Studies on Multilingual Lexicography

María José Domínguez Vázquez, Mónica Mirazo Balsa, Carlos Valcárcel Riveiro, María José Domínguez Vázquez, Mónica Mirazo Balsa, Carlos Valcárcel Riveiro

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783110604672
• eBook ISBN: 9783110607277
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Given the new technological advances and their influence and imprint in the design and development of dictionaries and lexicographic resources, it seems important to put together a series of publications that address this new situation, dealing in particular with multilingual and electronic lexicography in an increasingly digital, multilingual and multicultural society. This is the main objective of this volume, which is structured in two central aspects. In the first of them the concept of multilingual lexicography is discussed in regard to the influence that the Internet and the application of digital technologies have exercised and continue to exercise both in the conception and design of dictionaries and new lexicographic application tools as well as the emergence of new types of users and forms of consultation. The role of the dictionary must necessarily be related to social development and changes. In the second thematic section, different dictionaries and resources that focus on a multilingual and electronic approach to the linguistic data for their lexicographical treatment and consultation are presented.

Section 1:Multilingual
electronic lexicography in a new society

Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera and Henning Bergenholtz

Towards a new definition of multilingual lexicography in the era of internet

Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera: International Centre for Lexicography, University of Valladolid (Spain), Department of Afrikaans and Dutch, University of Stellenbosh (South Africa), Plaza del Campus 1, 47011, Valladolid, tel. [phone], [email protected]

Henning Bergenholtz: Centre for Lexicography, University of Aarhus (Denmark), Department of Afrikaans and Dutch, University of Stellenbosh (South Africa), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria (South Africa), College of Foreign Studies, University of Jinan (China), Centre for Lexicography, School of Communication and Culture, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V (Denmark), [email protected]

Abstract: This chapter reviews the traditional concept of multilingual lexicography and offers some examples of traditionally conceived multilingual lexicographic projects that are abundant in the era of the Internet: IATE; The Logos Dictionary; The Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana Multilingüe. Our analysis shows that this traditional approach is erroneous and does not help potential users. Consequently, we offer a different approach, which stems from our definition of multilingual lexicography as the theory and practice of unified and well-connected monolingual, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries using data from a multilingual database. These dictionaries are information tools that cover words, terms, facts, and/or things in several languages, have the same conceptualization at the pre-compilation phase, and make use of lexicographic and technological know-how. This allows (a) lexicographers to add new languages to the same information database from which new monolingual, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries can be extracted, and (b) users to retrieve connected data easily and to spot and understand possible similarities and differences among the several languages covered. We also illustrate the operational side of this definition in some of our accounting dictionaries.

Keywords: multilingual lexicography, e-lexicography, function theory, dictionary writing system, integrated information tools

1Introduction

Although the coming of age of the Internet has brought about many changes and modifications to lexicography, it has not affected the core of lexicography, i.e. the aspects and elements common to all dictionaries and other lexicographic reference works regardless of their nomenclature (Fuertes-Olivera/Bergenholtz 2011, Fuertes-Olivera/Tarp 2014, Tarp 20084). These are information tools that are designed and compiled for assisting specific types of users to satisfy their punctual information needs in specific types of extra-lexicographic situations in a quick and easy way. This has several implications, but one that is relevant for this chapter is the idea that users, lexicographic data and access routes –the three core lexicographic elements− are interconnected, and, therefore, whatever modification is made in any of them must be approached holistically, both in theory and in practice.

A holistic approach basically means that any important change in, let us say, the way lexicographic data are searched for may also affect target users and access routes. For instance, a lexicographic project using literary works as source data and targeting native speakers does not need links to external corpus data. The merits of links to such data may not compensate for the amount of time and resources needed for preparing the corpus, selecting the concordances, paragraphs, hyperlinks and so on, especially as most target users –native speakers in this hypothetical case− require only a few examples and contexts of use for disambiguating the meaning and usage of most lemmas.

Lexicographic modifications and changes are more typically connected with the specifics of lexicography, i.e. the lexicographic features that make a particular dictionary or reference work different from others. The specifics of lexicography highlight the interdisciplinary vocation of lexicography and its connections with many other different disciplines. This interdisciplinary vocation also explains the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to dictionary making. For instance, the conception of an online dictionary cannot take place without IT knowledge (Bergenholtz/Nielsen 2013). Similarly, crafting definitions of, for instance, accounting terms is inconceivable without accounting knowledge (Fuertes-Olivera/Tarp 2014). Many dictionary projects fail or result in poor quality reference works (e.g. IATE) because they do not adopt a holistic approach, i.e. one in which user’s needs as well as lexicographic data and access routes to these data are conceptualised holistically and evaluated in terms of cost and time.

