Henning Bergenholtz

Needs-adapted Data Presentation in e-Information Tools

In the current debate about the status of lexicography there are at least three quite different opinions: (i) Lexicography does not have or need any kind of own theory but can use all relevant lin- guistic theories. (ii) Lexicography needs a special theory for the lexicographical praxis, but this discipline is still a part of linguistics. (iii) Lexicography is a genuine part of information science and can use theories and learn from practice in the information society, but it also needs special theories for lexicography. It is the third opinion we will maintain in this paper by discussing the information needs in the information society and partly using the function theory of lexicography.

What is Lexicography

Within the field of lexicography there are numerous differences when it comes to the interpretation of the term lexicography and differences in determining the nature, extent and scope of this term. Although it is widely accepted that lexicography consist of two components, i.e. theoretical lexicography and the lexicographic practice, different definitions of lexicography give no unambiguous reflection of this distinction and of the individual components. This paper looks at some prevailing diverse uses and interpretations of the word lexicography. This is followed by proposals to ensure a transformative, unified and comprehensive interpretation of this concept.

Classification in Lexicography: The Concept of Collocation in the Accounting Dictionaries

This paper advocates a lexicographical approach to the treatment of collocations in dictionaries. A collocation is presented as an umbrella term for referring to word combinations that are typical for the kind of language in question, and which can be useful for re-use in text production or for assisting in text translation. They are composed of two or more orthographic words, do not constitute a full sentence, but offer potential users the possibility of obtaining relevant information. The way they are dealt with is exemplifi ed in the Accounting Dictionaries, a set of online specialized dictionaries that represent a complex system of specifi c lexicographical and technological options for creating interaction between database and dictionary. By February, the accounting database will allow potential users to retrieve data from twenty-three different accounting dictionaries, each focused on a specifi c function and use situation. For some of these dictionaries, typically translation and production dictionaries, the inclusion of collocations is a must, as this paper aims to show by defending the view that the linguistic concept of collocation is not adequate for lexicography, that the inclusion of collocations is only necessary in some dictionaries, and that their lexicographical consideration must agree with the true nature of lexicography; for instance, with the principle of relevance applied to specialized lexicography, where we mean the condition of being directly connected with the subject fi eld, the dictionary function(s), the use situation in which the dictionaries are intended to be used, their access route(s), and the levels of competence of the intended users. 1. Lexicography is not a Sub-Discipline of Linguistics Proponents of the function theory of lexicography or the theory of the lexicographical functions claim that there is a need for a theory of lexicography, i.e. a system of ideas put forward to explain the making of dictionaries, as well as their characteristics, usefulness, history, and future developments in a systematic and refl ective way (Bergenholtz/Tarp 2002, 2003, 2004; see Tarp (2008) for a review; and Tono (2010) for critical comments on the function theory). One of the main principles of the function theory is that lexicography can no longer be categorized as a subset of disciplines within applied linguistics, but rather that it is seen as part of an information science discipline that offers a theoretical and practical response to information needs detected in society, and as such it is strongly embedded in specifi c cultural, historical, and technological environments. It also maintains that the needs 294 Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera, Henning Bergenholtz, Sandro Nielsen, Marta Niño Amo giving rise to information tools – be they dictionaries, glossaries, or knowledge databases – belong to the same categories at the highest level of abstraction, as are the data selected to solve these needs irrespective of the specifi c medium in which the data are presented (Bergenholtz 2011; Gouws 2011; Tarp 2011). Within the abovementioned functional approach, recent research is centred on the interaction of the three key lexicographic elements defi ned so far: data, access routes and user’s needs, in extra-lexicographical use situations, typically in communicative, cognitive, interpretative and operational use situations (Tarp, 2008; Verlinde/Leroyer/Binon, 2010). For instance, some scholars within this theoretical framework espouse the integration of lexicography in the realm of information sciences (Bergenholtz, 2011; Leroyer, 2011). This has translated into the coming of age of e-lexicography, i.e., the lexicographic sub-discipline that is mainly concerned with the development, planning, compilation and publication of electronic reference tools (Bergenholtz/Nielsen/Tarp, 2009; Fuertes-Olivera/Bergenholtz, 2011; Granger/Paquot, 2010, 2012; Haß/Schmitz 2010; Kosem/Kosem, 2011). The independent status of lexicography has been emphasized in many recent publications that support the tenets of the function theory of lexicography (cf. Bergenholtz, 2009; Fuertes-Olivera, 2009 and 2010; Fuertes-Olivera/Bergenholtz, 2011; Fuertes-Olivera/Nielsen, 2011 and 2012; Gouws, 2011; Tarp 2008 and 2009; to name just a few). These scholars also defend the interdisciplinary vocation of lexicography and, therefore, the necessity of (re-)evaluating taken-for-granted theories, concepts and methods with the aim of deciding which, if any, can be used without any adaptation or which must be adapted to agree with the true nature of lexicography, which is the compilation and description of information tools that are constructed in order to meet user’s needs in specifi c users’ situations by offering them quick and easytouse data that users can convert into information (Tarp, 2008). An example of the above refl ection is illustrated in this paper with the concept of collocation used in the Accounting Dictionaries. This concept is defi ned in terms of the true nature of lexicography, for instance, in terms of the principle of relevance applied to specialized lexicography. It means the condition of being directly connected with the subject fi eld, the dictionary function(s), the use situation in which the dictionaries are intended to be used, and the levels of competence of the intended users (Fuertes-Olivera/Nielsen 2011 and 2012). Furthermore, the concept of relevance is also connected with accessology (Bergenholtz/Gouws, 2010): collocations allow users to search and retrieve meaningful data. In other words, the principle of relevance determines the selection, inclusion and lexicographical treatment of all the lexicographical data categories that are decisive for potential users by formulating questions and answers connected with the following (Bergenholtz, Nielsen and Tarp, 2009): 1. Preparation of user profi les including all relevant user characteristics. 2. Description of relevant extra-lexicographic user situations. 3. Defi nition of information needs related to specifi c types of users and user situations. 4. Selection and presentation of data from which the required information can be retrieved. 5. Preparation of quick and easy access to the relevant data. 6. Systematisation of a specifi c subject fi eld. 7. General principles of layout and design related to lexicographic tools. 295 Classifi cation in Lexicography: The Concept of Collocation in the Accounting Dictionaries Within the abovementioned framework, this paper describes some of the main characteristics of the Accounting Dictionaries (Section 2), and makes a case for using lexicographical classifi cations in the compilation of dictionaries. In particular, it defends a lexicographical approach to the treatment of collocations in the Accounting Dictionaries (Section 3). Finally, a conclusion summarizes the main ideas discussed in this article. 2. The Accounting Dictionaries The Accounting Dictionaries are a set of online specialized dictionaries that represent a complex system of specifi c lexicographical and technological options for creating interaction between database and dictionary, i.e. the graphical user interface (GUI) of the dictionary. The database contains carefully selected types of data in discrete data fi elds, which are linked and structured so as to facilitate search and presentation. Users consult a dictionary through the homepage and the dictionary sends their queries to the database via a search engine that seeks matches in the database. Once found, the data are sent to the dictionary and presented to users in a predetermined way (Bergenholtz, 2012; Fuertes-Olivera/Nielsen, 2011 and 2012; Fuertes-Olivera/Niño Amo, 2011; Nielsen/Almind, 2011). This set-up allows users to access the data in the database in a number of ways that are designed to provide information, thereby providing them with assistance in different but specifi c types of user situations, as shown below in our analysis of the concept of collocation in the Accounting

