Fw: [Lexicog] How much theory in a dictionary?

[List Facilitator]

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahganlang" <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:49 AM
Subject: [Lexicog] How much theory in a dictionary?


> The issue of lexicological issues having been brought up, I am
> wondering just how far afield from generally accepted norms one can
> or should go in the format for a dictionary. Not everyone accepts the
> cognitivist p.o.v.  I keep thinking of the many generativist-flavored
> grammars that appeared in the '60's and '70's that look quaint now,
> having been overly concerned with Chomskyan issues at the expense of
> a more normal (approx. Dixon's "basic") coverage of topics.
>
> In my own work on phonosemantics, it is often easy to see in any
> lexicon numerous word families skulking about below the level of
> normal synchronic morphological analysis and internal reconstruction.
> It is the rare dictionary indeed that makes a note of such families,
> either in end material or in with the entries themselves, but they
> are out there. Since such word families are often intimately tied in
> with semantic domains would they not be equally justifiably included
> in the final product?
>
> Once you start fiddling with word families it is just a skip and a
> hop to the various levels of phonosemantic analysis, from the less
> painful "submorphemic" level all the way down to phonological feature
> level hypotheses. Where should one stop before one loses the intended
> audience? Most linguists will likely get off the train before
> laypeople.
>
> Where does morphology end and fantasy begin? Augmentative/diminutive
> shift is noncontroversial, and works often at the featural level. And
> where such processes are no longer productive, as in Siouan
> languages, do notes about fossilized variants belong in the
> dictionary?
>
> Much of what is usually considered "sound symbolism" is just the
> result of morphology and historical processing- as in the famous
> series of forms in English beginning with gl- having to do
> with "light" (glare, glitter, gleam, glisten, glow, glower, gloom,
> etc.). Normal etymology at this level of analysis is also
> noncontroversial with regard to inclusion in a dictionary.
>
> So where to draw the line before we become too deeply mired in
> particular theories associated with successive levels? This goes to
> issues of semantic domains, metaphor, etc. as well.
>
> Jess Tauber
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>
>   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
>   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>