Index

artificial intelligence 98 Ashley, W. J 66 Asia 189 aspect (of Czech verbs) 313 associative digression 8 asterisks (in OED) 63 Atkins, B.T.S 120-121 Attic 192 Augustine, St 151 Austin, J. L 88-89 Australex 115 Australian Linguistics, School of 91 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Turner 1984) 189 Australian, English 188 Autenrieth, G 265 authors, good 15, 81, 194 Avar 213 Avestan 211 Aybar, Serrano 265 Β Bailey, Nathan 144, 146, 171-172, 174 Bailly, M. A. (Dictionaire Grec-Frangais ... ä l'usage des έΐένββ des lycöes et des colläge 1894) 268 Bally, A 147 Bar Hillel 89 Barnhart, Clarence 85, 107 Barthold, Wilhelm 279 Basque 210 Batad Ifugao 108 Batad Ifugao Dictionary with Ethnographic Notes (Newell et al. 1993) 108 Bauer, Walter 269 Bauer, Walter (Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen

Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur 1988) 269 Baumbach, Lydia 263 BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English.... 137 Beauzäe 55 belles-lettres 104 Bennett, Emmett L 263 Benseier, Gustav Eduard (Wilhelm Pape's Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen 1863) 268 Beutel, Helga Μ 301 Bible 187 Bible translators 107, 254 Bilin 184 bilingualism, natural 6 binarity 100 Blackfoot (language) 210 Bloch, Bernard 107 Bloomfield, Leonard 107 Blount, Thomas 144, 168 Boccaccio, Giovanni 15, 45, 172 Böhtlingk, Otto (1815-1904) 273-274, 294-296, 302-304 Bopp, Franz 20, 280 borrowings... 4, 56, 68, 104, 187, 189, 211, 213, 216, 219, 236, 282 Bosnia 285 Bradley, Henry 40, 70 Braille 200 branches (i.e., discrimination of senses, in OED) 60, 75, 85 brand names, study of 150 Bräutigam, Η 300 breadth (typology of etymological dictionaries) 215-216 Brhaspati (Indian divine preceptor) ...141 Brunner, Theodore F 271 Bud£,G 266

Subject Index

367

Bullokar, John Burchfield, Robert Burma Busa, Father

144-145, 167 91, 188 303 124 C

Cahiers de lexicologie 105 caique 149 Cambridge Italian Dictionary (Reynolds 1962) 245, 257 Cambridge Italian Dictionary (Reynolds 1981) 251, 256 Campe, Joachim Heinrich 190 Casares, Julio 304 Catalan 252 cataphoricity 89-90 Caucasian languages 213 Caucasus, High 215 Cawdrey, Robert ...144, 166-167, 171, 243 Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (Whitney 1889-1891) 176 Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia (Whitney/Smith 1911) 102 Cesko-cinsky thematicky slovnik (St'ovickovä 1961) 397 Ceylon, Princes of 151 Cesko-cinsky slovink »sr Czech-Chinese Dictionary 298 Chadwick, John 263 Chambers Concise Usage Dictionary (1985, 1986) 223 Chantraine, P. (Dictionaire Grec-Frangais ... ä l'usage des Steves des Iycöes et des college 1963) 268 Chapman, R.W 304 character (typology of etymological dictionaries) 217-218 Chechen 213, 288

Chechnia 288 China 191, 303 Chinese 184, 187, 200, 206, 231-233, 316-318 Chinese Cultural Revolution 297 Chinese-English Dictionary (Wu 1979) 200-201, 207 Chinese-German Dictionary (Berlin, 1985, 1986) 299 Chinesisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (Beutel et. al. 1986) 299, 301 Chomsky, Noam 119, 126 Christianity 218 Chuvash 218 Circassian 288 circularity (of definitions).93, 95, 97, 116 Clinton, Kevin 271 co-hyponyms 98, 116, 135 Coates, W. A 181 COBUILD English Language Dictionary, Collins 95-96, 98-99, 106, 109, 111-112, 118, 122, 127, 136, 301 Cockeram, Henry (The English dictionary 1623) 144, 167-170, 172 code-mixing 128 cognates 43 cognitive science Ill Cohn, Leopold 265 coining (new words) 4, 123, 141, 149-151, 153, 189-190, 193, 203, 205, 208, 234-235 Coles, Elisha (An English dictionary 1676) 144, 170 colligation 106 Collins' Cassell's French Dictionary .223 Collins German-English (and) English-German Dictionary (Terrell 1981) 255 Collins New Zealand Compact English

368 Dictionary (Gordon 1984) 188 collocations 40, 42, 56, 105-106, 125, 134, 136-139, 206, 223, 285, 303 Colloquia (or Hermelneumata) 6 colloquial language 144, 146, 151, 164, 191-193 commentaries (in dictionaries) 195 Commodus, Emperor (Greece) 265 comparative-historical linguistics 23 compatibility of theories (Warlpiri dictionary projects vs. MIT-style of definitions) 115-118, 120 Complete English Dictionary (Wesley 1753) 175 compound (i.e., more than one lexeme) .205 Concise English and Hopi Lexicon (Albert/ Shaul 1985) 101 conjugation system (Franz Bopp, 1816).20 context, situational 89 corpus 69, 124, 126-127, 213, 244, 301 Cotgrave, Randle 250 Cours de Linguistique G6n£rale (de Saussure 1916) 104 Courtenay, Jean Baudouin de 104 Cowie, Α. Ρ 137 Creamer, Thomas Β. 1 200 critics (attitudes and dictionaries) 194 Crönert, Wilhelm 267 cultural context (as aspect of pragmatics). 90 cultural embedding 89 cultural language 188 culture-bound words 92, 234 cuneiform 200 cybernetics 151 Cyril, St 187 Cyrillic 199, 289 Czech 164, 188, 199, 230, 305-318 Czech-Chinese Dictionary 3, 297-318

