Abstract In this review essay, we compare five recent publications relating to dictionary work with Indigenous languages. The review covers three dictionaries, one monograph about lexicography in service of Indigenous language revitalization and the second volume of a two-volume dictionary-cum-encyclopedia. The structure of this review essay is as follows: following a brief introduction to each of the languages covered in these five publications, we include sections comparing orthographic choices and representations, internal structure and entry design, an examination of each dictionary’s approach to the incorporation of neologisms and the software choices made by compilers. In addition, we offer an analysis of each dictionary’s intended audience and access requirements, some structured reflections on authorship and ownership, an exploration of each project’s commitment to community engagement, strategies for the representation of dialectal variation and finally, relevant information about how each dictionary project was funded and resourced.
{"title":"Indigenous Lexicography: A Review of Recent Dictionaries and Works Relating to Lexicography","authors":"Mark Turin,Natália Oliveira Ferreira","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this review essay, we compare five recent publications relating to dictionary work with Indigenous languages. The review covers three dictionaries, one monograph about lexicography in service of Indigenous language revitalization and the second volume of a two-volume dictionary-cum-encyclopedia. The structure of this review essay is as follows: following a brief introduction to each of the languages covered in these five publications, we include sections comparing orthographic choices and representations, internal structure and entry design, an examination of each dictionary’s approach to the incorporation of neologisms and the software choices made by compilers. In addition, we offer an analysis of each dictionary’s intended audience and access requirements, some structured reflections on authorship and ownership, an exploration of each project’s commitment to community engagement, strategies for the representation of dialectal variation and finally, relevant information about how each dictionary project was funded and resourced.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"43 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reports on research into teachers' perceptions of the impact of using a bilingual learner's dictionary. The research, a perceptions of impact study conducted in South Africa from March 2016 to February 2019, investigates the perceptions of teachers on the impact of the dictionary on themselves as teachers, and their perceptions of the dictionary's impact on their pupils. The findings show that teachers perceived dictionary use to have positive impacts on both the language production and language reception skills of pupils in their L2, in line with other studies. However, they also show unexpected teacher perceptions of impacts on content subjects, L1, teaching itself, and attitudes and behaviours (here called the socio-emotional), especially with regard to learning or teaching. The paper situates this research in the literature on dictionary use for production and reception in language learning, and of impact evaluation, as well as highlighting relevant aspects of the South African education system, particularly the use of English as a language of learning and teaching from an early stage. The dictionary in this study was the Oxford Bilingual School Dictionary: isiXhosa and English (De Schryver and Reynolds 2014).
本文报告了一项关于教师对使用双语学习者词典的影响的看法的研究。这项研究是2016年3月至2019年2月在南非进行的一项影响感知研究，调查了教师对词典对自己作为教师的影响的看法，以及他们对词典对学生影响的看法。研究结果表明，教师认为词典的使用对学生在二语学习中的语言产生和语言接受能力都有积极的影响，这与其他研究一致。然而，它们也显示出意想不到的教师对内容科目、第一语言、教学本身以及态度和行为(这里称为社会情感)的影响的看法，特别是在学习或教学方面。本文将这项研究置于语言学习中使用词典进行生产和接收以及影响评估的文献中，并强调了南非教育系统的相关方面，特别是从早期阶段开始使用英语作为学习和教学语言。本研究使用的词典是《牛津双语学校词典:isiXhosa and English》(De Schryver and Reynolds 2014)。
