[Lexicog] Theoretical constructs vs. practical reference dictionaries

[Richard Rhodes]

  Mike Maxwell wrote:
>
>In addition to the theory vs. practical dictionary distinction, there is
>another distinction that I think is useful: database vs. publication.  Or
>perhaps a better term than 'database' would be 'knowledge base': a network
>of information about a language (or languages, etc.), where there are links
>among phonological, lexical, grammatical, and anthropological
>observations--yes, even encyclopedic information.  Much of this linkage
>among components was provided in LinguaLinks, and plans for SIL's FieldWorks
>involve even more linkage.

and

>  So Rich Rhodes should be happy with the fact that the grammar and the
>lexicon are both represented in the knowledge base, with no firm dividing
>line between them.  (I will, too--I didn't actually object to that idea.)

in response to:

>Kenneth C. Hill:
>  > Some nouns are invariant regardless of singular or multiple
>>  reference. As
>>  we found that such nouns had no plural form, we marked them as "n.sg."
>>  Rather than simplify the notation "n.sg." to simply "n." and let the
>>  absence of a cited plural form speak for itself, we have left stand
>>  the mark "n.sg.
>>
>>  --- 'Lou Hohulin' <lou_hohulin at sil.org> wrote:
>>>  ...when it
>>>  comes to the practical task of producing helpful dictionaries and
>>>  grammars, we desperately need a theoretically sound basis for
>>>  deciding 'what goes where'.
>>>
>>>  I am using the SIL-developed program, LinguaLinks, which allows me to
>>>  interlinearize text, and then, attested examples from the texts can
>>>  be seen in entries.
>[etc.]

Since I promised a piece on the encyclopedic aspects of the
theoretical lexicon, I'll make good now. If you consider what it is
you need to know about words to use them, that includes for almost
all of them some degree of reference. Such reference is essentially
encyclopedic. In practical dictionaries that is most easily seen in
published dictionary articles for horse, koala, house, pliers, etc.
which are descriptive of the referent type.

Again, the issue is that there is no principled theoretical line to
be drawn. (That doesn't mean that you can't draw a practical line.
Just expect that it will be always be arbitrary in some way.)

For all you SIL'ers on the list. This was Pike's position in
tagmemics -- tagmemes contain phonological material, syntactic
material, referential material (i.e. semantics) as a unit. What he
lacked--and constantly sought for--was the mathematics that makes it
possible to combine such multidimensional entities in a rigorous way.
Developments in the technology of pattern matching have given us
unification and inheritance which fill his bill.

Rich Rhodes

--
******************************************************************

  Richard A. Rhodes
  Department of Linguistics
  University of California
  Berkeley, CA 94720-2650
  Voice (510) 643-7325
  FAX (510) 643-5688

******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20040211/4f8c70d7/attachment.htm>