Adamska-Sałaciak, Dictionary definitions. Problems and solutions

7/27/2019 Adamska-Saaciak, Dictionary definitions. Problems and solutions

1/18

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 129 supplementum (2012)

DOI .7/8SL...8

ARLETA ADAMSKA-SAACIAKAdam Mickiewicz University, [email protected]

DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS:

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS*

Keywords: denition, exicogrphy, mening, erners dictionries

Abstract

Te aim o the present article is threeold: to examine certain problems inherent in

dictionry dening; to discuss the most importnt chnges tht hve been impementeds soutions to some o the probems; to evute the new probems which hve risen s

side eects o the solutions. Finally, the historical precedents o a number o the al-

ternative dening techniques are also considered, in an attempt to put the issue into

perspective.

0. Introduction

Numerous probems regrding denitions hve been identied over the pst decdes

nd mny dierent wys o deing with them hve been proposed. In order to min-

tin specic ocus, ony exicogrphic denitions wi be exmined (nd not, or

instnce, ogic denitions), nd ony principed denition probems wi be d-

dressed (s opposed to ws which my be the resut o poor exicogrphic prctice).

* Te pper is written version o the penry ddress deivered on Apri t the st AnnuConerence o the Poish Assocition or the Study o Engish (PASE) in Krkw.

Zgusta (:) characterises the dierence between the logical and the lexicographicdenition s oows:

wheres the ogic denition must unequivocy identiy the dened object (the denien-dum) in such a way that it is both put in a denite contrast against everything else that isdenbe nd positivey nd unequivocy chrcterized s member o the cosest css,the exicogrphic denition enumertes ony the most importnt semntic etures o thedened exic unit which suce to dierentite it rom other units.


2/18

2 ARLETA ADAMSKASAACIAK

Simiry, the soutions discussed wi be restricted to those rrived t within exicog-rphy (rther thn within inguistics or phiosophy), nd ony improvements to the

denition itse wi be considered (rther thn modictions to other eements o the

microstructure, such s usge bes, exmpes, or pictori iustrtions). It shoud

so be emphsised tht ony dictionries or humn users, nd not dictionries orcomputer ppictions, wi be exmined.

Despite this, we cnnot ignore the ct tht, historicy, dictionry denitions

hve their roots in phiosophy. Consequenty, most o the probems identied beow

rise, one wy or nother, rom the imittions o the denition ormt which or

centuries hd remined unchenged in the West: the cssic (nytic, Aristo-tein) denition. Tis is the kind where the deniendum (the item being dened) is

rst subsumed under more gener ctegory nd then circumscribed with the hep

o the eature(s) necessary to distinguish it rom other members o that category.Tus, the defniens (the right-hand side, dening, part o the denition) consistso a hyperonym o the deniendum i.e., the name o the closest superordinate

ctegory (genus proximum) nd sm set o distinguishing etures (dierentiae

specicae). Te oowing is simpe exmpe:

square rectnge whose sides re o equ ength,

where square is the deniendum, rectangle the genus proximum, nd the rest o

the deniens species the dierenti ( singe one being sucient in this cse).

1. Problems and solutions

1.1. Circularity

wo kinds o denition circurity re commony recognised: direct nd indirect.

Te ormer so ced n intern circe (Svensn : ) occurs when exi-

c item is dened by itse (A=A), s in:

branch prt o tree tht grows out rom the RUNK (= min stem) nd tht hs

eves, ruit, nd smer brnches growing rom it (LDOCE5)3

It is a common belie among metalexicographers that conusing the two types leads toprobems:

[]s Psc observed, the entire dening trdition deveoped by ogicins nd phioso-phers ies outside tht o dictionries. () much conusion hs risen s resut o theeorts o mny ter thinkers, especiy Leibniz, to ppy this trdition to dictionries(Rey : ).

Proposs put orwrd by inguists (e.g. Wierzbick ) re primriy o interest to (nd in-terpretbe by) other inguists, without being directy ppicbe to the compition o gener-purpose dictionries.

3 Troughout, ony those prts o the denitions re quoted which re reevnt to the discus-sion. A grmmtic nd phonetic inormtion is omitted. Dictionry tites re given in uin the Reerences.


3/18

Dictionary denitions: problems and solutions 25

Te tter terntivey known s n extern circe does not remin within the

connes o singe denition, but ects t est two denitions, with two or more

exic items being used to dene ech other, e.g.:

crash n ccident in which vehice vioenty hits something ese (A = B)

accident crsh invoving crs, trins, pnes etc. (B = A)

(LDOCE4)

Te circle can, o course, be extended, e.g. A = B, B = C, C = D,

D = A .

No principled remedy or circularity is known. Indirect circularity cannot bevoided when the presenttion nguge (i.e. the nguge o description) o pr-

ticular dictionary is the same as its object language (i.e. the language being de-scribed). As resut, monoingu dictionries suer rom circurity; it is just

question o the size o the circe. Ntury, the rger the circe, the ess ikey it

is to be noticed by the user.

