Lexicography, Its Theory, and Linguistics

Lexicography, Its Theory, and Linguistics Ladislav Zgusta X here are several 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. 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 Lexicography, Hs Theory, and Linguistics131 with its modifications up to imitations of English spelling (e.g., 'put' [poot]). The concern for the user (qua consumer, or buyer) makes considerations 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 decided. The least problematic area of overlap between lexicography and linguistics probably is, 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 Náhuatl Dictionary (Karttunen 1983), or the Concise Englüh 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., MIT-inspired) models with more concrete, traditional ones. The difficulty is seemingly more pedestrian in its nature, mainly how to present derivational groups, i.e., straight alphabet or not? 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 development on this side of the Adantic; 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...