{"title":"DCHP-2: The Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles, Second Edition ed. by Stefan Dollinger (review)","authors":"Victor A. Neufeldt","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0025","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47492492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:The premiere dictionary of the Commonwealth Caribbean is undoubtedly Richard Allsopp's Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage (DCEU). The title itself demonstrates the ambition of the work. Through the word Caribbean, Allsopp proposes supranational coverage that encompasses all of the Commonwealth Caribbean, a bold step that similar regions such as the South Pacific have not yet attempted. The word English positions the work as decidedly focused on the official language of these islands and countries, even as Allsopp acknowledges and embraces the fact that the Creole languages for which the region is famous are inextricable from the standard language. The inclusion of Usage demonstrates a concern for normativity and guidance. This paper focuses on how Allsopp's views on prescription for his home region informed the creation of DCEU. It extends this focus to his wife and collaborator Jeannette Allsopp, whose multilingual supplement to DCEU formed the basis of her Caribbean Multilingual Dictionary of Flora, Fauna and Foods. That work extends much of the ideology of DCEU to the Greater Caribbean region, documenting the French, Spanish, and French Creole equivalents to English headwords. Together, the two dictionaries set Caribbean standards, both in terms of the norms of the language and in terms of the lexicography of future Caribbean dictionaries.
{"title":"Creating Regional Norms: A Mission for Caribbean Lexicography","authors":"Jason F. Siegel","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0019","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The premiere dictionary of the Commonwealth Caribbean is undoubtedly Richard Allsopp's Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage (DCEU). The title itself demonstrates the ambition of the work. Through the word Caribbean, Allsopp proposes supranational coverage that encompasses all of the Commonwealth Caribbean, a bold step that similar regions such as the South Pacific have not yet attempted. The word English positions the work as decidedly focused on the official language of these islands and countries, even as Allsopp acknowledges and embraces the fact that the Creole languages for which the region is famous are inextricable from the standard language. The inclusion of Usage demonstrates a concern for normativity and guidance. This paper focuses on how Allsopp's views on prescription for his home region informed the creation of DCEU. It extends this focus to his wife and collaborator Jeannette Allsopp, whose multilingual supplement to DCEU formed the basis of her Caribbean Multilingual Dictionary of Flora, Fauna and Foods. That work extends much of the ideology of DCEU to the Greater Caribbean region, documenting the French, Spanish, and French Creole equivalents to English headwords. Together, the two dictionaries set Caribbean standards, both in terms of the norms of the language and in terms of the lexicography of future Caribbean dictionaries.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48476516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"English-Haitian Creole Bilingual Dictionary ed. by Albert Valdman, Marvin D. Moody, and Thomas E. Davies (review)","authors":"Jeannette Allsopp","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47344593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Usage in Dictionaries: An Introduction","authors":"E. Finegan","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45844346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:The New English-Irish Dictionary (NEID) (online since 2013 at www.focloir.ie and appearing in print in 2020) is the first major state-sponsored dictionary in the Irish language since 1978. Dictionaries are major influencers in minoritized languages such as Irish, where only a minority of its speakers attain high levels of literacy in the language. Since the Irish State was founded in 1922 and Irish was reinstated as an official language, dictionaries have been the weapons of mass dissemination of standard Irish. However, the Official Standard of 1958, a compromise between the three main dialects of Irish, was generally rejected by native speakers as "book Irish," and variant forms based on actual usage were accepted in subsequent reference sources, including the main reference source of contemporary Irish, Ó Dónaill's Irish-English dictionary in 1978, also the last major Irish dictionary. Having remained unchanged for fifty years, the Official Standard had three separate iterations between 2011 and 2017, during the writing and editing stages of NEID. The first revision (in which NEID had active involvement) shifted significantly towards current usage; however, that revision was withdrawn from press to be replaced by two further revisions (neither of which had any involvement from NEID) which largely ignored the proposed changes reflecting current usage. The dilemma for NEID then, on the verge of going to print, is finding a balance between current usage, which modern dictionaries generally follow and most users seek, and the formal standard promoted by the official authority of the State. This paper addresses the ways in which NEID strives to strike an effective acceptable balance.
