Basic problems of dictionary compiling

 

Міністерство  освіти і науки України

Житомирський  державний університет імені  Івана Франка

Навчально-науковий інститут іноземної філології 

РЕФЕРАТ 
 

На тему:

“Basic problems of dictionary compiling” 
 
 
 
 
 

     Виконала

Студентка IV курсу 42 групи

спеціальності «Мова і література (англійська)»

     денної  форми навчання

     Радчук  Світлана Сергіївна 
 

     Житомир-2011 

   OUTLINE

         Introduction.

1. The selection of lexical units for inclusion.
2. Arrangement of Entries.
3. Arrangement and Selection of Meanings.
4. Illustrative Examples.
5. Choice of Adequate Equivalents.
6. Setting of the Entry.
7. Structure of the Dictionary.

         Conclusion

         Literature 

   Introduction

   The problem of making dictionaries is one of the methods to keep the words in the historical memory. There is a lot of different kinds and types of dictionaries and it plays an important role in improving and increasing lexicographic description language. There are some problems of dictionary compiling.

   In order to get to know what are the basic problems of dictionary compiling initially we should know what is a dictionary compiling. So a dictionary compiling means to make a book (dictionary), using different pieces of different information, etc. The work at a dictionary is really huge and it takes a lot of time to compile them. And it consists of the following main stages:

• the collection of material;
• the selection of entries and their arrangement;
• the setting of each entry.

   The lexicographer at different stages of his work is confronted with different problems. Some of these refer to any type of dictionary, others are specific of only some or even one type. The most important problems of the former by Ginzburg R. S. are:

   1) the selection of lexical units for inclusion,

   2) their arrangement,

   3) the setting of the entries,

   4) the selection and arrangement (grouping) of word-meanings,

   5) the definition of meanings,

   6) illustrative material,

   7) supplementary material. 

   

1. The selection of lexical units for inclusion.

   To think that there are big academic dictionaries that list everything and that the shorter variants are mere quantitative reductions from their basis it would be a mistake. Actually only a dictionary of a dead language or a word-book (dictionary) presenting the language of some author (called concordance) can be complete as far as the rang of the lexical units. As to living languages with new texts continually coming into being, with an endless number of spoken utterances, no dictionary of reasonable size could possibly register all occasional petitions of a lexical unit, nor is it possible to introduce all really occurring lexical items. There is no opportunity of recording all the technical terms because they are too great in number and their number increases practically every day. And so selection is evidently important for all dictionaries.

   One of the first problems the lexicographer faces is the choice of lexical units for inclusion in the prospective dictionary. Firstly the type of lexical units which should be chosen for inclusion is to be decided upon. Then the number of items must be determined. And then we can see there is the basic problem of what to select and what to leave out in the dictionary. Which form of the language, spoken or written or both, is the dictionary to reflect? Should the dictionary contain obsolete and archaic units, technical terms, dialectisms or colloquialisms?

   There is no universal reply to any of the questions. The choice among the different feasible answers depends upon the type to which the dictionary will apply, the future user of the dictionary, its size, the linguistic conceptions of the dictionary-makers and some other considerations. Explanatory and translation dictionaries usually have words and phraseological units, also some of them include affixes as (separate entries). Pronouncing and  etymological dictionaries and some others deal only with words. Frequency dictionaries usually differ in the type of units included. Most of them enter graphic units, thus failing to discriminate between homographs. For example: 

                Noun

            Adverb   back  

               Verb 
 

   Other words enter in accordance with the usual lexicographic practice but still others record morphemes or collocations. According to the compiler’s aim the units for inclusion can be drawn either from other dictionaries or from the spoken discourse. 
 

   

2. Arrangement of  Entries.

   We can see different order of arrangement of the entries which is included in different types of dictionaries and even in the word-books of dictionaries and of course of the same type. The entries are given in a single alphabetical listing in most dictionaries of different types. As to the explanatory and translation dictionaries, e.g. entries can be grouped in families of words and of the same root. So the basic units are given as main entries in alphabetical order while the derivatives and the phrases which the word enters can be given either subentries or in the same entry as run-ons that also alphabetized. . The difference between run-ons and subentries is that the former include definitions and usage labels, whereas run-on words are not defined as meaning is clear from the main entry (most often because they are built after productive patterns). According to Ginzburg  the words despicable and despicably are entered in the two dictionaries:

   COD despicable, a. Vile, contemptible Hence — LY² adv.