It goes without sying tht circurity (especiy direct) shoud be voided when-

ever possibe nd it certiny woud hve been possibe in the two exmpes justquoted. Even so, we suggest tht, whie uncceptbe to the ogicin, or the verge

dictionary user a vicious circle is less o a problem than is commonly assumed.4For instnce, the denition obranch bove,though circur, is both interpretbe

nd inormtive. Te denitions ocrash nd accident, whie more dicut to deend,re not competey without merit, either: erner who knows the mening o one

o the nouns may still learn something rom the denition o the other (and they

wi probby hve no need to consut denition o miir item, thus remin-

ing unaware o the circularity). All o this is not meant to condone denitional

circularity as such, merely to argue that, while undesirable, it need not always be

detriment to understnding.

1.2. Obscurity

Unike circurity, whose dngers tend to be exggerted in the metexicogrphiciterture, obscurity rey is serious probem. As mousy decred by Dr Johnson

(: Prece), [t]o expin requires the use o terms ess bstruse thn tht which

is to be expined mxim s se-evident s it is dicut to oow.

1.2.1. Dening obscurum per obscurius

Te bstruseness Johnson wrned ginst is tntmount to committing the ogic

error o dening the incomprehensibe by the sti ess comprehensibe (obscurum

per obscurius). o tke the denition osandbeow s n exmpe, certin eements

4 Circurity is nthem not ony to ogicins nd ogicy-minded inguists (ike e.g. Wierz-bick 3), but so to mny exicogrphers. Lndu (: ), or instnce, is convincedtht circurity does not just mke things dicut it mkes them impossibe. No mounto diigence on the prt o the reder cn penetrte the brrier o circurity.


4/18


o the deniens (e.g. comminuted, silicious) re much more dicut nd much ess

used thn the deniendum:

sand a material consisting o comminuted ragments and water-worn particles o

rocks (miny siicious) ner thn those o which grve is composed (OED3)

Tis kind o obscurity ollows rom the nature o things. It cannot be avoided in

the cse o simpe deniend, tht is, bsic, everydy words, which re impossibe

to prphrse using words which re even simper. Even so, it is worth noting tht

in ntive-speker dictionries degree o obscurity is not just inevitbe, but prob-

by expected s we. I, or whtever reson, speker o Engish decides to ookup sandin dictionry, they presumby re serching or more thn n expn-

tion o what the word means. Tey are, thereore, unlikely to be surprised when

conronted by rrer, more dicut words (though not necessriy bycomminuted!),nd wi in ikeihood be prepred or the necessity o perorming doube or even

mutipe ookup.

Te sitution is, o course, very dierent in the cse o oreign users, or whom

obscurity is serious, ofen insurmountbe, obstce. Tis is probby why ttempts

at preventing it have come mainly rom the compilers o monolingual learnersdictionaries (MLDs). Beore discussing these attempts, however, it is necessary to

tke brie ook t nother common mniesttion o denition obscurity.

1.2.2. Lexicographese

In ddition to the obscurity which is n inherent spect o the dening enterprise,

there is yet another kind, born in response to the problem o space limitations in

(print) dictionaries. In an eort to ensure optimum use o space, dierent space-sving devices hve been introduced e.g. bbrevitions, sshes, nd tides; omit-

ting rtices; pcing ddition or option inormtion in prentheses with the

result that the elliptical language o dictionary denitions has gradually evolved

into something markedly dierent rom the way people normally write, let alone

speak. Critics (e.g. Hanks ) have dubbed this type o language lexicographese

or dictionarese.As with denitions tht re guity oobscurum per obscurius, those couched in

exicogrphese pose prticur dicuty or nguge erners, who, in ddition to

hving to cope with oreign nguge, need to mster this speci code. Even i they

Logically, one possibility would be to rerain rom dening such words altogether, in linewith wht hs been proposed, mong others, by Wierzbick (: ):

One cnnot dene all words becuse the very ide o dening impies tht there isnot ony something to be dened ( deniendum) but so something to dene it with( deniens, or rther, set o denienses). Te eements which cn be used to dene

the mening o words (or ny other menings) cnnot be dened themseves; rther,they must be ccepted s indenibii, tht is, s semntic primes, in terms o which compex menings cn be coherenty represented.

Tis is non-strter or gener-purpose dictionries, which hve to dene, i not all words,then certiny the most common ones, nd those incude rge proportion o simpe, bsicvocbury.


5/18


re redy miir with some o the conventions, hving used dictionries o their

ntive tongue, exicogrphese pces n extr burden on them. Te oowing deni-

tion, tken rom dictionry mous or its highy condensed stye, gives us tste

o the probem:

wise (O person) hving, (o ction, course o ction, speech, opinion, etc.) dictted

by or in hrmony with or showing, experience nd knowedge judiciousy ppied;

(COD7)

1.2.3. Minimising obscurity

It will have become clear by now that, like circularity, denitional obscurity can-

not be completely eliminated. Unlike with circularity, however, there are ways o

exercising eve o dmge contro.

1.2.3.1. Controlled defning vocabulary

In order to minimise the dnger oobscurum per obscurius, the exicogrpher cn

dhere to controed dening vocbury (DV), i.e. not go beyond n greed upon

ist o words dmissibe in the deniens. Te underying ssumption is tht the words

incuded in such ist wi be miir to the trget user o the dictionry.