{"title":"Irish: Whose Language Is It Anyway?","authors":"Pádraig Ó Mianáin","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0018","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The New English-Irish Dictionary (NEID) (online since 2013 at www.focloir.ie and appearing in print in 2020) is the first major state-sponsored dictionary in the Irish language since 1978. Dictionaries are major influencers in minoritized languages such as Irish, where only a minority of its speakers attain high levels of literacy in the language. Since the Irish State was founded in 1922 and Irish was reinstated as an official language, dictionaries have been the weapons of mass dissemination of standard Irish. However, the Official Standard of 1958, a compromise between the three main dialects of Irish, was generally rejected by native speakers as \"book Irish,\" and variant forms based on actual usage were accepted in subsequent reference sources, including the main reference source of contemporary Irish, Ó Dónaill's Irish-English dictionary in 1978, also the last major Irish dictionary. Having remained unchanged for fifty years, the Official Standard had three separate iterations between 2011 and 2017, during the writing and editing stages of NEID. The first revision (in which NEID had active involvement) shifted significantly towards current usage; however, that revision was withdrawn from press to be replaced by two further revisions (neither of which had any involvement from NEID) which largely ignored the proposed changes reflecting current usage. The dilemma for NEID then, on the verge of going to print, is finding a balance between current usage, which modern dictionaries generally follow and most users seek, and the formal standard promoted by the official authority of the State. This paper addresses the ways in which NEID strives to strike an effective acceptable balance.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42211588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:The presentation of usage in bilingual lexicography may be conditioned—to some extent, at least—by the fairly strong pedagogical aim of bilingual dictionaries, often targeted at students of a foreign language. In recent decades this approach has been further strengthened by the methodology and contents of learner's dictionaries. Given this context, this paper surveys the recent history (1970s–2010s) of English-Italian dictionaries and their treatment of usage. The paratextual material and selected entries of four representative works are described and evaluated: Skey's 1997 dictionary, directly inspired by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English; Picchi's and DII dictionaries, the latter basing its English-Italian section on The Oxford-Hachette English-French Dictionary; and Ragazzini's compilation, the longest- and bestseller among bilingual English-Italian dictionaries. As a result of the assessment, the description of current usage can be said to be largely implemented in present-day English-Italian dictionaries, each dictionary trying to make use of different strategies for both lexicographical and marketing reasons.
{"title":"Recent Bilingual English-Italian Lexicography: Insights into Usage","authors":"G. Iamartino","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0017","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The presentation of usage in bilingual lexicography may be conditioned—to some extent, at least—by the fairly strong pedagogical aim of bilingual dictionaries, often targeted at students of a foreign language. In recent decades this approach has been further strengthened by the methodology and contents of learner's dictionaries. Given this context, this paper surveys the recent history (1970s–2010s) of English-Italian dictionaries and their treatment of usage. The paratextual material and selected entries of four representative works are described and evaluated: Skey's 1997 dictionary, directly inspired by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English; Picchi's and DII dictionaries, the latter basing its English-Italian section on The Oxford-Hachette English-French Dictionary; and Ragazzini's compilation, the longest- and bestseller among bilingual English-Italian dictionaries. As a result of the assessment, the description of current usage can be said to be largely implemented in present-day English-Italian dictionaries, each dictionary trying to make use of different strategies for both lexicographical and marketing reasons.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47948396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:The present article—in four parts, of which this is the third—is a history of the Dictionary Society of North America (DSNA) in its infancy and youth, thus also a chapter in the history of the language sciences more generally, as well as a contribution to the sociology of organizations. Whereas the first two installments described the founding of DSNA and its leadership, respectively, this installment focuses on its members. First, the membership is characterized demographically and then anecdotally, because motives for membership—as well as lapsed membership—are difficult to determine in the abstract. Also, members are more than numbers, and a partially anecdotal account allows us to see who thought it important to be members of DSNA, or not, and, perhaps, why. Finally, with DSNA’s styles of leadership in mind, that is, recalling this history’s second installment, we hear from members themselves—voices resounding from the archives—about their levels of satisfaction with DSNA and self-estimations of how well they fit into the society. The fourth installment will consider DSNA’s various activities and initiatives from 1977 to 1989, the first “period” of the society’s history.