   WNWD despicable adj. that is or should be despised; contemptible. despicably adv. in a despicable manner.

     Most explanatory and translation dictionaries havethe main entries, both simple words and derivatives, which appear in alphabetical order.  
 

   

3. Arrangement and Selection of Meanings.

   The problem of definitions in a unilingual dictionary is really a lexicographic problem. The explanation of meaning may be achieved by a group of synonyms which together give a fairly general idea but we know that one synonym is never sufficient for the purpose, because no absolute synonyms exist. Besides, if synonyms are the only type of explanation used, the reader will be placed in a depraved circle of synonymic references, with not a single word actually explained. Much better definitions serve the purpose. Here we can see two main types. They are linguistic if they are only concerned with words as speech material. They are called encyclopaedic if they are concerned with things for which the words are names. According to Arnold very interesting considerations on this subject are due to Alf Sommerfeldt. He thinks that definitions must be based on the fact that the meanings of words render complex notions which may be analysed (cf. componental analysis) into several elements rendered by other words. He emphasises, for instance, that the word pedestrian is more aptly defined as ‘a person who goes or travels on foot’ than as ‘one who goes or travels on foot’. The remark appears valuable, because a definition of this type shows the lexico-grammatical type to which the word belongs and consequently its distribution. It also helps to reveal the system of the vocabulary.

   The number of meanings a word in the dictionary depend, principally, on two factors on what aim the compilers set themselves and what decisions they make concerning the extent to which, , dialectal or highly specialised meanings should be recorded, how the problem of polysemy and homonymy is solved, etc. In different dictionaries the problem of arrangement is solved in different ways. Ginzburg things that it is well-accepted practice in Soviet lexicography to follow the historical order in diachronic dictionaries and to adhere to the empirical and logical order in synchronic word-books. In many other dictionaries meanings are generally organised by frequency of use, but sometimes the fundamental meaning comes first if this is considered essential to a correct understanding of derived meanings.  

   

4. Illustrative Examples.

   All dictionaries save those of a narrowly restricted purpose, such as, e.g., frequency dictionaries, spelling books, pronouncing, ideographic, etymological or reverse dictionaries, provide illustrative examples. The purpose of these examples depends on the type of the dictionary and on the aim the compilers set themselves. They can illustrate the occurrences of the entry word, the successive changes in its graphic and phonetic forms, as well as in its meaning. It is usual that the bigger the dictionary the more examples it usually contains. Only very small dictionaries, usually of low quality, do not include examples at all. Some dictionaries can indicate the author, the work, the page, verse, and e.g. in diachronic dictionaries the precise date of the publication, some indicate only the author, because it gives at least some information about the time. 
 

   

5. Choice of Adequate Equivalents.

   To provide adequate translation of vocabulary items or rather to choose an adequate equivalent in the target language is one of the major problems in compiling translation dictionaries and other bilingual word-books. According to Ginzburg speaking of scientific methods in compiling translation dictionaries we pay a tribute to Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky and Prof. I. R. Galperin who following the principles of the Russian school of lexicographers (D. N. Ushakov, L. V. Sčerba, V. V. Vinogradov) made a valuable contribution to Soviet lexicography, particularly bilingual lexicography, and made useful innovations. The Russian-English Dictionary under Prof. Smirnitsky’s general direction and the New English-Russian Dictionary edited by Prof. I. R. Galperin differ from other word-books of their kind on account of wider and more profound information that is supplied both about the vocabulary items. The dictionary-maker is able to give the most exact equivalent in the target language. Very often enumeration of equivalents alone does not supply a complete picture of the semantic characteristic of the word. 