This chapter proposes a modification of the concept of multilingual lexicography as this is traditionally understood and used (Section 2). Our proposal respects the core and specifics of lexicography in the era of the Internet, employs some of the technical possibilities idiosyncratic lexicographic databases (i.e. storage systems specially prepared and designed for a particular lexicographic project) offer, and provides an illustration of our work in several lexicographic projects; in these we have prepared an array of changes and modifications, all of which take into consideration the holistic relationship among the three main components of lexicography (Section 3). A final conclusion summarises the main ideas discussed (Section 4).

2Multilingual lexicography: traditional view

In traditional lexicographic thinking, monolingual lexicography is understood as the part (of lexicography) dealing with the theory and practice of dictionaries covering one language. Similarly, bilingual lexicography is concerned with the theory and practice of dictionaries which incorporate two languages, and multilingual lexicography with these criteria in dictionaries covering three or more languages. In this traditional view, a dictionary is apparently only about words. We believe that this view is a fallacy and, therefore, we advocate and adopt a broader view of dictionary, i.e. a lexicographic tool that deals with words, terms, facts and things. However, for the purpose of this chapter we will use language or words as an umbrella term for these four items.

Traditional lexicographers also describe several subtypes of monolingual, bilingual or multilingual dictionaries, which are grouped in terms of the number of languages used. Regarding monolingual lexicography, lexicographers typically use the lemma language L1 (= A) and the explanation language in L1 (in most cases), or in L2 for dictionary users with L2 as the mother language (Figure 1):

Fig. 1: Typical Monolingual Dictionary

There may be some differences, such as in particular the presence of variants of A in the lemma list of certain dictionaries, e.g. a dictionary of Spanish in which the lemma list also includes variants of Mexican Spanish, Cuban Spanish, or of some dialect, e.g. Andalusian. Figure 2 shows this sub-type of monolingual dictionaries:

Fig. 2: Monolingual Dictionaries with Lemma Variants

Regarding bilingual lexicography, the situation is similar, although here there are more models or subtypes of dictionaries. Firstly, the lemma list of unidirectional dictionaries contains lemmas from L1 (= A) and the equivalent list contains explanations in L1, L2 (= B) or in both L1 and L2 (Figure 3):

Fig. 3: Unidirectional Bilingual Dictionaries

Secondly, if the lemma list contains lemmas with variants of L1, lexicographers also include variants of A (Figure 4):

Fig. 4: Unidirectional Bilingual Dictionaries with Variants of Lemmas

Thirdly, in very few cases, the equivalent list also contains variants of B (Figure 5):

Fig. 5: Unidirectional Bilingual Dictionaries with Variants of Lemmas and Equivalents

Fourthly, the lemma list of bidirectional dictionaries contains lemmas from L1 (= A) and the equivalent list from L2 (= B) with explications in both directions in L1, L2 or in both L1 and L2 (Figure 6):

Fig. 6: Bidirectional Bilingual Dictionaries

Finally, variants of both A and B can also be included in the lemma list (Figure 7):

Fig. 7: Bidirectional Bilingual Dictionaries with Variants of Lemmas and Equivalents

Regarding multilingual lexicography, the situation is usually simpler: there is a lemma list of A (with or without variants of A) and two or more equivalent lists (B, C, D, E, etc.) also with or without variants (Figures 8 and 9). Items of meaning, collocations, examples, grammar data types and so on are not normally included:

Fig. 8: Typical Multilingual Dictionaries

Fig. 9: Multilingual Dictionaries with variants of Lemmas and Equivalents

The above models (represented as Figure 1 to 9) are widespread and can be easily illustrated with examples taken from either print or online lexicographic projects. For the purpose of this chapter, we will focus on three online lexicographic projects that represent widespread practice in traditionally-conceived lexicographic circles: (a) InterActive Terminology for Europe (IATE), (b) The Logos Dictionary and (c) the Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana Multilingüe.

2.1InterActive Terminology for Europe (IATE)

On the homepage of the Inter-Active Terminology for Europe (IATE), we are informed that IATE is the “EU inter-institutional terminology database”. An analysis of publications and Internet documents on IATE shows that it has been used in EU institutions and agencies since 2004 for the collection, dissemination and management of EU-specific t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Studies on multilingual lexicography: an introduction
• Section 1: Multilingual electronic lexicography in a new society
• Section 2: Multilingual electronic dictionaries