The Interpretive Function: To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

Approximately a decade ago, it was suggested that a new function should be added to the lexicographical function theory: the interpretive function1. However, hardly any research has been conducted into this function, and though it was only suggested that this new function was relevant to incorporate into lexicographical theory, some scholars have since then assumed that this function exists2, including the author of this contribution. In Agerbo (2016), I present arguments supporting the incorporation of the interpretive function into the function theory and suggest how non-linguistic signs can be treated in specific dictionary articles. However, in the current article, due to the results of recent research, I argue that the interpretive function should not be considered an individual main function. The interpretive function, contrary to some of its definitions, is not connected to acting and therefore the only difference between reception and interpretation is that they work with different types of sign. However, the type of sign is not relevant for a function, or rather, it should not be a criterion for distinguishing between functions. The lemma selection for the communicative, cognitive as well as the operative functions could and should include linguistic as well as non-linguistic signs. Thus, theoretically, there is no reason to identify a fourth dictionary function as suggested by Tarp (2008), and practically, the development of modern technologies has diminished the distance in the treatment of different types of sign, making it easier for lexicogra-phers to lemmatise non-linguistic signs. Concerning the point that non-linguistic signs are also worthy of lexicographical attention, my suggestion from 2016 still stands, the difference in this contribution being that the interpretive function is not considered an individual function. Keywords: Lexicographical Function Theory, Dictionary Function, Inter-Pretive Function, Information Tools, Linguistic Sign, Non-Linguistic Sign, Actin

A Re-Examination of the Lemma through Digital and Functional Lenses

The lemma is one of the core terms in lexicography. It is the lexicographical item that users of paper dictionaries normally utilise to look for the dictionary article that can help them satisfy their information need, and lexicographers consider the lemma an essential and indispensable part of a lexicographical tool. However, as new technologies are continuously being developed and many dictionaries (or lexicographical data) are incorporated into other kinds of digital tools, e.g. writing software and e-readers, it is necessary to re-examine the notion of lemma because these changes have consequences for the definition of this term. Furthermore, research into the operative function – one of the main functions in the lexicographical function theory – has shown that the lemma should not only be associated with words, but also other types of needs than those related to linguistic signs, something which e-dictionaries more easily are able to accommodate compared to paper-based dictionaries. This contribution, therefore, re-examines the lemma and investigates its role in e-dictionaries, and it suggests a provisional definition of this core lexicographical term that is applicable in e-dictionaries and in digital tools based on lexicographical data

There is no need for the terms polysemy and homonymy in lexicography

This paper describes a radically different approach to polysemy and homonymy from the ones normally presented in linguistic and lexicographic literature on this topic. Our main criticism of the traditional approaches lies in their use of the term "word": If a word is defined as a linguistic sign, it means that it only has one expression and one meaning, and this entails that defining polysemy and homonymy as phenomena where one word has two or more meanings is not only problematic — it is impossible. For this reason, we argue that polysemy and homonymy do not exist. Furthermore, we claim that they are not even necessary concepts in lexicography as each lexeme could be represented by a lemma in an information tool. However, by changing the definitions of polysemy and homonymy to phenomena where an expression has two or more meanings, thereby focusing on the expression, it is possible to retain the terms. We propose that the best way to apply and also distinguish between polysemy and homonymy in an information tool would be to present the same expressions with different meanings as well as different grammars as homonyms, while expressions with different meanings but the same grammar are presented as polysems.Keywords: Meaning, polysemy, homonymy, lemma, headword, lexical word, grammatical word, orthographical word, text wordDaar is geen behoefte aan die terme "polisemie" en "homonimie" in die leksikografie nie. Hierdie artikel bied 'n radikaal ander benadering tot polisemie en homonimie vergeleke met die benaderings oor hierdie onderwerp wat tipies in taalkundige en leksikografiese literatuur te vinde is. Ons belangrikste kritiek op die tradisionele benaderings lê in die gebruik van die term "woord". As 'n woord gedefinieer word as 'n linguistiese teken beteken dit dat dit net een uitdrukkingsvorm en een betekenis het. Dit impliseer dat dit nie problematies is nie maar onmoontlik om polisemie en homonimie te omskryf as verskynsels waar een word twee of meer betekenisse het. Om hierdie rede voer ons aan dat polisemie en homonimie nie bestaan nie. Daarbenewens stel ons dit dat hulle nie eers nodige begrippe in die leksikografie is nie aangesien elke lekseem deur 'n lemma in 'n inligtingswerktuig verteenwoordig kan word. Deur die definisies van polisemie en homonimie te verander tot verskynsels waar 'n uitdrukking twee of meer betekenisse het, is die fokus op die uitdrukking en is dit moontlik om die terme te behou. Ons stel voor dat die beste manier om tussen polisemie en homonimie te onderskei en om dit toe te pas in 'n inligtingswerktuig is om dieselfde uitdrukkings wat verskillende betekenisse en verskillende grammatiese waardes het as homonieme aan te bied terwyl uitdrukkings met verskillende betekenisse maar dieselfde grammatiese waarde as poliseme aan te bied.Sleutelwoorde: Betekenis, grammatiese woord, homonimie, leksikale woord, lemma, ortografiese woord, polisemie, tekswoord, trefwoor