{"title":"The Dictionary Society of North America: A History of the Early Years (Part III)","authors":"Michael D. Adams","doi":"10.1353/DIC.2019.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/DIC.2019.0000","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The present article—in four parts, of which this is the third—is a history of the Dictionary Society of North America (DSNA) in its infancy and youth, thus also a chapter in the history of the language sciences more generally, as well as a contribution to the sociology of organizations. Whereas the first two installments described the founding of DSNA and its leadership, respectively, this installment focuses on its members. First, the membership is characterized demographically and then anecdotally, because motives for membership—as well as lapsed membership—are difficult to determine in the abstract. Also, members are more than numbers, and a partially anecdotal account allows us to see who thought it important to be members of DSNA, or not, and, perhaps, why. Finally, with DSNA’s styles of leadership in mind, that is, recalling this history’s second installment, we hear from members themselves—voices resounding from the archives—about their levels of satisfaction with DSNA and self-estimations of how well they fit into the society. The fourth installment will consider DSNA’s various activities and initiatives from 1977 to 1989, the first “period” of the society’s history.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/DIC.2019.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41765237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:The New English Dictionary was originally distinguished from an encyclopedia in reach and function by its proponent Richard Chenevix Trench and its principal editor James A. H. Murray as differing in responsibilities: a dictionary described the meanings of words, an encyclopedia described the nature of things. The distinction had philosophical and lexicographical precedents but proved difficult to honor in practice. Recent disputes within linguistics and philosophy of language contest a similar division without resolving the issue. Structural differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary might be expected to shed light on the matter, but these new projects perpetuate some old features of print encyclopedias and dictionaries, leaving the distinction blurred. Pragmatic analysis after Grice may identify if not remedy some of the constraints and difficulties faced by definers in print or online.
{"title":"Dictionary vs. Encyclopedia, Then and Now","authors":"Michael Hancher","doi":"10.1353/DIC.2019.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/DIC.2019.0003","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The New English Dictionary was originally distinguished from an encyclopedia in reach and function by its proponent Richard Chenevix Trench and its principal editor James A. H. Murray as differing in responsibilities: a dictionary described the meanings of words, an encyclopedia described the nature of things. The distinction had philosophical and lexicographical precedents but proved difficult to honor in practice. Recent disputes within linguistics and philosophy of language contest a similar division without resolving the issue. Structural differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary might be expected to shed light on the matter, but these new projects perpetuate some old features of print encyclopedias and dictionaries, leaving the distinction blurred. Pragmatic analysis after Grice may identify if not remedy some of the constraints and difficulties faced by definers in print or online.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/DIC.2019.0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44320093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:Historians of sexuality have regularly called attention to the construction of same-sex intercourse as an “unnameable crime” in early modern England. When the crime was named, its most common signifiers in English were buggery and sodomy. However, the precise meanings of these words fluctuated from text to text, so that each term came to represent an “utterly confused category,” in Foucault’s (1978, 101) famous phrase. This article considers the problems of inexpressibility and ambiguity posed by buggery and sodomy for the writers of hard-word and general English dictionaries from 1604 to 1754. It explores how definitions of these terms, as well as of such non-normative acts as fornication and incest, explicitly circumscribed the boundaries of lawful sexual behavior and implicitly constructed a prescribed sexual model within those bounds: procreative, marital, monogamous. Yet, unlike deviant opposite-sex acts, same-sex intercourse was rendered not only illegal but incoherent, as the terms used to explain it—copulation, to couple—were in turn defined in ways that precluded the possibility of any intercourse that was not between the sexes. Nevertheless, the silences and paradoxes embedded in these early definitions allow them to be read from perspectives that are more radical than their writers likely intended.
{"title":"Unlawful Entries: Buggery, Sodomy, and the Construction of Sexual Normativity in Early English Dictionaries","authors":"S. Turton","doi":"10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Historians of sexuality have regularly called attention to the construction of same-sex intercourse as an “unnameable crime” in early modern England. When the crime was named, its most common signifiers in English were buggery and sodomy. However, the precise meanings of these words fluctuated from text to text, so that each term came to represent an “utterly confused category,” in Foucault’s (1978, 101) famous phrase. This article considers the problems of inexpressibility and ambiguity posed by buggery and sodomy for the writers of hard-word and general English dictionaries from 1604 to 1754. It explores how definitions of these terms, as well as of such non-normative acts as fornication and incest, explicitly circumscribed the boundaries of lawful sexual behavior and implicitly constructed a prescribed sexual model within those bounds: procreative, marital, monogamous. Yet, unlike deviant opposite-sex acts, same-sex intercourse was rendered not only illegal but incoherent, as the terms used to explain it—copulation, to couple—were in turn defined in ways that precluded the possibility of any intercourse that was not between the sexes. Nevertheless, the silences and paradoxes embedded in these early definitions allow them to be read from perspectives that are more radical than their writers likely intended.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/DIC.2019.0009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47163297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：