{"title":"The Perceived Impacts of a Bilingual Learner's Dictionary","authors":"Megan Hall, Phillip Louw","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac002","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports on research into teachers' perceptions of the impact of using a bilingual learner's dictionary. The research, a perceptions of impact study conducted in South Africa from March 2016 to February 2019, investigates the perceptions of teachers on the impact of the dictionary on themselves as teachers, and their perceptions of the dictionary's impact on their pupils. The findings show that teachers perceived dictionary use to have positive impacts on both the language production and language reception skills of pupils in their L2, in line with other studies. However, they also show unexpected teacher perceptions of impacts on content subjects, L1, teaching itself, and attitudes and behaviours (here called the socio-emotional), especially with regard to learning or teaching. The paper situates this research in the literature on dictionary use for production and reception in language learning, and of impact evaluation, as well as highlighting relevant aspects of the South African education system, particularly the use of English as a language of learning and teaching from an early stage. The dictionary in this study was the Oxford Bilingual School Dictionary: isiXhosa and English (De Schryver and Reynolds 2014).","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study presents answers to the question of how one dictionary can help us understand the implications for lexicography of limited access to other dictionaries. We carefully analyzed the microstructure and macrostructure of Abel-Rémusat’s Chinese-French dictionary manuscript Dictionnaire chinois dated 1808 by systematically tracing the references noted at each entry in the dictionary. Based on his meticulous references to a large variety of Chinese language sources, this article confirms that Abel-Rémusat finished his first draft in 1808. However, tracing the references to a wide variety of sources including many references to Dictionnaire chinois, français et latin [Chinese, French, and Latin Dictionary, 1813], published in 1813 by Chrétien-Louis-Joseph de Guignes (1759–1845), we re-date the manuscript. This discovery allowed us to understand how Abel-Rémusat 1) used different types of resources when dictionaries of Chinese and various European languages were unavailable and 2) compensated initially by inventing his own macrostructure, microstructure and systems for retrieving Chinese characters until he could consult other dictionaries that offered him guidance and inspired him to make corrections in his manuscript. Our findings show how the resources available determined his approach to lexicography and lead us to conclude that he gradually developed his approach based on a combination of inspiration from and confusion caused by the limited, but very diverse resources, he located and referenced.
这项研究提出了一个问题的答案，一本词典如何能帮助我们理解词典编纂的含义有限的访问其他词典。我们通过系统地追踪词典中每个条目所标注的参考文献，仔细分析了1808年阿贝尔-雷姆萨特的《中法词典》手稿的微观结构和宏观结构。根据他对大量中文资料的细致参考，本文证实阿贝尔-拉西穆萨特在1808年完成了他的初稿。然而，通过追踪参考资料，包括许多参考资料，包括1813年由chr tien- louis - joseph de Guignes(1759-1845)出版的《汉语、法语和拉丁语词典》，我们重新确定了手稿的年代。这一发现使我们了解了阿贝尔-雷姆萨特是如何1)在没有汉语和各种欧洲语言词典的情况下使用不同类型的资源的，2)最初通过发明自己的宏观结构、微观结构和检索汉字的系统来弥补，直到他可以查阅其他词典，这些词典为他提供了指导，并激励他对手稿进行修改。我们的研究结果表明，可利用的资源如何决定了他的词典编纂方法，并使我们得出结论，他逐渐发展了他的方法，这种方法是基于他所定位和参考的有限但非常多样化的资源所引起的灵感和混乱的结合。
{"title":"Tracing References: Re-dating and Interpreting Abel-Rémusat’s Chinese-French Dictionary Manuscript Dictionnaire chinois","authors":"Rui Li, Annette Skovsted Hansen","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac001","url":null,"abstract":"This study presents answers to the question of how one dictionary can help us understand the implications for lexicography of limited access to other dictionaries. We carefully analyzed the microstructure and macrostructure of Abel-Rémusat’s Chinese-French dictionary manuscript Dictionnaire chinois dated 1808 by systematically tracing the references noted at each entry in the dictionary. Based on his meticulous references to a large variety of Chinese language sources, this article confirms that Abel-Rémusat finished his first draft in 1808. However, tracing the references to a wide variety of sources including many references to Dictionnaire chinois, français et latin [Chinese, French, and Latin Dictionary, 1813], published in 1813 by Chrétien-Louis-Joseph de Guignes (1759–1845), we re-date the manuscript. This discovery allowed us to understand how Abel-Rémusat 1) used different types of resources when dictionaries of Chinese and various European languages were unavailable and 2) compensated initially by inventing his own macrostructure, microstructure and systems for retrieving Chinese characters until he could consult other dictionaries that offered him guidance and inspired him to make corrections in his manuscript. Our findings show how the resources available determined his approach to lexicography and lead us to conclude that he gradually developed his approach based on a combination of inspiration from and confusion caused by the limited, but very diverse resources, he located and referenced.