Te use o DV ws pioneered in 3 byTe New Method English Dictionary, the

rst monoingu Engish erners dictionry (Cowie : 4). As stted in its prece,

[t]his Engish Dictionry is written especiy or the oreigner. It expins to him,

in words which he knows, the meaning o words and idioms which he does notknow (NMED: iv).

As ew s ,4 words were used in NMED to dene round 4, vocbury items.

NMEDs innovtion remined n isoted occurrence or over orty yers. It ws

ony fer the ide o restricted dening vocbury ws (re)introduced in by

the newy pubished Longman Dictionary o Contemporary English tht it mnged

to gin the ttention it deserved. ody, most Engish MLDs use dening vocbu-

laries which range in size rom , to 3, words (to dene ca , items).Beow is recent exmpe:

sand substnce consisting o very sm pieces o rocks nd miners, tht orms

beches nd deserts (LDOCE5)

It would be absurd to claim that the use o a DV has reed this denition rom

obscurity: erner o Engish who does not know wht sandmens wi probby

not know the menings o some o the words used in the deniens either. Sti, c-

cepting that obscurity is a matter o degree, it is hard to see what else could have

been done to reduce it even urther.

1.2.3.2. Full-sentence defnition

Te credit or doing the most to eliminate lexicographese goes to the CollinsCOBUILD English Language Dictionary. As explained in detail by Hanks (),


6/18


in striving to make denitions more user-riendly, COBUILD moved away romthe cssic denition nd towrds wht were beieved to be ntury occurring,

olk dening strategies. Te result was the so-called contextual or ull-sentence

denition (FSD), s iustrted beow:

wise Someone who is wise is be to use their experience nd knowedge in order to

mke sensibe or resonbe decisions or judgements.

dream When you drem, you see imginry pictures nd events in your mind whieyou re seep.

kickI you kick someone or something, you hit them orceuy with your oot.

kill o ki person, nim, pnt, or other iving thing mens to cuse the person

or thing to die.

(COBUILD)

Looking t these exmpes, one cn see not ony tht they ech tke the orm o u

sentence, but so tht they shre number o etures: no bbrevitions, prentheses,

or tides re owed; the deniendum is wys repeted in the ef-hnd side prt o

the deniens, demonstrting how the hedword behves in context; second person

pronouns re used to ddress the reder directy, s i tking to them. Te denitions

o verbs vry sighty, depending on the kind o ction prticur verb describes.

Te over eect my sti not be the ide which FSDs im t i.e. wht prent

would say to a child, or a teacher to a student, when explaining the meaning o word but it is certiny very dierent rom exicogrphese.

1.3. Missing hyperonyms

1.3.1. Gaps in hierarchies

Te cssic Aristotein denition is most suitbe or those sections o the exicon

which dispy cer hierrchic orgnistion. As noted by Schreyer (: 3), redy

Locke sw tht consistent dening bygenus nd dierentia presupposed consistenty

hierrchic, gp-ree system o menings hrdy reistic ssumption, given thtnguges re not wys so mde ccording to the rues o ogic tht every term cnhve its signiction excty nd cery expressed by two others (Locke : III,

iii, ). O the two constituents o cssic deniens, it is the genus term (hyper-

onym) which cuses more probems, ofen proving either extremey eusive or simpy

non-existent. Even concrete nouns, the ctegory with which the cssic denitionegedy copes best, re not competey immune to this dicuty.

It might seem tht the impossibiity o nding suitbe hyperonym is prob-

em or dictionry compiers rther thn their users. In ct, things re ofen more

compicted. Tis is becuse the hyperonym probem sometimes overps with thethret o obscurity, orcing the exicogrpher to choose between genus term which

is miir but inccurte nd one which is correct but unmiir. Tus, the wordcup isdened s containerin MLDs, even though cup is, t best, mrginmember o the continer ctegory. Cups beong to the ctegory o drinking vesses,


7/18


but cing cup drinking vesselin erners dictionry woud denitey be coun-

terproductive. (Admittedly, most users will not worry about a cup being called

continer, yet those who do stop to consider the mtter or even undertke urther

investigations may be surprised not to nd an image o a cup among the twenty-six pictures iustrting the concept o continer inMEDAL nd LDOCE5.)

1.3.2. Dispensing with hyperonyms

Te obvious soution to the probem is to resort to denition ormt which cn

do without hyperonyms. wo o the strategies that meet this requirement will be

discussed beow.

1.3.2.1. Extensional defnition

Tis type o denition proves especially helpul in cases when the deniendum isa general category, hard to subsume under a yet more general one. An extensional

denition gives exmpes o the hedwords rnge o denottion, i.e. points to objects

in the word to which the word cn be ppied. Tus, insted o iming t hypero-

nym o the headword, it lists some o its hyponyms or, rather than going up one

eve, it descends step down rom the eve t which the deniendum is situted.