Synonymy and synonyms in Lexicography

In this paper we work with the assumption that items giving synonyms in dictionaries are primarily of assistance in the case of text production problems. We assume furthermore that synonymy does not prevail between lexemes but rather between textual items in concrete texts. Accordingly a rich selection of synonyms in text production dictionaries will offer the possibility to select the appropriate item – but only for mother-tongue speakers. We are not discussing items giving synonyms in learners’ dictionaries and school dictionaries. From a selection of existing dictionaries it shows, as could be expected, that there is no uniform lexicographic practice but also numerous ways of dealing with synonyms that offers very little assistance to the intended target users of a specifi c dictionary. This could be due to the fact that too often the inclusion and presentation of synonyms are done without taking the user and the function of a dictionary into account. We would like to propose a model that has partially already been employed in the lexicographic practice. It should here be clear that synonyms can also play an important role in accessing dictionary articles and not only as items in concrete dictionaries. In particular the conceptualisation of a synonym dictionary is presented that distinguishes itself from the majority of other synonym dictionaries by also giving items giving the meaning in the articles of polysemous and homonymous lemmata. 1. What is synonymy and what are synonyms? BERGENHOLTZ/GOUWS (2010) discuss the notions of prescription, description and proscription. In their discussion they refer to the fact that the terms description/descriptive and prescription/prescriptive have traditionally been employed in linguistics but that they are used in lexicography in a way that deviates from their occurrence in the fi eld of linguistics. This principle of terms established in linguistics but also employed in lexicography, often in a way that deviates to a lesser or greater extent from their use in linguistics is not restricted 310 Henning Bergenholtz/Rufus Gouws to the above-mentioned terms. Such differences are actually to be expected given the fact that lexicography today functions as an independent discipline but emerged from, among others, a strong linguistically-infl uenced base. A number of terms from the fi eld of linguistics have been employed in lexicography without any attention to possible differences in these two applications. These differences may become so signifi cant that the linguistic and lexicographic uses may eventually represent two different polysemous senses of the same term, cf. BERGENHOLTZ (2009). In this paper the focus is on aspects of the lexicographic selection and presentation of synonyms but also on how items giving synonyms can be used in the access process of electronic dictionaries. This selection and presentation is underpinned by a specifi c interpretation and application of the notion of synonymy. It will be shown that although the same terms, i.e. synonym/synonymy are used in linguistics and lexicography one should work with the assumption that there are actually two different interpretations of synonyms/ synonymy, i.e. as it is used in linguistics and as it is used in lexicography. In the next section the focus will be on the linguistic interpretation of these terms and in the subsequent section a lexicographic approach to synonymy will come to the fore. In further sections the focus will be on the inclusion and use of synonyms in different types of dictionaries. From that discussion it will be clear that also in this regard some dictionaries still adhere to a linguistic approach, whereas others follow a lexicographic approach in their application of the notion of synonymy. The inclusion of synonyms in existing dictionaries will be discussed but proposals will also be made for innovative contributions in future dictionaries. The bias in this paper is towards a lexicographic interpretation and implementation of the terms synonym/synonymy, and some of the features of this type of synonymy will be illustrated and discussed. In the general language use of non-linguists the term synonym is used to refer to a word that has the same meaning as another word. Monolingual general language dictionaries, the source typically accessed by non-linguists as containers of knowledge regarding language matters, defi ne the word synonym/synonymy in a way that supports the layperson’s interpretation of these terms. THE COLLINS COBUILD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defi nes a synonym as “ ... a word or expression which means the same as another word or expression, ... “ This dictionary defi nition refl ects a similar interpretation of the term synonym as found in many linguistic discussions. Such a similarity is to be expected. Where a dictionary has to give a paraphrase of meaning of the term synonym/synonymy it has to assist the user in understanding that term as it is used in the general language as well as the way it is used as a term in the fi eld of linguistics. Therefore the explanation in the specifi c dictionary and the layman’s defi nition come quite close to the defi nition of synonymy found in linguistic textbooks, e.g. LYONS (1968:427) referring to “sameness of meaning”. 