[Lexicog] Theoretical constructs vs. practical reference dictionaries

[Lou Hohulin]

Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to process my problem, and discuss it with me.

 "Mike Maxwell" <maxwell at ldc.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > --- '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.]
>
> 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.

This is part of my problem. LinguaLinks allows a very organized methodology for including all of these types of information. As a result, we developed a large and broad database for translation purposes. It has a great many annotation notes related to phonological, grammatical and anthropological data. Publication will eventually cause us to rethink all of these notes. Also, I suspect that electronic and paper publication might result in different decisions.
>
> But when it comes to publishing a dictionary, you may not want to include
> all this "stuff."  What you want for publication is a "view" of the
> database, which is tailored to the audience.  For example, if the audience
> for the dictionary is native speakers, morphosyntactic feature structures
> are probably not going to be a big hit.

There is a problem here regarding morphosyntactic features even in relation to native speakers as our audience. They have not studied the lexicon or morphosyntactic structures of their language in any formal way. The speakers with whom we have worked in analysis of the language, translation, and creating trilingual instructional materials for children (Tuwali Ifugao, English and Filipino - the two mediums of instruction in the schools) are enthusiastic about understanding their language as an 'artefact' and learning the differences between their language and English.

At this point, our database is probably a 'rare' mix of information that we, as linguist-translators, and they, i.e. native speakers, have needed and wanted as we worked together at tasks involving Tuwali Ifugao and other languages, but primarily English. Soon, very soon, I need to find some principled way for giving direction to the next step -- publication electronically or printed or both. And I would welcome any advice or suggestions from you or others on the list.

> Again, for languages with lots of messy morphology (particularly prefixing
> morphology), the database might contain roots or stems; but the user's view
> might be some less abstract citation form, or (if it is an electronic
> publication) a way to do parsing and lookup of fully inflected forms.

Morphology in Austronesian, Philippine-type languages is very complex (messy, if you will). Almost all dictionaries are 'root' dictionaries; usually the patterning of inflected forms is put in a grammar sketch that is included in the dictionary.
>
> The database vs. publication distinction allows us to have our cake and eat
> it too: we have the database with all the internal links, blurring any
> distinction between lexicon and grammar (and your field notes, if you
> choose); you can archive this, publish it for other linguists, or have it
> buried with you.  We also have the publication (or publications), tailored
> to the audience, which may choose to simplify, or to hide details.

Yes. I know we can have our cake and eat it, too, but I am at the stage of figuring out the ingredients for the cake or maybe I should say the ingredients for two different cakes (publishing the database electronically and simplifying the ingredients for print publication).
>
> Of course that doesn't solve Lou's question--she still has to decide what
> information to include in the published version.  In fact, if she decides to
> publish multiple versions, it makes it worse: she has to decide multiple
> times!  But she can always change her mind, re-run the program, and get the
> new version.

You do understand my problem, don't you?!
>
> So enjoy your cakes!

I'd like to enjoy the preparation and baking, too!
>
> Oh, BTW--the tight linkage between grammar and lexicon in LinguaLinks was
> sometimes seen as a drawback ("monolithic" was the derogatory term).  But I
> like to think of it as a feature, not a bug.

I see the linkage as an excellent feature, but it does make for an enormous amount of data to handle well!

Lou



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/