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"36 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying dictionary-relevant lexical bundles and analysing their lexicographic treatment. However, past research has only examined bundle treatment in general bilingual dictionaries, leaving it open whether and to what extent lexical bundles are treated in other types of dictionaries. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the treatment of academic lexical bundles in online English monolingual learners’ dictionaries. To this end, we first derived a list of 85 target bundles from a large corpus of expert academic writing using a set of quantitative and qualitative criteria, and then examined these bundles regarding their coverage, accessibility, and macro- and microstructural presentation in selected dictionaries. The results showed a high degree of inaccessibility of lexical bundles as search strings, corroborated previous research findings regarding the subsidiary status of lexical bundles in the macrostructure, and identified variations and inadequacies in bundle presentation in the microstructure. The implications of this study for improving the identification, access and presentation of academic lexical bundles for e-lexicography are discussed.
{"title":"The Treatment of Academic Lexical Bundles in Online English Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries","authors":"Peng Chen, Cuilian Zhao","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecab032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecab032","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there has been a growing interest in identifying dictionary-relevant lexical bundles and analysing their lexicographic treatment. However, past research has only examined bundle treatment in general bilingual dictionaries, leaving it open whether and to what extent lexical bundles are treated in other types of dictionaries. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the treatment of academic lexical bundles in online English monolingual learners’ dictionaries. To this end, we first derived a list of 85 target bundles from a large corpus of expert academic writing using a set of quantitative and qualitative criteria, and then examined these bundles regarding their coverage, accessibility, and macro- and microstructural presentation in selected dictionaries. The results showed a high degree of inaccessibility of lexical bundles as search strings, corroborated previous research findings regarding the subsidiary status of lexical bundles in the macrostructure, and identified variations and inadequacies in bundle presentation in the microstructure. The implications of this study for improving the identification, access and presentation of academic lexical bundles for e-lexicography are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"47 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50167946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study explores the Chineseness on different levels as displayed in the lexicographic text of The Chinese English Dictionary (unabridged, 1st volume, 2015) (CED) and interprets it as Sinicization informed by the spirit of glocalization. Adopting the discourse approach proposed by Chen (2019) as CLDS (Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies), it views CED as discourse and aims to examine and reveal how the dominant ideological powers within Chinese society may have borne on the dictionary's distinct Sinicizing efforts. It proposes that CED has effectively challenged the established norms of bilingual lexicography involving English in mainland China in its negotiating Chinese into sharing the status of target language with English and infusing the dictionary text with rich traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, CED also demonstrates strong glocalizing tendencies in its consistent 'de-ideologizing' efforts in the treatment of historic-political and cultural terms, as well as its unusual emphasis on acculturation as a translation guideline which serves well to universalize the local and vice versa.