2. A linguistic perspective From a linguistic perspective synonymy is regarded as a type of sense relation, i.e. one of semantic inclusion, and defi ned as bilateral or symmetrical implication. According to an 311 Synonymy and synonyms in Lexicography explanation given by Lyons this means that if A and B are synonyms A will imply B and B will imply A, e.g. in the sentences This island lies in the middle of the sea and This island lies in the middle of the ocean a relation of synonymy will hold with sea and ocean being synonyms and implying each other, cf. LYONS (1977:292). This use of the notion of implication is used in linguistics but not in lexicography. A signifi cant addition in dictionary defi nitions of the word synonym comes to the fore in THE NEW OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH (NODE), defi ning it as “a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language... “The remark that synonyms can mean nearly the same goes against the idea that they are always words with exactly the same meaning. Especially in lexicography this point of view plays an important role. This approach also supports the belief of LYONS (1968:427) who argues against an approach sometimes prevailing in the fi eld of linguistics that two elements cannot be absolutely synonymous in one context unless they are also synonymous in all contexts. This valid perspective of Lyons leads to a well-established distinction, often found in linguistic discussions, between partial and absolute synonyms, cf. GOUWS (1996:118). In linguistic discussions it is argued that absolute synonyms, i.e. lexical items that maintain a synonymous relation in all their senses and all their occurrences, are not found very often. However, in principle provision is made for their existence. A much more frequently found relation is that of partial synonymy. This relation typically prevails where one sense of a polysemous lexical item is identical to the meaning of a monosemous lexical item or where one or more senses, but not all, of a polysemous lexical item is the same as one or more senses of another polysemous lexical item. This implies that synonymy does not demand two lexical items to have the same meaning in all their occurrences. Where one sense of a polysemous item is the same as one sense of another polysemous item it still represents a relation of synonymy even though the other senses may differ completely. This application of synonymy prevails ever so strongly in lexicography. In order to determine the “sameness of meaning” that constitutes a synonymous relation it is important to note that whilst synonymy holds between single lexical items these items need to be put into context to realise their relation of synonymy. It is not a valid remark to say that nice and pretty are synonyms. Within a context like She has a nice/pretty dress they are synonyms but they are not synonyms in a context like He talks to his children in such a nice/*pretty way. Within a linguistic perspective synonymy is not a relation only holding between words but rather between lexical items. Three frequently occurring types of lexical items are words, multiword items, e.g. fi xed expressions, and items smaller than words, e.g. stems and affi xes. The lexical items participating in a relation of synonymy do not have to be of the same type. The same meaning conveyed by a word can also be conveyed by a multiword item. The meaning of the English expression once in a blue moon can also be conveyed by the word seldom and these two items can substitute each other in a sentence like She visits me once in a blue moon/seldom. Here they are synonyms. However, in the next occurrence of seldom it cannot be substituted by the expression once in a blue moon: Seldom/*once in a blue moon have I heard so many lies in one hour. Likewise the prefi x unand the word not are synonyms in combination with tidy: untidy x not tidy, although uncannot substitute not in a combination like not legal x *unlegal. 312 Henning Bergenholtz/Rufus Gouws 3. A lexicographic perspective The lexicographic presentation and treatment of synonyms should not be confused with the paraphrase of meaning often given in the same dictionaries for the terms synonym/synonymy. As seen in the above-quoted defi nitions from COBUILD and NODE lexicographers rely on a linguistic interpretation of the notion of synonymy. The lemma synonymy is treated in terms of its linguistic value and the linguistically-determined interpretation of the average member of the speech community. This is the correct way to proceed because users consulting a dictionary are looking for the established meaning of the g