An extension denition cn be used either on its own or in tndem with (some

eements o) n intension denition, e.g.:

urniture the chirs, tbes, beds, cupbords etc tht you put in room or house so

tht you cn ive in it (MEDAL)

Te prt up to nd incuding etc is n extension denition; the rest is the dieren-

ti specic o cssic (intension) denition. Compre this with the exmpe

beow, which strts s n intension denition, with genus term, nd continues

extensiony, with ist o typic subordintes:

urniture rge objects such s chirs, tbes, beds, nd cupbords (LDOCE5)

Given that large objects is not a very convincing hyperonym ourniture (it is too

general and carries no inormation which would not already be conveyed by thehyponyms), theMEDAL denition seems preerbe.

1.3.2.2. Single-clause when-defnition9

Te singe-cuse denition is nother technique which does not rey on the pres-

ence o hyperonym. Some MLDs resort to it when dening bstrct nouns, e.g.:

See Admsk-Scik () or more extensive bckground to the discussion. Synthetic denition, i.e. denition vi synonym or series o synonyms, is so possibiity

in some cses. Unike n intension denition, which tries to cpture the essence o the ctegory nmed by

the deniendum, usuy by suppying its genus proximum nd dierentie. Te term single clause when-denition ws coined by Lew nd Dzieminko (). Te de-

nition in question does not wys hve to be introduced bywhen, though this is by r themost requent cse.


8/18


revival when something becomes popur gin (LDOCE4)

sizehow rge or sm something is (MEDAL)

Like the u-sentence denition, this pproch is sometimes tken to be bsed on

wht hppens in spontneous, ok dening.

1.4. Neglecting nondenotative meaning

Semnticists my not be in compete greement s to the exct nture o men-

ing, but one spect seems iry uncontroversi: whtever mening is, it is not

denotation alone. Tereore, i dictionary denitions are to supply users withinormtion bout the menings o exic items, they cnnot restrict themseves

to speciying their conditions or denottion. Unortuntey, sometimes tht is they do.

1.4.1. Limitations o reerentbased denitions

Te centrality o denotation in dictionary denitions is reected in the requent

reduction o denition or dictionry mening to denottive mening. Tis seems

to be another by-product o the traditional genus-cum-dierentia model, which

is clearly reerent-oriented. By contrast, aspects such as expressive and evocative

mening or vit prgmtic inormtion re requenty overooked or, t best, mr-

ginised. Te probem is especiy cute when the dictionry ttempts to expinthe mening o xed (ofen gurtive) expression through short (wys iter)

prphrse. Occsiony, usge be (e.g. inormal, pejorative, humorous) my be

o hep, but bes re, s rue, too crude when it comes to pinpointing the subte-

ties o connottive nd ttitudin mening.

Tere re good resons why peope use pre-constructed phrses insted o sying

the sme thing directy, in their own words. Fixed expressions ow spekers to

distance themselves rom what they are saying, to take the edge o whatever it is

they wish to communicate by ltering it through shared cultural experience and

soci vues. Tnks to this indirectness, such expressions cn unction s poite-ness devices, creting soidrity, expressing sympthy, nd mitigting judgements(Moon : ). Cpturing this in convention, ormuic denition is

truy chenging tsk.

1.4.2. Going beyond denotation

What we need in order to capture non-denotative meaning is, essentially, a de-

nition capable o dening a word without describing the thing behind the word.

Te subject o olk dening has not been sufciently explored. For an early discussion, seeMnes (); or the resuts o recent experiment study, see Fbiszewski-Jworski ().

C. the oowing pssge rom n introduction to semiotics:

Denottion tends to be described s the denition, iter, obvious or commonsensemening o sign. In the cse o inguistic signs, the denottive mening is wht the diction-ry ttempts to provide (Chnder : 4).


9/18


Such denitions sometimes ced metinguistic (Geererts 3: ) hve ong

been used in the tretment o exic items devoid o reerents, such s grmmti-

c (unction) words or words whose mening is soey prgmtic (e.g. hello,sorry).

Tese dys, they re so used incresingy ofen though perhps not ofen enough

or deing with convention muti-word units.

Tus, insted o dening n expression by describing its reerent (i.e. the thing

or situation named), a metalinguistic denition ocuses on how the expression is

used. It strts with phrse such s: (is) used to/or, when you/peope sy,you call sb a, and proceeds to speciy the unction(s) which the expression

serves in communication. Many metalinguistic denitions are at the same time

u-sentence denitions; some consist o more thn one sentence. As n iustrtion,

et us ook t how one eding MLD expins the pprenty simpe phrsejust (good)

riends (in the entry orriend), oering vube prgmtic inormtion bout thesort o sitution in which the phrse is conventiony used nd simutneousy

beit indirecty bout the ikey ttitude o the speker:

just (good) friends used or emphsizing tht two peope re not hving romntic

retionship. Peope sometimes use this expression to suggest tht two peope rey re

hving romntic retionship, even though they cim they re not. (MEDAL2)

A denition like this would have been unimaginable, say, orty years ago, when

dictionries were sti heviy restrined by expecttions o presenttion economy.

It would have been perceived as too chatty, not streamlined or elegant enough not to mention the ct tht, becusejust (good) riends is seemingy trnsprent

phrse, most dictionries woud not hve bothered to record it t .