{"title":"Sinicization as glocalization in The Chinese English Dictionary","authors":"Jun Ding","doi":"10.1558/lexi.20870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.20870","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores the Chineseness on different levels as displayed in the lexicographic text of The Chinese English Dictionary (unabridged, 1st volume, 2015) (CED) and interprets it as Sinicization informed by the spirit of glocalization. Adopting the discourse approach proposed by Chen (2019) as CLDS (Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies), it views CED as discourse and aims to examine and reveal how the dominant ideological powers within Chinese society may have borne on the dictionary's distinct Sinicizing efforts. It proposes that CED has effectively challenged the established norms of bilingual lexicography involving English in mainland China in its negotiating Chinese into sharing the status of target language with English and infusing the dictionary text with rich traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, CED also demonstrates strong glocalizing tendencies in its consistent 'de-ideologizing' efforts in the treatment of historic-political and cultural terms, as well as its unusual emphasis on acculturation as a translation guideline which serves well to universalize the local and vice versa.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78334023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is little doubt that phraseology is at the heart of all language use. This paper examines the treatment of phraseology in two influential Chinese–English dictionaries and four Chinese dictionaries for learners. Two high-frequency characters, namely eat and hit, were selected due to their highly polysemous and phraseological nature, and their phraseological behaviors examined in the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. The entries in the Chinese–English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries for learners for eat and hit were examined and their dictionary records compared with the results of the previous corpus-based study. The corpus-based identification and categorization of the phraseological behaviors of eat and hit revealed that some multi-character expressions could not be covered by the terms offered by the existing taxonomy (Sag et al., 2002). Accordingly, the taxonomy was revised for the appropriate categorization of Chinese phraseology. Comparisons between corpus-based findings and entry records in Chinese–English dictionaries showed a convergence in the overall treatment of phraseology in Chinese–English dictionaries. By contrast, inconsistencies in the learners’ dictionaries were observed. It was also found that the two Chinese–English dictionaries agree with each other on the overall inclusion and exclusion of phrases. Again, we also observed many differences in the way phrases are treated between Chinese–English dictionaries and learners’ dictionaries and also among the four learners’ dictionaries. It is worth noting that hardly any of the verb-particle constructions observed in the corpus are included in the dictionaries under observation. We propose that these constructions should also be treated as phrases and the dictionaries would be more user-friendly if these phrases were not hidden in the other longer phrases, and were given the same status as the headwords. A larger corpus and sampling in the future would better characterize the taxonomy of Chinese phraseology and provide more conclusive findings.
毫无疑问，短语是所有语言使用的核心。本文考察了两本有影响的汉英词典和四本汉语学习者词典对短语的处理。“吃”和“打”这两个高频词因其高度的多义性和短语性而被选中，并在普通话兰开斯特语料库中对它们的短语行为进行了研究。研究了汉英词典和汉语食打词典中的词条，并将其词典记录与之前基于语料库的研究结果进行了比较。基于语料库的“吃”和“打”的短语行为识别和分类表明，一些多字符表达不能被现有分类法所提供的术语所涵盖(Sag et al.， 2002)。在此基础上，对分类学进行了修订，以便对汉语词汇进行适当的分类。语料库检索结果与汉英词典词条记录的比较表明，汉英词典对词汇的处理在整体上趋同。相比之下，我们观察到学习者的字典不一致。我们还发现，两本汉英词典在短语的整体收录和排除上是一致的。同样，我们还观察到汉英词典和学习者词典之间以及四种学习者词典之间处理短语的方式存在许多差异。值得注意的是，在语料库中观察到的动词助词结构几乎没有被收录在所观察的词典中。我们建议这些结构也应该被视为短语，如果这些短语不隐藏在其他较长的短语中，并且被赋予与标题词相同的地位，字典将更加用户友好。未来更大的语料库和样本将更好地表征汉语短语的分类，并提供更多结论性的发现。
{"title":"treatment of phraseology in Chinese–English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries for learners","authors":"Xuhua Zhang, A. Gander","doi":"10.1558/lexi.20889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.20889","url":null,"abstract":"There is little doubt that phraseology is at the heart of all language use. This paper examines the treatment of phraseology in two influential Chinese–English dictionaries and four Chinese dictionaries for learners. Two high-frequency characters, namely eat and hit, were selected due to their highly polysemous and phraseological nature, and their phraseological behaviors examined in the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. The entries in the Chinese–English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries for learners for eat and hit were examined and their dictionary records compared with the results of the previous corpus-based study. The corpus-based identification and categorization of the phraseological behaviors of eat and hit revealed that some multi-character expressions could not be covered by the terms offered by the existing taxonomy (Sag et al., 2002). Accordingly, the