Meaning Identifi cation and Meaning Selection for General Language

The traditional way for lexicographers to deal with polysemy in dictionaries is by applying the terms lumping and splitting. We will not follow this tradition. Instead, we argue that the identification and selection of meaning items (= polysems) should be treated in the same way as the identification and selection of lemmas. Identifying meaning items is comparable to identifying different words, the only difference being that meaning items share the same orthographic form. When identifying meaning items, we do not at the outset assume that a somewhat abstract meaning can be split up. Instead, we always assume that there may be many meaning items connected to a lemma, and we try to identify them – though for some lemmas, it is only possible to identify one meaning item. The process of identification involves a method that combines analyzing corpora and establishing a meaning relationship to references in the world (in this contribution called things), followed by a meaning formulation of the identified meaning items which can be used for reception situations. Not always – as in the case of lemma selection – will all the identified meaning items be included in the dictionary. The selection of identifi ed meaning items will depend on the genuine purpose of the dictionary

Funktionsteoretisk diskussion af brugerreaktioner på ordbogsartikler – med fokus på varemærker, omdiskuterede ord og eksempelsætninger

This article serves two purposes: (1) to show that most lexicographical decisions are closely related to language policy (2) by discussing some well-known lexicographical topics from a functional perspective, including the treatment of trademarks, disputed words and usage examples in dictionaries. The article combines practical work and theory as all examples are based either on actual user reactions to entries in The Danish Internet Dictionaries or on the production of entries for these dictionaries

Stendød eller trofast? En diskussion af Niels Grønkjærs postteistiske teologi

Denne artikel diskuterer Niels Grønkjærs bud på en postteistisk teologi. Artiklen indledes med at indkredse en definition på »postteisme« og viser, at det er en kategori, som rummer mange variationer. Fælles er dog, at man sætter sig i opposition til »teisme« og vil udvikle et gudsbegreb, der tager metafysikkritikken alvorligt. I hoveddelen beskrives Grønkjærs teologiske bidrag, særligt gennem bogen Den nye Gud (2010/2012). Grønkjær udvikler en gudsforståelse, hvor bevægelighed er i fokus. Men som artiklens tredje del – vurderingen af Grønkjærs bidrag – viser, så er der flere problemer. Dels kan flere tilfælde af inkonsistens dokumenteres, dels kan uklarheder og manglende nuanceringer i Grønkjærs teologi påpeges, hvorfor positionen ender med at fremstå som et svagere alternativ end den klassiske teisme

Identitetsdifferentiering som kritisk kriterium: Udkast til relationen mellem national og kristen identitet i teologisk belysning

Artiklen præsenterer et udkast til relationen mellem national og kristen identitet i teologisk betydning. Først gives der et bud på, hvorfor identitet er så omdiskuteret et emne i samtiden. Dernæst diskuteres det komplekse begreb »identitet«, for herefter at fokusere på henholdsvis national og kristen identitet. Hvor den nationale identitet forstås som en diffus blanding af stabilitet og plasticitet, hævdes det, at den kristnes identitet i NT forstås som særegent stabil. Dette vises gennem en systematisk rekonstruktion af de nytestamentlige skrifter, hvor konklusionen er, at i troen sker der en forening med Kristus, som nyskaber den troende og gør individet til en del af Kristi legeme. Dette dobbelte aspekt udpeges som centrum i NTs identitetsforståelse. Artiklen afsluttes med en udvikling af begrebet »identitetsdifferentiering«, der gives som et bud på en adækvat skelnen mellem diverse identiteter hos kristne. Den kristne identitet forstås som aspektiv, mens alle andre identiteter forstås som partitive

Christian IV’s tugt- og børnehus. Social institution eller merkantilistisk foretagende?

