rewards for lexicographical research

[Steve Kl.]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Joanne M. Despres wrote:

>  In my experience, most people who
> do lexicography aren't very theoretically inclined.

This is precisely why I don't have a PhD --- I left the linguistics
dept. at the University of Chicago officially a couple years after
starting at AHD. THe U of C expects extremely theoretical dissertations,
and I could never divorce myself from reality long enough to keep from
breaking out in theoretical hives, so I left ABD. I have not once
regretted this decision for even the tiniest moment.

One day I met with one of my advisors, the late Jim McCawley, who had
written a number of articles on lexicography, and I pointed out that
his comments were all worthwhile. Then I showed him a page of marked-up
copy, pointing out how many wording choices were affected by line length
and other page make-up issues, and that was really the only time I'd ever
seen him speechless.

I have seen lengthy articles devoted to the discussion of a single word
(cup [Wierzbicka], horse [practically everyone] , pink [McCawley], risk
[either Fillmore/Atkins or Pustejovsky, I forget which at the moment].
Brilliant examinations of a lexical item, but I can't think of any
professional lexiocgrapher who has the luxury of time to soak themselves
in a word so fully.

-- Steve