Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка для студентов факультетов иностранных языков

The main problems in lexicography 
The problems of lexicography are connected with the selection of headwords, 
the number, the structure and contents of the vocabulary entry (in different types of 
dictionaries). The starting group of lexicographical problems deals with selection: 
1) In the first place it is the problem of whether a general descriptive dictionary, 
whether unilingual or bilingual, should give the historical information about a word. 
2)For the purpose of a dictionary, which must not be too massive, selection between 
scientific and technical terms is also a very important task. 
3) It is a debatable point whether a unilingual explanatory dictionary should try to 
cover all the words of the language, including neologisms, nonce-word, slang, etc. 
and note with impartial accuracy all the words actually used by English people; or 
whether, as the great English lexicographer of the 18th century Samuel Johnson used 
to think, it should be preceptive, and (viewed from the other side) prohibitive. 
Dictionary-makers should attempt to improve and stabilise the English vocabulary 
according to the best classical samples and advise the readers on preferable usage. A 
distinctly modern criterion in selection of entries is the frequency of the words to be 
included. This is especially important for certain lines of practical work in preparing 
graded elementary textbooks. 
The other problem which of the selected units have the right to a separate entry 
and which are to be included under one common head-word. These are, in other 
words, the issues of separateness and sameness of words. The first deals with 
syntagmalic boundaries of word-units and has to solve such questions as whether 
each other is a group of two separate words to be treated separately under the head-
words each and other, or whether each other is a unit deserving a special entry 
(compare also: one another). 
As to the sameness, this deals with paradigmatic boundaries. How many entries 
are justified for hound? Concise Oxford Dictionary has two one tot the noun, and the 
other for the verb: to chase (as) with hounds'; the verb and the noun are thus treated as 

homonyms. Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary combines them under one 
head-word, i.e. it takes them as variants of the same word (hence the term 
"sameness"). The problem is even more complicated with variants belonging to the 
same part of speech. This involves differentiation between polysemy and homonymy. 
The second group of problems deals with the structure and content of a 
dictionary entry in different types of dictionaries. 
A historical dictionary (the Oxford Dictionary, for instance) is primarily 
concerned with the development of the English vocabulary. It arranges various senses 
chronologically, first comes the etymology, then the earliest meanings marked by the 
label obs. – obsolete. The etymologies are either comparative or confined to a single 
language. The development is illustrated by quotations, ranging from the oldest to 
recent usages of the word in question. 
A descriptive dictionary dealing with current usage has to face its own specific 
problems. It has to give precedence to the most important meanings. But how is the 
most important meaning determined upon? So far each compiler was guided by his 
own personal opinion. An objective criterion would be statistical counts. But counting 
the frequency of different meanings of the same word is far more difficult than 
counting the frequency of its forms. It is therefore not by chance that up to now many 
counts have been undertaken only for word forms, irrespective of meaning. Also, the 
interdependence of meanings and their relative importance within the semantic 
structure of the word do not remain the same. They change almost incessantly, so that 
establishing their frequency would have to be repeated very often. The constant 
revisions necessary would make the publication of dictionaries very expensive. It may 
also be argued that an arrangement of meanings according to frequency would 
sometimes conceal the ties and relationship between various elements of the semantic 
structure. 
A synchronic dictionary should also show the distribution of every word. It has 
been traditionally done by labelling words as belonging to a certain part of speech, 

and by noting some special cases of grammatically or lexically bound meanings. 
Thus, the word spin is labelled in The Concise Oxford Dictionary as v.t. & i, which 
gives a general idea of its distribution; its various senses are shown in connection with 
words that may serve as subject or object, e. g.: 2. (of spider, silkworm, etc.) make 
(web, gossamer, cocoon, or abs.) by extrusion of fine viscous thread... 10. spun glass 
(spun when heated into filaments that remain pliant when cold); spun gold, silver 
(gold, silver thread prepared for weaving...) This technique is gradually being 
improved upon, and compilers strive to provide more detailed information on these 
points.
The Advanced Learner's Dictionary ... by A.S. Hornby, E.V. Gatenby and H. 
Wakefield supplies information on the syntactical distribution of each verb. In their 
Notes on Syntax the compilers state that one who is learning English as a foreign 
language is apt to form sentences by analogy, which at times may lead him into error. 
For instance, the student must be warned against taking the use of the verb tell in the 
sentence Please tell me the meaning as a model for the word explain, because Please, 
explain me the meaning would be ungrammatical. For this purpose they provide a 
table of 25 verb patterns and supply the numerical indications in each verb entry. This 
gives the student the necessary guidance. Indications are also supplied as to which 
nouns and which semantic varieties of nouns may be used in the plural. This helps the 
student to avoid mistakes like *interesting informations. 
The third group of lexicographic problems is the problem of definitions in a 
unilingual dictionary. The explanation of meaning may be achieved by a group of 
synonyms which together give a fairly general idea; but one synonym is never 
sufficient for the purpose, because no absolute synonyms exist. Besides, if synonyms 
are the only type of explanation used, the reader will be placed in a vicious circle of 
synonymic references, with not a single word actually explained. Definitions serve the 
purpose much better. These are of two main types. If they are only concerned with 
words as speech material, the definition is called l і n g u і s t і c. If they are 
concerned with things for which the words are names, they are termed encyclopaedic. 

American dictionaries are for the most part traditionally encyclopaedic, which 
accounts for so much attention paid to graphic illustration. They furnish their readers 
with far more information about facts and things than their British counterparts, which 
are more linguistic and more fundamentally occupied with purely lexical data with the 
grammatical properties of words, their components, their stylistic features, etc. 
Opinions differ upon the optimum proportion of linguistic and encyclopaedic 
material. 

жүктеу/скачать 0,7 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: