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

No Abstract

User-oriented understanding of descriptive, proscriptive and prescriptive lexicography

There is much uncertainty and confusion as to the real differences between prescrip-tive and descriptive dictionaries. In general, the majority of existing accounts can be summarised as follows: Descriptive relates to the empirical basis; accordance between the empirical data and the dictionary is required. Prescriptive relates to the genuine purpose of the dictionary; the dictionary is meant to help with problems concerning text production and will thus affect usage. This asym-metrical understanding would imply prescriptive and descriptive in practice being false contrasts. In this article, a more consistent terminology is suggested which allows for both the function of the dictionary and the relation of the dictionary to the empirical basis. Keywords: description, dictionary function, empirical basis, exactly descriptive dictionary, exactly proscriptive dictionary, explicitly pre-scriptive dictionary, introspection, linguistic survey, not exactly de-scriptive dictionary, not exactly proscriptive dictionary, prescription, proscription, strongly descriptive dictionary, strongly prescriptive dic-tionary, text corpus, user-oriented, weakly descriptive dictionary, weak-ly prescriptive dictionary, weakly proscriptive dictionar

What is a Dictionary?

By comparing different definitions in dictionaries and in theoretical papers we know that lexicographers have very different opinions on the topic: "What is a dictionary?" We see too that lexicographic tools with the same type of content sometimes are called dictionary, sometimes encyclopedia, sometimes lexicon. In reality it is not a large problem if the information in a certain tool is of a high quality as to the intended function. Nevertheless I will give not one but two additional definitions of two different types of information tools. There will also be a discussion on the relevance for the concept of dictionary in connection with the research registration in universities. Keywords: Dictionary, Lexicon, Encyclopaedia, Lexicography, Information Tool, Lexicographic Tool, Research Registration, Lexicographic Database, Monofuntional Dictionary, Polyfunctional Dictionar

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

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. Keywords: Independent Discipline, Information Tool, Lexicographer, Lexicographic Practice, Lexicographic Theory, Lexicographic Tool, Lexicography, Lexicology, Metalexicography, Scientific Lexicography, Terminograph

How to do language policy with dictionaries

The lexicographical presentation of terms from the field of language planning often lacks clear and unambiguous distinction and proper explanation. Too often dictionaries even fail to include these terms in the lemma list, and some central terms have not been treated in any general or special purpose dictionary. This article utilises results from research in the field of language policy to make suggestions for the lexicographical presentation and treatment of a number of relevant terms. The emphasis on a distinction between language policy as applied to the intralingual and the interlingual level and the motivation for the introduction of the notion of a communication policy should help lexicographers to give a more comprehensive account of terms from this field and it will also benefit scholars in the field of language policy. A second aspect of this article is the discussion of ways in which dictionaries participate in the implementation of language policy. It is indicated that lexicographers make ever so many decisions of a language political nature. In this regard the lexicographical influence of issues like linguistic hegemony and language purism are discussed. Suggestions are also made for future lexicographical procedures. Keywords: communication policy, interlingual, intralingual, language planning, language policy, language promotion, lexicography, linguistic hegemony, prescriptive, puris

The Presentation of Word Formation in General Monolingual Dictionaries

Word formation in the dictionary belongs, at the latest since the contribution of Mugdan (1984), to the topics frequently discussed by lexicographers. Unfortunately the results have not always been satisfactory. This applies both to the formulation of lexicographic theory and to the lexicographic practice because the lexicographic terms have the linguistic terms as point of departure and questions are put as to how these phenomena should be presented in dictionaries. Instead, one should rather ask which information needs dictionary users experience in which types of user situations and then decide where and how items giving word formation can be presented in order to benefit the envisaged target user of a given dictionary. The lexicographic practice is also in an unsatisfactory position with regard to items giving word formation because the typical polyfunctional dictionaries have too many items giving word formation for text reception problems and far too few for text production problems or for the real general knowledge needs regarding word formation in the specific language. This paper gives suggestions regarding the theoretical approaches that could lead to a better user-directed  lexicographic practice.Keywords:  Afrikaans dictionaries, cognitive function, complex form, compound, derivative, dictionary function, electronic dictionaries, text production, text reception, user needs, word formatio

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 linguistic 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

How to do language policy with dictionaries

The original publication is available at http://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/indexThe lexicographical presentation of terms from the field of language planning often lacks clear and unambiguous distinction and proper explanation. Too often dictionaries even fail to include these terms in the lemma list, and some central terms have not been treated in any general or special purpose dictionary. This article utilises results from research in the field of language policy to make suggestions for the lexicographical presentation and treatment of a number of relevant terms. The emphasis on a distinction between language policy as applied to the intralingual and the interlingual level and the motivation for the introduction of the notion of a communication policy should help lexicographers to give a more comprehensive account of terms from this field and it will also benefit scholars in the field of language policy. A second aspect of this article is the discussion of ways in which dictionaries participate in the implementation of language policy. It is indicated that lexicographers make ever so many decisions of a language political nature. In this regard the lexicographical influence of issues like linguistic hegemony and language purism are discussed. Suggestions are also made for future lexicographical procedures.Publishers' Versio

Polyseme selection, lemma selection and article selection

In linguistics, more specifically in the field of lexical semantics, a lot of attention has been given to polysemy and homonymy. The identification of and distinction between polysemy and homonymy should not be regarded as unproblematic. The lexicographic practice has tradi-tional ways of presenting and treating polysemy and homonymy. This paper focuses on approaches in both linguistics and lexicography to polysemy and homonymy. Examples from the lexicographic practice are given. It is then shown that that the traditional lexicographic presenta-tion and treatment of homonymy and polysemy in dictionaries with a text reception function, does not really assist the users adequately in their search to find the appropriate meaning of an unfa-miliar linguistic expression. It is shown that different dictionaries often have the same lemma selection but not the same selection of polysemes. It is important that a dictionary should correctly coordinate a meaning and a specific linguistic expression. Consequently, a new approach is sug-gested for the presentation and treatment of homonymy and polysemy. Negotiating criticism expressed in both linguistics and lexicography, it is proposed that the lexicographic practice, in the case of dictionaries for text reception, should abolish the traditional distinction between homonyms as well as the presentation of the different senses of a polysemous word in a single article. Each meaning, whether the only meaning of a lexical item or one of any number of different senses, should be the only item giving the meaning in an article.Keywords: Article Selection, Dictionary User, Homonymy, Lemma Selec-Tion, Lexicography, Linguistics, Meaning, Polyseme Selection, Polysemy, Text Production, Text Receptio