   

6. Setting of the Entry.

   Different types of dictionaries differ in the structure and content of the entry since they differ in their aim, in the information they provide, in their size, etc.,. The most complicated type of entry is that found in explanatory dictionaries. In explanatory dictionaries of the synchronic type the entry usually gives us the following data: accepted spelling and pronunciation, grammatical characteristics including the indication of the part of speech of each entry word, the transitivity and intransitivity of verbs and irregular grammatical forms, some definitions of meanings, modern currency; illustrative examples, a number of derivatives, and of course phraseology and etymology but sometimes also synonyms and antonyms. A typical entry in diachronic explanatory dictionaries will have some specific features. Apart from the chronological arrangement of meanings and illustrative quotations to present the historical sense development, the etymology of the word is accorded an exhaustive treatment, besides a distinguishing feature of such reference books is the dates accompanying each word, word-meaning and quotation. And that indicate the time of its first registration or, if the word or one of its meanings is outdated.

   According to Ginzburg in other types of dictionaries the content and structure of the entry will be altogether different. Compare, for instance, the four entries for arrive taken from a translation and a frequency dictionaries, from an etymological and pronouncing word-books:

   The Dictionary edited by I. R. Galperin:

   arrive [a'raiv] v 1. (at, in, upon) прибывать, приезжать; to~ in London прибыть в Лондон; the police ~d upon the scene на место происшествия прибыла полиция; to ~ punctually [tardily, in good time] прибыть точно [с опозданием, вовремя]; sold “to ~” ком. к прибытию (условие сделки при продаже товара, находящегося в пути); 2. (at) 1) достигать (чего-л.), приходить (к чему-л.); to ~ at understanding достигнуть взаимопонимания; to ~ at a decision принять решение; to ~ at a conclusion прийти к заключению.

   But sometimes the entries for the same word will look in a difficult way on dictionaries of the same type. Thus the setting of the entry varies in different books of synonyms depending upon the practical needs of the intended users. Some word-books enumerate synonyms to each meaning of the head-word to help the user recall words close in meaning that may have been forgotten. Other word-books provide discriminating synonymies, i.e. they explain the difference in semantic structure, use and style and show how each synonym is related to.  
 

   

7. Structure of the dictionary.

   The lexicographer is to settle upon the  structure of the dictionary when the selection of the dictionary entries, the contents and structure of the entries, their order of arrangement etc. are already decided. Dictionaries composition has many features in common in spite of the great variety of linguistic. They can be divided into three unequal parts. An Introduction is a prefatory matter that usually explains all the peculiarities of the word-book, it also contains a key to pronunciation, the list of abbreviations, etc. For the user of a dictionary it is very important to read this prefatory matter as this will help him to know what is to be found in the word-book and what is not, will help him locate words quickly and easily. Also there are some appendixes in the dictionaries. For example in explanatory dictionaries the appendixes usually include various word-lists: geographical names, foreign words and expressions, etc., record new meanings of words already entered and words that have come into existence since the compilation of the word-book. The educational material may include a list of colleges and universities, special signs and symbols used in various branches of science, tables of weights and measures and some others.  

   Conclusions

   One of the actual problems of lexicography at the present stage is creation of dictionaries, reflecting all the new processes of social life, satisfy needs of different users. Analyzing materials which concern the importance of creating dictionaries, we can conclude that the need for dictionaries of different kinds and types of increases due to the constant changes in social life, which immediately found its reflection in language, as well as expansion of business, academic and cultural contacts between different countries. Despite the titanic work of lexicographers in published dictionaries sometimes we see a confusion set of words, violations of the current spelling, which is explained by lack of a unified methodological basis of making dictionaries. Therefore, compiling the dictionaries, should be use best practices of national and world lexicography.

 

   Literature

1. Kyrykylytsia V. V. Compiling Dictionaries as a Way of Language Preservation and Systematization. Article. —2007.
2. Арнольд И. В. Лексикология современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. — 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. — М.: Высш. шк., 1986. — 295 с., ил. — На англ. яз.
3. Р. 3. Гинзбург, С. С. Хидекель, Г. Ю. Князева и А. А. Санкин. Лексикология английского языка: Учебник для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. /— 2-е изд., испр. и доп. — М.: Высш. школа, 1979. — 269 с.