taxonomy was revised for the appropriate categorization of Chinese phraseology. Comparisons between corpus-based findings and entry records in Chinese–English dictionaries showed a convergence in the overall treatment of phraseology in Chinese–English dictionaries. By contrast, inconsistencies in the learners’ dictionaries were observed. It was also found that the two Chinese–English dictionaries agree with each other on the overall inclusion and exclusion of phrases. Again, we also observed many differences in the way phrases are treated between Chinese–English dictionaries and learners’ dictionaries and also among the four learners’ dictionaries. It is worth noting that hardly any of the verb-particle constructions observed in the corpus are included in the dictionaries under observation. We propose that these constructions should also be treated as phrases and the dictionaries would be more user-friendly if these phrases were not hidden in the other longer phrases, and were given the same status as the headwords. A larger corpus and sampling in the future would better characterize the taxonomy of Chinese phraseology and provide more conclusive findings.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75047718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
2020 marked the 200th anniversary of the publication of the second part of Robert Morrison’s A Dictionary of the Chinese Language which has been widely recognized as the first Chinese–English (hereinafter abbreviated to C–E) dictionary and signaled the beginning of C–E lexicography. From the late Qing Dynasty to the present, literally several hundred C–E dictionaries, small or large, have been compiled, though the number of noteworthy ones is rather limited. Nevertheless, research into C–E lexicography has gradually developed into a distinct field of study as witnessed by thousands of academic papers and over a dozen books devoted to its research. A search of (Chinese–English dictionary) as the keyword in CNKI, a database of journal articles, theses, and dissertations written in the Chinese language, came up with 8,365 results. Most of the discussions center round topics such as dictionary criticism, history of dictionary-making, theoretical construction, and case studies. The history of bilingual lexicography in China, for instance, was under-researched in the past as a result of the lack of original copies of early dictionaries, which, however, has been improved thanks to the reprinting and wide availability of such dictionaries since the beginning of the 21st century. Chinese Lexicography: A History from 1046 BC to AD 1911 (Heming Yong et al., 2008), for instance, devoted only a few pages to the earliest history of C–E lexicography which spans more than 70 years. But now dozens of academic papers and even several books (e.g. Yang, 2012; Gao, 2014) have been written about the early bilingual dictionary-makers and their lexicographical works, presenting a clear picture of the evolution of C–E lexicography. Today more than two decades into the 21st century, the C–E lexicography scene is not as crowded as its English–Chinese counterpart as there are only a few major players. The paper aims to present a brief history of C–E lexicography with a focus on lexicographical tradition and creativity, elaborate on the deficiencies or problems found within the major C–E dictionaries, and finally discuss the future directions of C–E lexicography.
{"title":"Whither Chinese–English lexicography? – From a historical perspective","authors":"Yongwei Gao","doi":"10.1558/lexi.20869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.20869","url":null,"abstract":"2020 marked the 200th anniversary of the publication of the second part of Robert Morrison’s A Dictionary of the Chinese Language which has been widely recognized as the first Chinese–English (hereinafter abbreviated to C–E) dictionary and signaled the beginning of C–E lexicography. From the late Qing Dynasty to the present, literally several hundred C–E dictionaries, small or large, have been compiled, though the number of noteworthy ones is rather limited. Nevertheless, research into C–E lexicography has gradually developed into a distinct field of study as witnessed by thousands of academic papers and over a dozen books devoted to its research. A search of (Chinese–English dictionary) as the keyword in CNKI, a database of journal articles, theses, and dissertations written in the Chinese language, came up with 8,365 results. Most of the discussions center round topics such as dictionary criticism, history of dictionary-making, theoretical construction, and case studies. The history of bilingual lexicography in China, for instance, was under-researched in the past as a result of the lack of original copies of early dictionaries, which, however, has been improved thanks to the reprinting and wide availability of such dictionaries since the beginning of the 21st century. Chinese Lexicography: A History from 1046 BC to AD 1911 (Heming Yong et al., 2008), for instance, devoted only a few pages to the earliest history of C–E lexicography which spans more than 70 years. But now dozens of academic papers and even several books (e.g. Yang, 2012; Gao, 2014) have been written about the early bilingual dictionary-makers and their lexicographical works, presenting a clear picture of the evolution of C–E lexicography. Today more than two decades into the 21st century, the C–E lexicography scene is not as crowded as its English–Chinese counterpart as there are only a few major players. The paper aims to present a brief history of C–E lexicography with a focus on lexicographical tradition and creativity, elaborate on the deficiencies or problems found within the major C–E dictionaries, and finally discuss the future directions of C–E lexicography.