The Gaol and Orphanage of Christian IV - Social Institution or Mercantilist Enterprise?In 1605, the Danish King Christian IV founded a gaol after English and Northern European models. The purpose of the gaol  was that the inmates, the vagrants, should be taught textile  making. In contrast to contemporary foreign examples the  Danish gaol was founded by the king himself, just as it was the  crown that both owned the institution and was the purchaser of  its textile products. In 1620, the institution was extended with an orphanage as well as various workshops for textile handicrafts. The gaol and orphanage was closed in 1649.The basic question posed in the present article is: Was the foundation in 1605 and the subsequent operation of the gaol and orphanage of Christian IV in the years until its closure in 1649 a manifestation of mercantilism, the predominant economic theory of the age, or should the institution rather be  seen as a social and preventive measure in the fight against  vagrancy?In order to answer this question, an examination is made of various contemporary sources, including legislatory material, in order to determine the character of the gaol undertaking.It is the conclusion of the present article that the gaol and orphanage was a combination of mercantilist policy and a socially preventive measure. From being at the outset in 1605 a predominantly social institution with a certain element of mercantilism, it developed into a predominantly mercantilist enterprise whose previous social function was toned down and receded into the background

Tverrfaglig samarbeid i NAV : en kvalitativ studie av muligheter og utfordringer ved det tverrfaglige samarbeidet ved NAV Kristiansand

Masteroppgave i velferdsstudier – Universitetet i Agder 2014Denne masteroppgaven er en undersøkelse av det tverrfaglige samarbeidet i NAV, og studien tar utgangspunkt i ni kvalitative intervju med ansatte i oppfølgingsavdelingen ved NAV Kristiansand. Fokuset i intervjuene har vært å belyse ulike sider ved den tverrfaglige samarbeidsprosessen som kan være med å påvirke nytteaspektet ved det å samarbeide. Videre forsøker oppgaven å synligjøre hvordan de samarbeidende partene anser hverandres arbeidsmetoder og faglige kompetanse. I den anledning forsøker oppgaven å få frem hva de ansatte i oppfølgingsavdelingen legger i begrepet helhetlig oppfølging av brukere, og videre vektlegges hvordan det tverrfaglige samarbeidet kan muliggjøre eller utfordre det å yte et helhetlig tjenestetilbud til barn og unge. Undersøkelsene viser at det tverrfaglige samarbeidet i stor grad blir ansett som en viktig arena hvor de ansatte kan nyttiggjøre seg av de andres erfaring og kunnskap, og samarbeide om tiltak i forhold til ”felles” brukere. Unntaket er ansatte som arbeider innenfor fagområdet økonomisk saksbehandling, og som finner samarbeidet mindre nyttig. Tendenser i datamaterialet peker på at det eksisterer fordommer mot hverandres faglighet og når det gjelder kvaliteten på arbeidet som ytes i forhold til brukere. Nye ansatte inn i organisasjonen NAV er med å utviske forskjellene og bidrar til en mer felles forståelse av hva som kvalitativt anses som godt oppfølgingsarbeid. Et viktig bidrag til en felles faglig plattform, synes å være de barneansvarliges arbeid i forhold til å implementere et helhetlig fokus på barn og unge i møte med den voksne brukeren. Analysen viser blandt annet at en organisasjonsmessig inndeling i ulike fagområder, og en inndeling av statlige og kommunale arbeidsoppgaver hindrer at de ansatte fullt ut kan nyttiggjøre seg av hverandres kompetanse. Videre kan det tyde på at denne inndelingen fungerer som en bremsekloss for utvikling av en mer felles arbeidskultur, og med det en utvikling av felles arbeidsmetoder for oppfølging av brukere