Some remarks on lexicographic treatment of idioms

Phraseology is a domain of linguistic study which, to a certain extent, demonstrates the correlation between language and culture. At the same time, it is a source of information concerning the speakers’ world view. However, different phraseological units are used in different languages. Hence, when it comes to their understanding, it becomes particularly difficult to comprehend their meaning without the reference to their lexicographic description. The aim of this paper is to outline the treatment of selected idioms in several dictionaries in order to

Dictionaries and ideologies: some remarks of the EFL lexicography

The term ideology itself has recently gained a lot of attention in anthropology, sociolinguistics and cultural studies. As a starting point it seems crucial to form an area of inquiry, that is the sense of language ideology. Here Alan Rumsay’s (1990, p. 346) definition is a useful starting point: „[…] linguistic ideologies are shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world”. The article aims to look at the way EFL dictionaries cope with the task to present the standardization of certain words and usages. In other words, we will attempt to find out if/how lexicographers cope with the job of being legislators, if their products advise about the proper usage as well as meanings of the words available in the standard forms of English. In order to achieve this goal, the number of issues of paramount importance will be investigated: (i) The term of linguistic ideology, (ii) The concept of standardization (iii) The dictionaries and ideology of standard – the state of the art Our method is making comparisons between different lexicographic sources (dictionaries) in relation to selected entries, and generalising from the way the latter are presented (in the sense of formal and semantic values)

O konieczności uwzględniania danych tekstowych w rekonstrukcji językowych obrazów kategorii pojęciowych

The study responds to Jerzy Bartminski’s call for using various kinds of data in doing ethnolinguistic research. The authors, thus, champion (i) the necessity of including textual data in reconstructing a linguistic worldview as well as (ii) a culturally-oriented non-systemic lexical semantics. That ethnolinguistic reconstruction cannot be based merely on dictionary-like information is shown by a critical assessment of purely systemic analyses of hussy, pheasant, and maid. It is concluded that textual evidence should be extensively explored and systematically used in cognitive ethnolinguistics as primary, rather than as supplementary data.Autorzy dowodzą konieczności uwzględnienia danych tekstowych przy rekonstrukcji JOS-u w myśl koncepcji etnolingwistyki kognitywnej Jerzego Bartmińskiego. Na przykładzie trzech kategorii konceptualnych oznaczonych angielskimi leksemami hussy ‘latawica’, pheasant ‘bazant’, i maid ‘pokojówka’, ‘panna’, pokazują na ile i o ile zmienia się językowy obraz świata po uzupełnieniu danych systemowych w postaci definicji słownikowych o znaczenia kontekstowe obecne w wybranych tekstach. Swoje rozważania i analizy umieszczają w szerszym kontekście metodologicznym, tj. sporu o sposób rozumienia i uprawiania semantyki leksykalnej. W tym względzie kontrastują metodologie JOS-u, otwarta na wiele typów danych, w tym danych tekstowych, z taką praktyką badawcza, która programowo zorientowana jest wyłącznie na dane słownikowo-encyklopedyczne