Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- I Toward a Taxonomy of Cross-Linguistic Lexical
- II Lexicographical Considerations
- 5 Introduction
- 6 Zero equivalence
- 7 Multiple equivalence
- 8 Partial equivalence
- 9 Lexical anisomorphism in machine-readable dictionaries
- 10 Lexicographic considerations: summary
- 11 Outlook
- References
- Index
10 - Lexicographic considerations: summary
from II - Lexicographical Considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- I Toward a Taxonomy of Cross-Linguistic Lexical
- II Lexicographical Considerations
- 5 Introduction
- 6 Zero equivalence
- 7 Multiple equivalence
- 8 Partial equivalence
- 9 Lexical anisomorphism in machine-readable dictionaries
- 10 Lexicographic considerations: summary
- 11 Outlook
- References
- Index
Summary
In the previous five chapters I have presented the principal general issues and practical strategies of addressing CLA in traditional dictionaries along with several contrastive features of machine-readable dictionaries. It is now time to draw broader conclusions.
First, it is important to understand that there exists some degree of correlation between the types of CLA and their treatment. In particular, the top level of the hierarchy – that is, the differentiation of zero, multiple, and partial equivalence – directly influences the treatment. Lower levels of the taxonomy show a certain proclivity toward distinct treatment strategies, but no straightforward correlation exists.
Second, the lexicographic treatment of CLA is a cross-product of the particular type of CLA and general lexicographic parameters. In all instances, the treatment of CLA requires sound lexicographic strategies. In addition, there are some specificities of CLA that need to be factored into the equation.
Third, in light of the above, lexicographers should receive a two-pronged training strategy. First they should be familiarized with the proposed taxonomy, which will enable them to recognize the type of CLA in question. Then they should be acquainted with the repertoire of valid lexicographic strategies and possible pitfalls, so as to be able to select an optimal strategy for the type of CLA in question.
Fourth, it needs to be understood that MRDs, in order to treat CLA, require a kind of information quite different from that of traditional dictionaries. What is needed in this field are mechanisms to convert the data found in traditional dictionaries into a more precise format and to incorporate them into formalized systems for the treatment of CLA.
Fifth, various divergences from the legitimate lexicographic strategies of addressing CLA are detectable, some using very simple regular expressions, others using more elaborate external databases. It is therefore possible to develop the tools for automatic identification of the divergences from sound lexicographic strategies, which can be helpful in honing the final draft of bilingual dictionary entries.
Sixth, out of all branches of applied linguistics, lexicography is the one most conducive to the formulation of treatment strategies for CLA. Lexicographic entries are well-segmented short texts with a standard form, and concentrated in the limited space of a dictionary, all of which makes it very easy to find the right examples and to identify good practices as well as pitfalls.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lexical ConflictTheory and Practice, pp. 216 - 217Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015