Phraseology in the Dictionary
Obviously, if we are linguists, if what we are doing is English philology, we are bound to learn to cope with words, to find a way of handling them, which is incomparably more difficult than, for example, discovering and describing grammatical categories the number of which is strictly limited.
As for words, we cannot arrive even at an approximate number of units actually in use. Nowhere can we find exact data to prove that this or that person or this or that community uses so many hundreds or thousands of words? Attempts have, however, been made to apply statistical analysis to the study of vocabularies used, for instance, by this or that social group. But the results have been so contradictory and unconvincing that they simply could not be used in scientific work.
To discover the object of our research we should turn to dictionaries especially as we are well provided for with a number of reliable English word‑books. But even the best and biggest dictionaries, as has been shown above, are often inconsistent as far as the organization and presentation of lexical material is concerned. Lexicographers frequently base the dictionary entry on the use of words in different contexts, thus presenting a number of ‘meanings’ whose actual existence is far from proved.
Outstanding Russian lexicographers have repeatedly drawn attention to the still prevalent mistake of non‑discrimination of the meanings and the various uses of words. In what follows we shall tackle this all‑important problem and view it through the prism of different kinds of lexicographic phraseology.
When we carry out the semantic analysis of words the only source of information is an enormous collection of files, which in the case of a large monolingual academic dictionary comprise millions of entries. Words are registered by lexicographers in as many texts as possible where they regularly occur within typical utterances. These contexts or phrases are generally included in historical dictionaries of the «New English Dictionary» type. Only by analysing and comparing various uses of the word which have already been registered we can arrive at its meanings, that is its semantic structure as a linguistic unit.
But when we speak about linguistics in general and lexicology in particular we must not forget about the indissoluble connection between the language and speech, between what has been done, registered and achieved and what is on the point of being done or produced. Side by side with the registered uses of words which are collected in historical dictionaries there is the never ceasing process of speech, the endlessly recurring usage of language. The crucial point, then, is to find a way of adapting the data of the files to the requirements of dictionary entries.
|
|
|
To solve this problem we should dwell at some length on those phrases which form the greater part of a dictionary entry. If we look at lexicographic material we shall see that there is a crossplay of a number of phrases with the lexeme in question. They are generally described as ‘philological phraseology’, that is, the already registered uses of the word in various written and spoken texts. This forms the basis of a word semantic analysis.
The different meanings thus arrived at are then described with the help of what is best denoted as ‘semiotic phraseology’, that is the definitions which have been worked out by the lexicographer. These phrases belong to the domain of interlinguistics and are, in a way, opposed to those phrases which are part of general usage. Phrases of this kind, as a rule, are somewhat stilted and may produce a comic effect, if used in everyday speech. To illustrate this point let us turn to a passage from «Gulliver’s Travels», where we find a description of the contents of Gulliver’s pockets as given by the Lilliputians:
After the strictest Search, we found only one great Piece of coarse Cloth, large enough to be a Foot‑Cloth for Your Majesty’s chief Room of State. In his right Waistcoat‑Pocket, we found a prodigious Bundle of white thin Substances, folded one over another, about the Bigness of three Men, tied with a strong Cable, and marked with black Figures; which we humbly conceive to be Writings; every Letter almost half as large as the Palm of our Hands. In the left there was a sort of Engine, from the Back of which were extended twenty long Poles, resembling the Pallisado’s before Your Majesty’s Court; wherewith we conjecture the Man Mountain combs his Head. In the large Pocket on the right side of his middle Cover we saw a hollow Pillar of Iron, about the Length of a Man fastened to a strong Piece of Timber, larger than the Pillar; and upon one side of the Pillar we saw huge Pieces of Iron sticking out, cut into strange Figures: which we know not what to make of. In the smaller Pocket on the right Side, were several round flat Pieces of white and red Metal, of different Bulk: Some of the white which seemed to be Silver, were so large and heavy, that my Comrade and I could hardly lift them. In the left Pocket were two black Pillars irregularly shaped: we could not, without Difficulty, reach the Top of them as we stood at the Bottom of his Pocket: One of them was covered, and seemed all of a piece; but at the upper End of the other, there appeared a white round Substance, about twice the bigness of our Heads: Within each of these was inclosed a prodigious Plate of Steel which, by our Orders, we obliged him to show us, because we apprehended they might be dangerous Engines. He took them out of their Cases, and told us, that in his own Country his Practice was to shave his Beard with one of these, and to cut his Meat with the other. There were two Pockets which we could not enter: These he called his Fobs. Out of the right Fob hung a great Silver Chain, with a wonderful kind of Engine at the bottom. We directed him to draw out whatever was at the End of that Chain; which appeared to be a Globe, half Silver, and half of the transparent Metal. He put this Engine to our Ears, which made an incessant Noise like that of a Water‑Mill. And we conjecture it is either some unknown animal or the God that he worships. From the left Fob he took out a Net almost as large enough for a Fisherman, but contrived to open and shut like a Purse, and served him for the same Use:
|
|
|
We found therein several massy Pieces of yellow Metal, which if they be of real Gold, must be of immense Value.
The text is downright comic. But it does give the reader an idea of the nature of definitions, their semiotic character. At the same time we must admit that it would be a mistake to believe that definitions generally cannot be expressed by means of natural languages and should be based on special semiotic system. Lexicographic definitions may be described as ‘semiotic phraseology’ to indicate that in this case word‑combinations serve a particular purpose – a logical description of the semantics of the word.
Having established the semantic structure, and worked out the definition, the lexicographer concentrates on ‘illustrative’ phraseology, that is word‑combinations or sentences made up to show how the word is actually used in speech, the descriptive approach no longer dominating over the prescriptive one.
It follows that the difference between ‘philological’ and ‘illustrative’ phraseology is purely functional: there are no phrases which could be regarded as belonging solely (or exclusively) to the former or the latter, they can all be used as philological material and presented as proof of the actual existence of the word (or its different meanings), as proof of the word actually being part of the word‑stock of the language in question.
This brings us to a very difficult issue of the use of quotations for lexicographic purposes.
Дата добавления: 2018-05-09; просмотров: 603; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!