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78540620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Chinese–English Dictionary Unabridged (hereinafter abbreviated as CEDU) pursues a guiding principle of reserved descriptivism and includes far more culture-bound entries than other Chinese–English dictionaries, which has greatly increased the difficulty in dictionary-making. Accordingly, how CEDU has planned to treat culture-bound lexical items in principle and how it has tackled the difficulties in applying the principle deserves our attention. This study probes into the essence of the beyond-equivalence principle proposed by its editor-in-chief Lu Gusun and his ideas of acculturation and cultural over-flow. This study explores three major compensation operations in treating culture-bound lexical items: 1) to use lexicographical metalanguage to compensate for lacunae beyond equivalence, 2) to compensate for the treatment of an entry word through examples, 3) to use both foreignization and domestication to compensate one another in rendering equivalents.
{"title":"On CEDU’s treatment of culture-bound lexical items under the beyond-equivalence principle","authors":"Jiang Wan","doi":"10.1558/lexi.20992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.20992","url":null,"abstract":"The Chinese–English Dictionary Unabridged (hereinafter abbreviated as CEDU) pursues a guiding principle of reserved descriptivism and includes far more culture-bound entries than other Chinese–English dictionaries, which has greatly increased the difficulty in dictionary-making. Accordingly, how CEDU has planned to treat culture-bound lexical items in principle and how it has tackled the difficulties in applying the principle deserves our attention. This study probes into the essence of the beyond-equivalence principle proposed by its editor-in-chief Lu Gusun and his ideas of acculturation and cultural over-flow. This study explores three major compensation operations in treating culture-bound lexical items: 1) to use lexicographical metalanguage to compensate for lacunae beyond equivalence, 2) to compensate for the treatment of an entry word through examples, 3) to use both foreignization and domestication to compensate one another in rendering equivalents.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82302862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two theoretical constructs (the bilingual mental lexicon and the depth of processing framework) and the Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic determinism plus related concepts (differentiation, codability, and Zift’s law) are incorporated into a framework in this paper to account for the representation of (cross-)cultural information in bilingual lexicography. After briefly introducing the theoretical framework, the paper goes on to discuss the representation of literal, conceptual, and cross-cultural aspects in the Chinese–English Dictionary (Unabridged) (henceforth the CEDU) in three sections: making explicit the implicit literal or etymological information to account for senses in use; acculturating expressions, definitions, and illustrative examples; and cultural immersion in exemplification appealing to both refined and popular tastes. Each section encompasses multilevel factors in the treatment of bilingual entries with a focus on (cross-) cultural representations.
{"title":"From culture to (un)shared concept","authors":"Cuilian Zhao","doi":"10.1558/lexi.21368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.21368","url":null,"abstract":"Two theoretical constructs (the bilingual mental lexicon and the depth of processing framework) and the Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic determinism plus related concepts (differentiation, codability, and Zift’s law) are incorporated into a framework in this paper to account for the representation of (cross-)cultural information in bilingual lexicography. After briefly introducing the theoretical framework, the paper goes on to discuss the representation of literal, conceptual, and cross-cultural aspects in the Chinese–English Dictionary (Unabridged) (henceforth the CEDU) in three sections: making explicit the implicit literal or etymological information to account for senses in use; acculturating expressions, definitions, and illustrative examples; and cultural immersion in exemplification appealing to both refined and popular tastes. Each section encompasses multilevel factors in the treatment of bilingual entries with a focus on (cross-) cultural representations.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83048442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：