Lexicographical structuring: the number and types of fields, data distribution, searching and data presentation / Lexikographische Strukturierung: Die Anzahl und Typen der Felder, Datendistribution, Suchen und Datenpräsentation / Structuration lexicographique: le nombre et les types de champs, distribution des données, recherche et présentation des données

Abstract This contribution will not describe the structure in existing dictionaries. Instead, it will focus on the decisions that lexicographers make when they draw up the concept for and carry out the production of one or more new dictionaries, or when they consider making changes in the data presentation in an existing dictionary. This part of the lexicographical work is what we call structuring, which encompasses a number of various lexicographical decisions. One of these is choosing the fields that a database should contain. Typically, for some of these field types, it will be easy to distribute data, but for other fields it will require much consideration as there are several distribution options with different outcomes of varying usefulness. A second type of lexicographical decision to be made by the lexicographer is the predefined searching, which involves in what order searches are to be made in the different database fields and how these searches should result in a certain presentation of fields in the dictionary. An essential part of the argumentation in this contribution is based on the distinction between polyfunctional and monofunctional dictionaries. Most printed dictionaries are polyfunctional dictionaries, which are close to useless on electronic devices such as tablets and smartphones as they contain a vast amount of data. Only by producing monofunctional dictionaries is it possible to avoid information overload. In the case of monofunctional dictionaries, lexicographical structuring becomes particularly important as these dictionaries are derived from the same database but contain completely different structures.

Extraction, selection and distribution of meaning elements for monolingual information tools

Abstract In this contribution, we analyze concrete user needs in reception situations based on concrete text examples. The point of departure is that a potential dictionary user reads a text and does not understand a word or a fixed expression, and therefore he seeks help in an information tool. Our topic is how lexicographers can provide the kind of help that the dictionary user needs to solve his reception problem. In order to do this, our starting point is not: “encyclopedic items do not belong to dictionaries” or “you always have to follow a certain schema for meaning explanations”. The starting point is: what meaning elements are needed to give the dictionary user the help he seeks (here: understand a word)? And how could and should these meaning elements be incorporated, i.e. formulated and presented, in the dictionary article? Having user needs as our focus point, we try to isolate and extract data elements from a text corpus, in which we find a number of text examples, collocations, synonyms, links, images etc. Among these different types of data, we select a number of meaning elements; these meaning elements could be presented in one field (the meaning field), but in many cases they are distributed into different parts of a dictionary entry, e.g. links, lexical remarks and synonym remarks. This distribution as well as the formulation of the meaning elements will depend on the user and his needs.

