[Lexicog] Lexique Pro dictionary components

Sun Apr 27 08:33:12 UTC 2014

I am more familiar with Fieldworks than Lexique Pro, but there may be ways
for you to move your data back and forth, since they are both developed by
SIL.

About your original question on what components of word meaning: I have
found it useful to include the classification into semantic domains. In
Fieldworks, they include an extended classification hierarchy based on the
Outline of Cultural Materials used by anthropologists. It took me a few
weeks to get used to this hierarchy, but I now find it intuitive and easy
to use. I find it useful in organizing the vocabulary items for various
practical purposes, including many of the intended purposes you mention for
your heritage dictionary.

I think one of the most critical components is the sense definitions, and
selecting a way to divide an entry into separate but related senses.
Especially for common words, there can be more than a dozen distinct
senses, which are worth describing and documenting. What I have found to be
a good model is the style of entry structuring and sense definition used in
the COBUILD dictionaries. They used a large corpus to establish frequencies
of the senses they selected, but even without that I find their approach
useful. They set up distinct senses partly based on usage, if there a
recognizable grammar patterns which bring out a particular sense of
meaning. In the sense definition proper, they apply a rather unique style
of definition, which I have found especially helpful in defining verb
senses.

Especially for verbs, the definition usually has two parts, for example:

1. If you *catch* a person or animal, you capture them after chasing them,
or by using a trap, net or other device {... 3 usage examples provided}
2. If you *catch* an object that is moving through the air, you seize it
with your hands. {...1 usage example} <> Catch is also a noun {...1 usage
example}

The first part of the definition (the if clause) describes a more generic
situation, then the second part refines that situation with the ideas that
are uniquely contributed by that sense (or co-contributed by the typically
collocated words for that particular sense, based on the corpus evidence).
I have noticed that if you look at all the
senses together, the first parts of the various sense definitions seem to
partition the range of occurrences in a natural way, according to what
participants in a situation are interacting. I think of the first part as
the Recognition Situation, it helps a dictionary user, especially if they
are a language learner or using the reference to better communicate with
learners, to recognize what are the broad types of participants (is the
direct object a a person/animal, moving under its own power, or is it an
object, falling due to gravity?) that let a competent language user pick
out this sense from alternatives. The participants are mentioned in terms
of general types (you, someone, person, something, object, place, etc)
which are typical of all language use.

The second part of the definition, which I think of as the Distinguishing
Situation, crucially builds on the first part, sometimes by mentioning the
same participants but this time using more specific nouns. These could be
subtypes or examples. For verbs, it mentions 1 or 2 other verbs (catch and
chase; seize) which are sort of mnemonics for remembering this sense as
opposed to other senses, which is why I call this the Distinguishing
Situation. Of course, using near synonyms in a definition don't always
help, if you don't know the synonymous word used in the definition; but I
think COBUILD does a good enough job of providing enough context so that a
user can figure out not just the head word but learn the synonyms as well.
The context as described in the definition may include other participants
in the situation that may not be explicit in usage examples, but are
typical of the logic of the situation.

I think Fieldworks, while it isn't the most user friendly program, does a
good job of managing the complexities of massaging language data into user
friendly definitions in a consistent and systematic way. It also allows you
to annotate and interlinearize texts so that your dictionary entries can
make use of analyzed texts for examples and other purposes.

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Richard Gravina <
Richard-Sue_Gravina at sil.org> wrote:

>
>
>  Have you also looked at programs such as Fieldworks and WeSay? Lexique
> Pro is good for displaying dictionaries, but for building a dictionary
> these other programs are better.
>
> When it comes to deciding which components to include, it would be best to
> get the advice of a linguist who is familiar with your language, or other
> related languages. There may be grammatical properties that it is important
> to include, but those will be specific to the language.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard
>
>  *From:* Benjamin Barrett <benjaminbarrett85 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2014 9:26 PM
> *To:* lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Lexicog] Lexique Pro dictionary components
>
>
>
> I cannot help with Lexique, but I have been working on a pilot project for
> Lushootseed using the Wiki Foundation (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.)
> software, which is free, flexible and easily accessible. (Configuration is
> not easy as the instructions that are available can be difficult to
> follow.)
>
> You can see my beta project at:
>
> http://lushootseed.langrev.com/wiktionary/Main_Page
> http://lushootseed.langrev.com/wiktionary/sqig%CA%B7%C9%99c
>
> HTH
> Ben Barrett
> La Conner, WA
>
> Learn Ainu! https://sites.google.com/site/aynuitak1/videos
>
>  On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:36 AM, nataliegdiaz at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
> I am a new member to the group, and my Elders and I are using Lexique Pro
> to build our heritage language dictionary. I would like to get input as to
> which components of word meanings you believe are most important to include
> when building a dictionary. Right now, we have only the basics, such as the
> english gloss, the definition, part of speech, and we also have multiple
> audio and video files that allow the word to be heard in a sentence or
> within a story or song.
>
> Our dictionary is intended for our community, as a! learning tool, and as
> a tool that can help support a language curriculum in the school.
>
> But we want to make it as dynamic and helpful as possible, in addition, we
> hope that it can be helpful to any of our learners who might enter into the
> linguistic field in the future.
>
> As well, any suggestions or tips you might have for working with Lexique
> will be appreciated and helpful.
>
> 'Ahotk
> Natalie
>
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20140427/86a1f2fe/attachment.htm>