1.5. Encyclopaedic contamination

Te difculties in conveying non-denotative meaning are not the only trouble-

some consequence o the reerent-oriented nture o the cssic denition ormt.

A reted probem is how to seprte inguistic rom encycopedic inormtion in

the denitions o nouns (the only part o speech eaturing in both kinds o reer-ence work). o be precise, this is ony probem or those who beieve in the necessityo such seprtion, but unti recenty tht ment most everyone.

Any ttempt to ensure tht no encycopedic inormtion whtsoever nds its wyinto dictionry denitions is, o course, doomed to iure. Rey (: ) ppers to

be stting the obvious when he sys tht

[t]he classical opposition between denitions o words and denitions o things,

discussed especially in the th and th centuries, is hardly satisactory () word

nd thing re too bruty contrsted.

In some exicogrphic trditions, distinction is mde between two types o dictionries: thosemore stricty inguistic nd those tht ow resonbe mount o encycopedic inorm-tion. Accordingy, the French distinguish between dictionnaires de mots nd dictionnaires dechoses; the Germns hve Sprachwrterbchernd Sachwrterbcher.


10/18


All the same, much has been written about how one should dene so-called nat-

ural-kind words (names o plants, animals, minerals) without contaminating thepurey inguistic denition with inormtion which beongs in n encycopedi. It is

not beyond the rems o possibiity tht certin pioneers o Engish exicogrphy

may have been trying to address this problem when they produced the ollowing

denitions:

Dog, best (Kersey )

Cat, we-known creture (Kersey )

Horse, best we known (Biey)3

However, it is rther unikey tht such denitions ctuy were the resut o their

authors respect or the dictionary-encyclopaedia boundary. Kersey and Baileyprobably considered it pointless to invest more eort in dening common wordswhich, they suspected, no-one woud ever ook up.

Historic considertions side, the controversy over ntur-kind words nd,

in gener, over wht constitutes inguistic s opposed to encycopedic knowedge

is o little interest to ordinary dictionary users. It is also not a problem or those

strnds o contemporry inguistics (such s cognitive semntics) which beieve tht

the two kinds o knowedge orm continuum.

In sum, rather like the problem o circularity, this, too, appears to have been

blown out o proportion.4

Te dictionary denition o a particular word shouldnot be identic to the denition o the sme word in n encycopedi, but tht cn

be chieved iry esiy, without going to extremes. It seems resonbe to incude

ony s much extringuistic inormtion in the denition s is ikey to be known

to the verge ntive speker nd rerin rom citing cts known ony to experts

(even i the exicogrpher hppens to be in possession o such cts nd is, thereore,

tempted to imprt the knowedge to his reders).

1.6. Alienating the user

1.6.1. Conficting worldviews

Whie the probem o distinguishing between inguistic nd encycopedic know-

edge is somewht cdemic, tking dictionry users wordviews into ccount seems

very re by comprison. It is the ony probem mong those discussed which is not consequence o the cssic denition ormt, but oows directy rom the ct

tht exicogrphers, ike dictionry users, re humn.

Dictionries re inevitby ethnocentric, their uthors being imited by their own

experience o the word nd their beies bout it. Bis cn be discerned especiy

3 Kersey () uses this strtegy sever times, e.g. to denefy, hare, sheep, asparagus, saron(a well known plant), nettle (a well known herb), elder(a well known shrub). Baileyempoys it, mong others, or alder, almond, ash, ass, bee, blackbird, crow, goose, mint, mouse;interestingy, he so uses it once or the nme o n rtect: lamp ( ight we known).

4 For more rguments, see Admsk-Scik (: 4.).


11/18

Dictionary denitions: problems and solutions

with regrd to poitics, rce, gender, nd reigion. O the mny possibe ideoogic

problems (see e.g. Moon ), only that o culturally determined belies will be

tcked beow. It is n especiy sensitive issue in communities without deveoped

dictionary culture, where ailure to reect the collective worldview may result in

whoese rejection o the dictionry. ke the oowing two exmpes:

Xhosa member o ctte-rering Negroid peope o southern Aric, iving chiey

in South Aric

Zulu member o t Negroid peope o SE Aric, iving chiey in South Aric,

who becme dominnt during the th century due to wrrior-cn system orgn-

ized by the poweru eder, Shk

(CEDO)

Whie inormtive to the outsider, these denitions re potentiy oensive to thepeople they describe, especially when compared with denitions o other ethnic

groups in the sme dictionry. Murphy (: ) thinks tht kind o white norm

must be t work here, s ony non-Whites re described using phenotypic, geno-

typic, historic, nd cutur (rther thn soey geogrphic) criteri. Tis cn

be read as implying that people o colour are somehow abnormal and thereore

worthy o comment.Or consider the oowing:

tokoloshe an evil spirit widely believed in by both urban and rural Aricans; it isinvoked in witchcrf nd oered s n extenuting circumstnce in crimin cses

(DSAE3)

Again, the denition is supercially innocuous and interesting to a non-Arican.