Towards a definition of "communication policy", "language policy", and "language planning"

1. The need for a communication policy, language policy, or language planning Ever since God saw fit to inflict punishment on those who built the tower of Babel, there has been a need for an interlingual language policy entailing language selection in order to achieve successful communication. However, even prior to the building of the tower, first God and later Adam – under Gods tutelage – made use of an intralingual language policy when naming objects and concepts. In the beginning, God took responsibility for the naming:

KLASSIFIKATIONEN IN DER LINGUISTIK UND IN DER LEXIKOGRAPHIE: WORTARTEN UND WORTVERBINDUNGEN

Abstract Linguistics and lexicography are two different disciplines. One discipline can use terms from another discipline, but quite often it has to make its own terms or give certain terms a certain meaning in the discipline. Of historical reasons lexicography is often seen as a subdiscipline of linguistics, metalexicographers therefore quite often use linguistic terms exactly in the same way as in linguistics. This is not appropriate for a lot of reasons. The most important one is that normally - also within one and the same discipline - different terminological systems are needed for different aims: the only criteria by which a proposed scheme of classification can be judged is that of its effectiveness in attaining a certain fixed aim. This thesis is the starting and also ending point of this paper about word class and word combination categories in linguistics and lexicography.

Wörterbuchkritik in Dänemark

Prinzipiell haben ein kleines und ein großes Sprachgebiet den gleichen Bedarf an einer möglichst breiten Palette von Wörterbüchern. In gewisser Hinsicht muß man sogar einen größeren Bedarf in kleineren Sprachgebieten annehmen, da Sprecher kleinerer Sprachen viel eher zur Verwendung von fremden Sprachen gezwungen sind und somit in höherem Maße zu potentiellen Benutzern von bilingualen Wörterbüchern werden. Aber die Erfahrung lehrt, daß die finanziellen Möglichkeiten der privaten und öffentlichen Förderung von Wörterbuchprojekten sehr viel größer sind für Sprachen mit vielen Sprechern, zumindest in den westlichen Ländern. Für das Thema dieses Beitrags gilt deshalb wenn man zunächst den Wert von Wörterbuchrezensionen als Verbreitung von Benutzungsoder Kaufanregungen bzw. -abregungen voraussetzt die Aussage: Auch in einem kleinen Land wie Dänemark könnte man auf Wörterbuchrezensionen hoffen, die von der Qualität und der Quantität her sich mit denen in z.B. Deutschland messen können. Aber natürlich gibt es verhältnismäßig weniger potentielle Rezensenten und geringere Druckmöglichkeiten in Dänemark, obwohl es immerhin nicht achtzehnmal weniger Wörterbuchrezensionen mit einer achtzohnmal geringeren Qualität im Vergleich zu Deutschland gibt. In einer weiteren Hinsicht ist Wörterbuchkritik in einem relativ dicht besiedelten und geographisch kleinen Land anders als in den größeren Ländern. Das Besondere liegt darin, daß jeder jeden kennt, d.h. mit dem Wörterbuchverfasser oder dessen Tante befreundet bzw. verfeindet ist. Rezensionen, die von solchen Relationen beeinflußt sind, gibt es immer, in jedem Land, in einigen jedoch mehr als in anderen. In unserem Fall belegen viele Rezensionen die Tatsache: Dänemark ist ein sehr kleines Land. Das soll nicht heißen, daß es unmöglich ist, ein einigermaßen objektives Urteil zu fallen, wenn der Rezensent den Wörterbuchverfasser oder dessen Onkel kennt. Aber unser Eindruck nach der Lektüre von mehr als 250 Wörterbuchrezensionen ist es doch, daß oft sehr negative oder sehr positive Bewertungen zu sehr von persönlichen Zuund Abneigungen abhängen. Nach dieser unfreundlichen Andeutung wollen wir sofort einen Rückzieher machen. Wir

Linguistic Terms in German and English Dictionaries

Linguistic terminology is not only described in dictionaries but also used, and thus occupies a special place among languages for specific purposes. A surprisingly large number of linguistic terms occur as lemmas in general-purpose dictionaries. The quality of the explanations, however, leaves much to be desired. Frequently, they are both difficult for the layman to follow and do not adequately reflect actual usage in linguistic science. Furthermore, there is an astonishing lack of congruence between the explanations given for grammatical terms and their use in the dictionary itself. As in many other areas of lexicography, a closer look reveals that although a great deal of effort and many good ideas go into the making of dictionaries, consistency, precision and reliability are still rare virtues.