Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (12) (remove)
Document Type
- Lecture (5)
- Preprint (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Working Paper (2)
Language
- English (12) (remove)
Keywords
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (3)
- Historische Lexikographie (3)
- historical lexicography (3)
- Ausbildung (2)
- Beruf (2)
- Digitalisierung (2)
- Driving forces (2)
- Fachkraft (2)
- Geoinformationssystem (2)
- Landnutzung (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12) (remove)
In the last decade, interaction between scholarly lexicography and the public has grown enormously. While in the old days, the lexicographer and in particular, the scholarly lexicographer, had a tendency to describe the lexicon from an ivory tower, in a way that was for the general public rather unaccessible, a change has been evident for some time now. Interaction with the general public is now more and more appreciated and is even being stimulated within the lexicographic community. This holds too for the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW), a project of the Institute for Dutch Lexicology in Leiden. The ANW is an online scholarly dictionary of contemporary Dutch. In its periodization it is the successor of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT), which was completed in 2001 and covers the vocabulary of the Netherlands and Flanders up to around 1976. The editorial staff of the ANW would like to create a dictionary that is suitable for different audiences, ranging from language professionals and other academics to pupils, students and language enthusiasts in general. Consequently, interaction with the public is very important to the ANW editorial staff. It is realised in various ways. First, each dictionary article offers users the option to give feedback. Second, the editorial staff uses questions and comments gathered on internet forums, such as Meldpunt Taal (launched in June 2010) and Neo-term. The ANW staff also approaches the public directly through Twitter, with items such as ‘neologism of the week’, facts about spelling and answers to questions about language that have been received. A relatively new initiative is to call upon the public in the search for information for the dictionary, such as synonyms, pictures and the earliest use of words. Language games and word polls are other ways to increase the interest and involvement of the general public in the ANW.
The FEW is a huge dictionary when we consider the sheer mass of data (25 volumes, 16000 pages) and its exhaustive aims. It has indeed the purpose of registering and etymologizing the whole lexicon, not only of French, but also of earlier stages of the language and of Occitan; of every Gallo-romance dialect; of every technical or professional genre; of every language register, including slang. Summing up, the FEW aims to include and describe every single lexical unit which exists or has existed in the territory of ancient Gaul. The sheer size of this undertaking means two things, which directly influence the digitalisation of the dictionary: Firstly, there is a a huge amount of data; secondly, the presentation and organization of the data is exceedingly complex. The reasons for digitalising the FEW are the easy searches for units, and the carrying out of searches using criteria that are not possible to use with the printed version. However, the fulfillment of these purposes includes some risks, and potentially the cutting of some corners, especially the temptation of renouncing reading.
Even a reductionist attempt to define scholarship is clearly fraught with difficulty, but an idealised historical lexicographer-cum-scholar must obviously have – inter alia and at the very least – a profound linguistic and textual knowledge of the language being documented, an ability to understand texts in their historical context and to analyse the meaning or function of lexical items as used in context, an ability to synthesise the results through generalisation and abstraction and to formulate them in a way that is both accurate, i.e. reflects actual usage, and user- or reader-friendly, i.e. is comprehensible to the user/reader. S/he must have encyclopedic or world knowledge and literary skills in order to understand general content words and explain their meaning and their semantic shifts perhaps over many centuries, and technical expertise to understand specialist terms and define their use in specific contexts, again perhaps over time. In respect of etymology s/he must not only have knowledge of older stages of the language and an ability to reconstruct unattested forms, but also knowledge of the other languages that have impacted on the language being documented, or at least familiarity with the scholarly historical dictionaries of those languages. That is a tall order indeed, impossibly tall for any one person today given today‘s demands on and expectations of lexicographers. Teams which include specialists in different areas or at least have access to consultants in such areas alongside generalists are needed if scholarly standards are to be met. The standard of scholarship is primarily a factor of the number and range as well as the knowledge and experience of the lexicographers, as is in large measure the pace of production. In this regard, it cannot be emphasised enough that scholarly historical lexicography of high quality is and will remain very time consuming.