Aricns, on the other hnd, my nd it ess thn stisctory. O the mny beiesssocited with the tokooshe, tht eevted to dening ttribute is the ct tht the

spirits inuence is cited in courts o w s n expntion or crimin behviour.

Tis choice

reects the exicogrphers bis s cutur outsider in s much s it is not inkedto or contextuized within the reigious mode o spiritu possession which is prtnd prce o number o trdition Aricn reigions (Swnepoe : .).

Since the loss o personal agency through spiritual possession is experienced as

a reality in those religions, believers in the tokoloshes power may see the DSAE3denition s misrepresenting their word.

Such issues re extremey reevnt in the context o MLDs, which re imed t

erners o Engish wordwide, nd indeed re equy importnt in ny dictionry

ikey to be used in muticutur community.

1.6.2. Preventing user alienation

A gret de o cution nd sensitivity is required o ny exicogrpher hoping to ne-gotite the mineed o dery hed beies, ok truths, nd ge-od prejudices which


12/18

ARLETA ADAMSKASAACIAK

re prt o the trget users cuture. No redy-mde bueprint exists or steering cer

o the danger zones. Tere, is, however, a simple rule o thumb which it might behepu to oow: dispense extringuistic inormtion judiciousy; when in doubt,

assume that less is more. It is clear, thereore, that there is a close connection be-

tween this probem nd the dictionry-encycopedi question discussed erier.

Beyond tht, the use o temptes so ced pro-orm entries (Atkins, Run-

de : 3) seems good ide. Tus, or instnce, i the denitions o ethnic

groups re prepred ccording to the sme tempte, users wi hve no cuse to com-

pin tht their ntionity, rce, or ethnicity hs been treted uniry. Adhering to

temptes entis using the sme ontoogic mrkers (Swnepoe ) e.g. in X re-igion, is beieved/considered to be (insted o is) or items o simir sttus.

Whie this wi probby not be enough to ensure tht the dictionry does not priviege

any single belie system (especially not that subscribed to by the lexicographer!),it is denitey step in the right direction, nd one tht is retivey esy to tke.

2. New problems

Our exmintion o denition probems nd how they cn be resoved woud notbe compete without cknowedging tht the proposed soutions hve ed to certin

new probems.

2.1. The straitjacket o dening vocabularies

Denitions written with the help o a dening vocabulary are at times imprecisend/or cumsy. Due to the imited exic resources on which the exicogrpher is

obiged to rey, they my occsiony sound chidish, creting the impression tht

the dictionry is tking down to the user. Te oowing exmpes, tken, respec-

tivey, rom the rst nd the most recent edition oLDOCE, re cse in point:

syringe sort o pipe, used in science nd medicine, into which iquid cn be drwnnd rom which it cn be pushed out in prticur direction (LDOCE)

thyme pnt used or giving ood speci tste (LDOCE5)

Whie ot cn be done nd hs, in ct, been done in the ter editions oLDOCE

to improve the denition osyringe, tht othyme is probby s good s it cn be

under the circumstnces, s words such s herb oravour outside the permitted

rnge o vocbury.

2.2. The longwindedness o ullsentence denitionsTe considerable length o FSDs may in addition to reducing the overall cover-

ge o the (printed) dictionry ed to dicuties with interprettion. Even in the

For a particularly striking example o lexicographer sensitivity (which was put to the testwhen prepring dictionry o n Austrin borigin nguge), see Zgust (: ).


13/18


absence o any particularly complex syntactic structures, the sheer length o theentry can prove an obstacle to comprehension, especially or users whose native

nguge is typoogicy distnt rom the nguge o the dictionry. For instnce,

some erners my strugge with nphor resoution, wondering wht the pronouns

itnd them reer to in the oowing:

You say that something is a load of rubbish, a load of junketc or that a group o

people are a load of tramps, a load of has-beens, etc, as a way o showing yourdispprov o it or them. (COBUILD)

2.3. The misleading syntax o singleclause whendenitions

An obvious deciency o this type o denition is tht it does not meet the substi-tutability requirement. In order or the deniens and the deniendum to be in-

terchangeable in a sentence, they must belong to the same grammatical category.Te singe-cuse denition does not permit this, s its deniendum is noun, whie

its deniens is cuse.

Admittedly, substitutability is more o a logical requirement than something

dictionary users will normally need to explore. Tere is also, however, a practical

dimension. As demonstrted in series o experiment studies by Lew nd Dzie-

minko (), Poish erners o Engish re signicnty ess successu in iden-

tiying the hedwords prt o speech in singe-cuse denitions thn in cssicdenitions. Hving sid tht, syntctic opcity seems sm price to py when one

considers the benets o singe-cuse denitions (especiy s prt-o-speech inor-

mtion is expicity conveyed by grmmr codes in stndrd dictionry entry).

3. Historical precedents

Beore summing up, it my be instructive to ook t certin intriguing precedents o

the modern denition devices tht re to be ound in reerence works o the pst.

3.1. Singleclause whdenitions

Singe-cuse denitions strting with when, where, whereupon, whereby,etc, were

used in the Latin-English dictionary o Tomas Elyot (3) not just or dealingwith abstract nouns, but also or adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and longer phrases.

