[Lexicog] Criteria for example sentences

[Ron Moe]

Listing collocates works if there aren't too many. But for general words you
might want to consider looking for prototypical examples. Even though 'bark'
is not very general, it is still subject to prototype effects:

bark v. (of a dog) to make a quick, loud cry. Used of dogs and other animals
with a cry like a dog's, such as a seal or cheetah.

In other words 'bark' is not a general animal cry. It is the cry of a dog,
extended to the cries of animals that sound like the bark of a dog.
Yesterday I was telling a story about seeing a cheetah kill a gazelle and
barking to call her cubs to the kill. I described the cry of the cheetah as
a 'bark'. I think I said something like, "The cheetah started to bark. A
cheetah's cry isn't like other cats. It's more like the bark of a dog." The
notion of prototypes is very useful in dealing with categories of all sorts.
If we want our example sentences to be most useful, they should exemplify
typical usage. So the collocates used in the sentence should be
prototypical, rather than marginal. So I would prefer "an itchy sore" to "an
itchy wool sweater"; "cows moo", but "bulls bellow".

Ron Moe
SIL Uganda

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan.amith at yale.edu [mailto:jonathan.amith at yale.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:36 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com; Ron Moe
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Criteria for example sentences


Dear All,

I am working on a dictionary of Nahuatl (just back from the field) and
have run into various problems concerning example sentences and their
use in teaching.

Instead of "a dog barks" consider "a cow moos". Here the problem might
be: what sense of cow is intended. Certainly bovine cows moo, but do
female whales? So, when a term is used in an example sentence the user
is still left wondering what sense (if multiple senses are available)
of the term is meant?

I remember reading (the citations are now out of sight and mind) about
the difficulties of second language learners with users dictionaries
and, particularly, with example sentences. One problem is that example
sentences themselves might give a potential collocation or subject,
but without adequate knowledge a user does not know "why" the subject,
for instance, is appropriate. Thus in "a cow moos" is "cow"
appropriate because it is a bovine in general (use of cow for male and
female bovines), a female bovine, a female animal whose male partner
is a bull, etc.?

One solution I have tried is to create a field for "subjects of
predicates." Thus "itchy" might have "wool". "Moo" might have "cow,
bull." This too creates its own problems, but is useful to the extent
that it gives common collocations without the necessity of an example
sentence.

The other solution is simply an extended semantic discussion that
focuses on potential misunderstandings that readers might have.

Jonathan Amith




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/