Principles of Systematic Lexicography

2010

Lexikos, 2010

Two main camps have been formed with regard to the philosophical and academic status of lexicography: one considering lexicography an independent scientific discipline, and the other opposing such a scientific status. This article discusses some of the arguments from the second camp and argues that lexicography should be considered an independent scientific discipline. The argumentation is based on the fact that the subject field of lexicography is different from the subject fields of any other discipline, including linguistics. In this sense, the concept of a lexicographical work is broader than the more reduced concept of a dictionary. Lexicographical works, including dictionaries, are considered cultural artefacts and utility tools produced in order to meet punctual information needs detected in society. In this way, they have during the millenniums covered almost all spheres of human activity and knowledge. The theory and science of lexicography should not focus on the differences regarding the specific content of all these works, but on aspects that unite them and are common to all of them. In this regard, some of the core characteristics of lexicography as an independent discipline are discussed together with its complex relation to other disciplines. Lexicographical theory is understood as a systematic set of statements about its subject field. Finally, the article argues that the fact that this theory may seem too abstract and difficult to some working lexicographers does not in itself invalidate its independent scientific status, although a close relation between theory and practice is recommended.

International Journal of Lexicography, 2012

This paper gives a brief interpretative discussion of the relation between the International Journal of Lexicography (IJL) and lexicographic theory. IJL is contextualised within the broader field of lexicography journals and identified as a leader in this field. Different approaches by the three editors of IJL are briefly mentioned. Reference is made to the landscape of theoretical lexicography at the time IJL was founded. Attention is given to diverse interpretations of the notion of theoretical lexicography and the influence of these approaches on publications within this field. A few contributions in the domain of theoretical lexicography, published in IJL, are discussed. It is shown that a linguistic approach to lexicography prevails in IJL with too little attention to some of the significant developments in theoretical lexicography, for example the General Theory of Lexicography and the Modern Theory of Lexicographic Functions.

International Journal of Lexicography, 2019

The paper offers some reflections on the notion of theory in relation to lexicography. The immediate impetus for it has come from Tarp (2008) and the reactions which that book provoked. Prominent among Tarp's concerns was the scientific status of lexicography and the related topic of a/the theory of lexicography. Without arguing with Tarp's proposed solutions-which others (notably Piotrowski 2009 and 2013) have done convincingly enough-the issue is here addressed from a more prosaic angle. The question whether lexicography is a science cannnot be meaningfully asked, let alone answered, without acknowledging the terminological confusion that clouds the picture: the (English) terms crucial to the debate-science, lexicography, theory-each have more than one recognized meaning and the concepts behind them are far from universal. We therefore examine the relevant terminology closely, taking into account interlingual correspondences, intralingual polysemy, and instances of use found in corpora. The discussion is complemented by a brief look at what (meta) lexicography actually does, which should throw some light on whether it can be accorded the status of a science.

Ibérica, 2012

Lexikos, 2010

Lexikos, 2010

During the last decades, part of lexicography has developed into an independent science with an elaborated system of theories based on the users' needs and corresponding dictionary functions. This also applies to specialised lexicography. Many lexicographers, however, still refuse to view their discipline as an independent science and treat it as a subdiscipline, i.e. of linguistics, or they consider specialised lexicography as something different from lexicography in general (which is the case with part of the so-called terminographers). Both interpretations have unfortunate consequences for lexicographic theory and practice. The great challenge now is to strengthen lexicography as a science, and to apply its system of scientific theories to the practical planning and compilation of specialised dictionaries. A look at existing dictionaries shows that there is still a lot of work to be done. Due to economic, editorial and other limitations, a great deal of pragmatism is often practised when compiling a concrete specialised dictionary. Lexicographic pragmatism might be necessary, but in order to be successful it must be guided by theory.

Lexikos, 2011

2009