Among the numerous exmpes quoted by Stein () re:

Colluuies,whn the erthe is couered with wter by grette oodesPedatim, where one oote goeth with the other, Foote by ote

Nkmoto () hs urther exmpes o person pronouns in denitions which my conuseoreign erners o Engish. For more compete discussion o the strengths nd weknesseso FSDs, see Runde ().


14/18


Nauigabilis, le, where shyppe mye psse, Nuigbe

Praesidero, are, where tempest commeth very soone, nd beore the tyme ccustomed

Orbem acere, where peope doo gther them rounde togyther in bttye

Eish Coes () so used wh-denitions, beit or mrkedy dierent purpose

than that which is behind their use in the modern MLDs. According to Osselton

(: 33), most o Coes denitions were

truncted versions o more expnsive nd grmmticy expicit entries tken romhis min source-book, the dictionry o Edwrd Phiips, or rom contemporry eg

dictionries nd gossries o nutic terms, diect, etc.

Here re some o the exmpes quoted by Osseton (: 34):

Obtuse angle, when two ines incude more thn squre.

Fall of, when the ship keeps not ner enough to the wind.

Livery-stable, where Horses o Strngers stnd t.

Judas tree, (with brod eves) whereon he is supposed (by some) to hng himse.

Lay-land, which ies untied.

Barresters, -rasters, who (fer yers study) re dmitted to the br.

Fleawort, whose seed resembes e in bigness nd coour.

3.2. Extensional and encyclopaedic denitions

Sir Tomas Elyot and Elisha Coles are not exactly household names; Dr Samuel

Johnson denitely is. Indeed, it is quite well known that, compared to later lexi-

cographers, Johnson () liked to use a airly ree, discursive style. Also, in the

mnner o his contemporries, he did not pretend tht his denitions hd nothing

to do with the extent o his own knowedge or his person opinions (see e.g. Moon

: ). o which we my dd, in the context o the present discussion, tht he didnot void extension denitions or steer cer o encycopedic inormtion, s the

oowing, much-quoted denition testies:

DOG, A domestick nim remrkby vrious in his species; comprising the msti,

the spaniel, the buldog, the greyhound, the hound, the terrier, the cur, with many

others. Te rger sort re used s gurd; the ess or sports.

Conclusions

One o the things we hve tried to demonstrte is tht not the probems touched

upon in the preceding sections are o equal importance. Tus, lexicographers donot need to ose seep over indirect circurity or gonise over the impossibiity o


15/18


seprting inguistic rom encycopedic inormtion with surgic precision. By con-trst, the thret o obscurity eture which cn compromise the eectiveness o

denition must be creuy ddressed. Additiony, conveying non-denottive

meaning and making sure denitions do not oend users sensibilities both pose

mjor chenge.

As or the proposed soutions, it seems tht in the min they hve been remrkby

successu, their benets outweighing the ew disdvntges. Some o the soutions

are commonsensical, based on the (unspoken) assumption that, when compiling dictionry or humn users, the exicogrpher shoud behve ike humn. A ew

dening strtegies popurised by the Engish MLDs cn be considered return to

trdition (but trdition rom beore the te th century, i.e. predting the dvent o

exicogrphese). Whie postuting strightorwrd cus connection woud be too

r-etched (given tht not mny contemporry exicogrphers re intimtey miirwith the history o their discipine), it is sti humbing to see how itte is genuiney

new. In ny cse, it is no onger unquestioningy ssumed tht denitions must

be o the Aristotein kind, nd tht is denitey wecome deveopment.

Finy, whie the pprent historic precedents do not necessriy provide sup-

port or the use o any o the non-classical dening techniques today, it has to be

stressed that arguments in their avour have come rom other quarters as well.

As shown by Geeraerts (), modern semantic theory has vindicated a numbero alternative lexicographic practices, including the use o extensional denitions

nd the dmission o encycopedic inormtion into dictionries.

Reerences

Dictionaries

Biey N. 1721.An universal etymological English dictionary. London.CEDO = Collins English dictionary online [www.coinsdictionry.com/dictionry/engish].COBUILD1 = Sincir J. (ed.) 1987. Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. London.

COD7 = Fower H.W., Fower F.G. 1982. Te concise Oxord dictionary. [7th edition]. Oxord.Coes E. 1676.An English dictionary. London.DSAE = Brnord J. (ed.) 1987.A dictionary o South Arican English. [rd edition]. Cpe own.

Eyot . 158. Te dictionarie o Syr Tomas Elyot Knyght. London.Johnson S. 1755.A dictionary o the English language. London.[www.johnsonsdictionary

onine.com].

Kersey J. 1702.A new English dictionary. London.Kersey J. 1708. Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum. London.LDOCE1 = Procter P. (ed.) 1978. Longman dictionary o contemporary English. [1st edition].

Hrow.

LDOCE = Summers D. (ed.) 200. Longman dictionary o contemporary English. [th edition].

Hrow.

Although the results o some recent studies (notably Fabiszewski-Jaworski ) stronglysuggest tht it is the ormt voured in spontneous dening s we.


