Sense Discriminations and Translation Complements in Bilingual Dictionaries

SENSE DISCRIMINATIONS AND TRANSLATION COMPLEMENTS IN BILINGUAL DICTIONARIES James E. Iannucci Since the publication of my first article on sense discrimination in bilingual dictionaries (Iannucci [1957]), various aspects of this problem have been treated at least eight times by various scholars: Al-Kasimi (1977), Hietsch (1958), Iannucci (1959, 1960, 1967, 1981), Williams (1959, 1960). In 1960 Williams observed that "there are still other aspects of the problem that need to be considered on the basis of further research" (p. 121). Since then the subject has been treated in Al-Kasimi's book, Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries (1977) and in both my 1981 review of this book and Iannucci (1967). The purpose of this article is to review the entire subject of this very critical aspect of bilingual lexicographical methodology, to answer objections and counterproposals to positions taken in Iannucci (1957) and, more particularly, to call attention to the important distinction between sense discriminations and translation complements. In Iannucci (1957) I proposed the following guidelines for the use of sense discriminations in bilingual dictionaries: 1) Sense discriminations are required consistently for each sense of a polysemous entry word (source word). 2) Sense discriminations are never required for polysemous target words (the translations in the body of the entry). 3) Sense discriminations (of the entry word) should be given in the source language (the language of the entry word). 4) Sense discriminations should be placed before the target word. In support of (1) I cited several specimen entries with no sense discriminations at all. The following is an example from Baker (1932): tour . . . n. m. Turn, round, twining, winding; revolution, circumference, circuit, compass; twist, strain; tour, trip; trick, dodge, wile; feat; office, service, vein, manner, style; place, order; lathe; turning-box; wheel; mould .... 57 58Bilingual Dictionaries I argued that such an entry is almost useless to the source-language speaker, that is, for the expression or production function. If, for example, the French-speaking user wants to say in English Cette machine fait mille tours à la minute, there is nothing in this entry that would lead him to choose the English translation revolution for this sense of the French word tour. Almost any one of the target words could be the correct one, except perhaps one or two loan words or cognates like office or service, which are not likely candidates because of their other French meanings. What the French-speaking user needs here is a sense discrimination such as (autour d'un axe) or (autour d'un centre) placed before the English translation revolution to guide him to the correct choice. Similarly, each of the target words in this entry should be preceded by a sense discrimination if the French-speaking user is to be guided to the correct English translation of each of the senses of the French entry word, tour. In bilingual dictionaries of languages as closely related as English and French the numerous cognates and loan words provide a sort of makeshift aid to sense discrimination, but this is hardly reliable and can be entirely misleading, as is well known. In dictionaries of unrelated or less closely related languages, for example, Chinese-English or French-Turkish, this doubtful aid would, of course, not be available. In support of (2) I argued that the same entry cited above would be entirely adequate for the target-language speaker, that is, for the comprehension function. The English-speaking user dealing with a French sentence like // était fâché parce qu'on lui avait joué un mauvais tour will easily find trick as the appropriate sense for his context. The English-speaking user of this entry has a context to aid him while the French-speaking user does not. Furthermore, the English-speaking user of this entry has to make a choice among words in his own language while the French-speaking user has to choose among words in a foreign language. In support of (3) I argued that sense discriminations should be in the source language because they are addressed to the source-language speaker to aid him in the expression function. James E. Iannucci59 In support of (4) I argued that sense discriminations should precede the target word simply because...