One Database, Four Monofunctional Dictionaries

A dictionary is an information tool. In the last century most dictionaries were constructed as polyfunctional tools following a broad and imprecise understanding: A dictionary is to be used by everyone for every kind of communicative and cognitive problem. But normal tools are not polyfunctional. If you go to a shop and ask for a saw, you have to specify first what you are going to saw: a big tree or a small piece of plywood. After having explained that, you will be offered a monofunctional saw. So it should be, too, for the information tool: A good tool is a tool designed for a certain function and for a certain user group for certain needs. This paper will argue for the need of dictionary designs for monofunctional dictionaries. Doing that, we need to be aware of the fact that a lexicographical database is not a dictionary. A database contains data which can be presented in one or more monofunctional or polyfunctional dictionaries.The database of the dictionary in question comprises 4.015 (September 30st, 2012) cards with definitions, historical background, synonyms, references and links, pictures etc. Outgoing from this database, four different dictionaries are presented. All of them are dictionaries on musical terms mainly from the world of classical music, but also from commercial music and the so-called world music. The music dictionaries intend to be tools for music students in universities and music schools, for both amateurs and professional musicians and for every interested person who wants aid when reading texts on music or who wishes to get further information on musical terms and topics

Variantangivelser i en dansk produktionsordbog ud fra eksempler med fleksionsangivelser i Retskrivningsordbogen

Looking at articles on language in the newspapers, you will find it striking how many readers are interested in the permissibility of certain expressions. How can we decide if a word or an inflection is allowed? Some people think that the use gives the necessary answers, while others are of the opinion that the customs and especially the language customs are degenerating and therefore cannot serve as decision maker. More than 270 years ago this battle was fought under the watchwords: usus tyrannus and usus imper-ans. This was of course not the first attempt to define the differences between descrip-tive and prescriptive linguistics, and it was indeed not the last one. Despite of that now no really convincing solutions have been given until now. This is due not only to diffe-rent opinions on the relation between the use of the language and its rules, but also to the following factors: (a) the empirical basis of the description, and (b) the aim of the description. In this article it will be shown that purely descriptive information does not help clearly enough by problems on language production, and that extremely prescriptive information helps too little by problems on language reception. In other  words, we need prescriptive rules for production and descriptive ones for reception. For this form of prescription which builds on a selection on descriptive data we introduce the expression proscription

From a Young Danish Child to a Grown Up Adult International Journal

No abstract

Leksikologiske analyser og beskrivelser ctr. leksikografiske angivelser. Bemærkninger til Undine Kramer: Lexikologisch-lexikographische Aspekte der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin 2000

A lexicographer is not always a linguist. And a linguist is not a natural expert or semi-expert of lexicography. This is also the case for such lexicologists who see themselves as theoretical lexicographers. More important than such relationships are the negative consequences which a purely linguistic argumentation may have for lexicographical theory and practice. In many cases lexicological reviews of dictionaries and their proposals for better dictionaries are far removed from real lexicographical needs and improvements. This will be shown in a critical review of a recent publication about lexicological-lexicographical aspects

On the metalexicographic genre of dictionary reviews, with specific reference to Lexiconordica and Lexikos

Wiegand (1984) introduced dictionary criticism as a formal component of a general theory of lexicography. Since then many scholars have focused on various aspects of dictionary criticism. In this article a distinction is made between two major types of dictionary criticism, i.e. the review of metalexicographical literature and the review of dictionaries. In the review of dic-tionaries different types can be identified, i.e. a short discussion without a critical evaluation, a more comprehensive review, a review article, reaction to a review or a review article, a peer review and the  evaluation of a dictionary as a part of a bigger metalexicographical contribution. This arti-cle gives a brief discussion of the scope of dictionary criticism and looks at some criteria for dic-tionary reviews before focusing on aspects of dictionary reviews in the Scandinavian journal of lexicography LexicoNordica and the South African lexicography journal Lexikos. A comparison is made between the reviews in these two journals, identifying striking similarities and differences. It is also shown that the reviews in Lexikos frequently refer to topics that are not as relevant to Lexi-coNordica. This is due to the fact that dictionaries reflect something of the linguistic and cultural environment where they are published.Proposals are made to enhance the quality of reviews in Lexikos and to help ensure a stronger theoretical approach to reviews as a genre that elevates the metalexicographic discourse and improves the dictionary culture of a given community.Keywords: Characteristics of a good review, Dictionary criticism, Dic-Tionary Culture, Dictionary Reviews, Genuine Purpose, Metalexicographic Publications, Quality Assurance, Review Articles, Reviews, Target Reader

Center for Leksikografi

No abstract

Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography

In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author