16/18


LDOCE5 = Myor M. (ed.) 2009. Longman dictionary o contemporary English. [5th edition].

Hrow.

MEDAL2 = Rundell M. (ed.) 2007.Macmillan English dictionary or advanced learners.[2nd edition]. Oxord.

NMED = West M., Endicott J. (eds.) 195. Te new method English dictionary. London.OALD7 = Wehmeier S. (ed.) 2005. Oxord advanced learners dictionary. [7th edition]. Oxord.

OED = Oxord English dictionary online.[www.oed.com].

Other literature

Admsk-Scik A. 2006.Meaning and the bilingual dictionary: Te case o English andPolish. Frnkurt m Min.

Admsk-Scik A. 2010. Why we need biingu erners dictionries. Kernermn I.,

Bogrds P. (eds.) English learners dictionaries at the DSNA 2009. e Aviv: 12117.Atkins B..S., Runde M. 2008. Te Oxord guide to practical lexicography. Oxord.Chnder D. 2002. Semiotics: Te basics. London.

Cowie A.P. 1990. Lnguge s words: exicogrphy. Coinge N.E. (ed.)An encyclopedia olanguage. London: 671700.

Fbiszewski-Jworski M. 2011. Spontneous dening by ntive spekers o Engish. Aksu K.,

Uchid S. (eds.)Asialex 2011 proceedings lexicography: Teoretical and practical perspec-

tives. Kyoto: 102109.

Geererts D. 2001. Te denition prctice o dictionries nd the cognitive semntic con-

ception o poysemy. Lexicographica 17: 621. [Repr. in Geererts D. 2006. Words and

other wonders. Berin, New York: 6].Geererts D. 200. Mening nd denition. Vn Sterkenburg P. (ed.)A practical guide to

lexicography. Amsterdm, Phidephi: 89.Hnks P. 1987. Denitions nd expntions. Sincir J. (ed.) Looking up: An account o the

COBUILD project in lexical computing. London, Gsgow: 11616.Lndu S. 2001. Dictionaries: the art and craf o lexicography. [2nd edition]. Cmbridge (UK).

[1st ed. 198, New York].

Lew R., Dzieminko A. 2006. A new type o ok-inspired denition in Engish monoingu

erners dictionries nd its useuness or conveying syntctic inormtion. Interna-tional Journal o Lexicography19.: 22522.

Locke J. 1690.An essay concerning human understanding. [ebooks.deide.edu.u//ocke/john/81u/].

Mnes J. 1980. Wys o dening: ok denitions nd the study o semntics. Forum Lin-

guisticum 5.2: 12219.Moon R. 1989. Objective or objectionbe: Ideoogic spects o dictionries. Knowes M.,

Mmkjr K. (eds.) ELR Journal: 5995.Moon R. 1998. Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxord.

Murphy L.M. 1998. Dening peope: Rce nd ethnicity in South Aricn Engish dictionr-ies. International Journal o Lexicography11.1: 1.

Nkmoto K. 1998. From which perspective does the dener dene the deniendum: nthro-pocentric or reerent-bsed? International Journal o Lexicography11.: 205217.

Osseton N.E. 2007. Innovtion nd continuity in Engish erners dictionries: Te singe-

cuse when-denition. International Journal o Lexicography20.: 999.Runde M. 2006. More thn one wy to skin ct: why u-sentence denitions hve not

been universy dopted. Corino E. et . (eds.)Atti del XII Congresso di Lessicograa,


17/18


Torino, 69 settembre 2006. Allessandria: 28. [Repr. in Fontenelle . (ed.) 2008.Practical lexicography: A reader. Oxord: 197209].

Rey A. 2000. Dening denition. Sger J.C. (ed.) Essays on denition. Amsterdm, Phi-dephi: 11.

Schreyer R. 1992. Te denition o denition in Lockes Essay concerning human understand-ing. Lexicographica 8: 2651.

Stein G. 2011. Te linking o lemma to gloss in Elyots Dictionary(158). imoeeva O.,Sily . (eds.) Words in dictionaries and history: Essays in honour o R.W. McConchie.Amsterdm, Phidephi: 5579.

Svensn B. 2009.A handbook o lexicography. Cmbridge (UK).Swnepoe P. 2005. On dening imginry beings nd ttributes: How do exicogrphers

cope with culturally determined dierences in belies about cosmology, ontology and

epistemoogy? Lexikos 15: 179195.Wierzbick A. 1985. Lexicography and conceptual analysis.Ann Arbor.

Wierzbicka A. 1992199. What are the uses o theoretical lexicography? Dictionaries:Journal o the Dictionary Society o North America 1: 78.

Wierzbick A. 1997. Understanding cultures through their key words. Oxord.Zgust L. 1971.Manual o lexicography. Prgue.Zgust L. 1988. Prgmtics, exicogrphy nd dictionries o Engish. World Englishes 7.:

225. [Repr. in Zgust L. 2006. Lexicography then and now: Selected essays. bingen:

8799].


18/18

Documents

Adamska-Sałaciak, Dictionary definitions. Problems and solutions