Subject Index

Dal', Vladmir Ivanovich 104 Danker, Frederick (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 1979). 269 Dante 15, 45, 172 Das Deutsche Fachwort der Technik (Reinhardt/ Neubert 1984) 209 Das grosse deutsche Wörterbuch (Wahrig 1968) 226 Dasypodius, Petrus 266 database, lexicographic 102 definition, lexiocgraphic 93-98 deixis 89-90 Delbrück, Berthold 274, 277, 295-296 Demetrakos, D 39 Democritus 263 Demosthenes 82 'demotic' speech 193 derivation ....4, 6-11, 20, 23, 27, 29, 44, 47, 59, 83, 141-143, 149, 203, 205, 208, 210, 214, 277 derivational meaning 29, 294 Deutsche Grammatik (Grimm, Jacob 1819-1837) 20 Deutsches Wörterbuch (Grimm, Jacob 1854) 42-45, 47, 53, 76, 81, 103 Devoto, D 304 diachrony 3, 8-10, 46 diacritics 199 dialect, dictionary of 90 dialect, expressions 193 dialect, regional 15 Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wöterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache (Steinitz 1962-88) 301 Diccionari castella-catala-castella

Subject Index (Alberti 1961) 252 Diccionario (Real Academia, 1726) 8 Diccionario Bäsico del Espanol de Mexico (Lara 1986) 188 Diccionario del Espanol Usual de Mäxico (Lara 1996) 188 Diccionario Griego-Espanol (Adrados et. al. 1980) 240, 242, 270, 294 Diccionario Zoque de Francisco Leon (Engel/ Allhiser de Engel 1987) 91 dicta 182 Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (Cotgrave 1611) 250 Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum (Kersey 1708) 170 Dictionarium Britannicum (Bailey 1730).. 172 Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan (Wolff 1972 ) 143, 242-243, 246, 256 Dictionary of Lahu (Matisoff 1988) ..108, 303 Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler 1926) 161 Dictionary of Modern Russian (1937) 296 Dictionary of Newfoundland English (Story/ Kirwan/ Widdowson 1982) 188 Dictionary of Ngizim (Schuh 1981) 143 Dictionary of Papago Usage (Mathiot 1973 ) 143 Dictionary of the English language (Johnson, Samuel 1755).... 7, 13, 146, 174 Dictionary of the English Language (Worcesters 1860) 176 dictionary (as "a human product") 6 active 6, 208, 224, 242, 300 alphabetically ordered 10, 199 American 108

369 antiquating 3, 186, 191-192, 196 Arabic 19, 204 archaizing 2, 186, 191-192 bilingual.... 5, 12, 90, 106, 123, 127, 146, 187, 208-209, 221 British 101 Chinese 19, 200, 206 classical language 243 collocations 137 comparative 2, 5, 279, 282 computerized 139, 199 contemporary 3 Continental 145 descriptive 2, 192 diachronic 2-3, 126 didactic 6, 192 difficulties (of) 192, 195 elementary school 91 encyclopedic 113 English... 6, 12-13, 87, 90, 106, 134, 141, 143, 279 ethnographical 243 etymological. 2, 4-5, 27, 39, 84, 210-211, 220, 303 etymological (typology of) 210-220 French 19, 141, 279 general 4, 143, 193 generative 222, 224 German 5, 12, 141, 279 glossographic 263-265 Greek 6, 12-13, 19, 29, 133, 279, 294 historical.3-4, 29, 39, 42, 47, 53, 55, 85, 114, 126, 195, 210 Indian 19 Indo-European 5 Italian 19, 86 Latin 6, 12, 133, 254, 279 learner's 96, 108-109, 119, 122, 131, 133-137, 197, 223, 226, 254

370 life expectancy 296 modernizing 3, 186, 189-191 modular 138, 140 monolingual 5,12, 82, 85, 90, 94, 98, 113, 126-127, 143, 188, 223, 234-235, 294 neologisms 143 non-European 19 norm-codifying 194 norm-descriptive 194 normative 194-195 onomasiological 198 orthographic 191, 197 passive 208, 242, 301 pedagogical 107-108, 111, 197 period 2-3, 210 philological 15, 143, 221 prescriptive 46, 195 prohibitive 195 quasi-bilingual 12, 82, 208, 217, 270, 273, 293, 295 Russian 104 Sanskrit 12 school 196 semi-bilingual 223 Spanish 203 special 129 specialized 122, 135-136 standard descriptive 2, 186 standard language 193 standard-creating 2, 186 standard-creating 187-188 standard-descriptive 192-195 standard-influencing 2 synchronic 7-8, 11, 110, 126, 146 synonymic 234 technical terminology 195, 243 terminological 113 text-oriented 244

Subject Index translational 254 trilingual 294 typology of 186-197 unabridged 143 user-friendly 99, 109 Dictionnaire (Fureti