[Lexicog] stereotypical beliefs and lexicography

Tue Feb 22 20:39:34 UTC 2005

Thank you for the information, Thapelo,

I have to get the book. Are you not doing research in Bamberg/Germany? Maybe
we could meet
in the near future there.

Fritz

  In Literary Theory Terry Eagleton uses a Marxist theoretical approach to
argue that the role of literature is to challenge the status quo and bring
about social change. Part of his argument is that no piece of literature can
claim to be functionally impartial, unbiased, or neutral. Literature either
challenges the status quo or endorses it. He argues that those who talk of
"art for art's sake" and the so-called political indifferent writings are
inadvertently perpetuating the status quo since they are not challenging
it - sort of Bushism - 'either you are with us or against us' kind of
approach - no middle ground!!

  So I simply seized on this general argument to question whether the role
of a lexicographer could also be seen in the same way in dealing with
offensive and derogatory entries. Is the act of merely explaining what
racists mean by using racist language giving them scope and a platform on
which they could perceive their racist language as acceptable and normal
[because they appear in a dictionary - obviously a wrong conclusion, but the
one that is common in settling arguments on whether words belong to a
specific language]. Are words like "kaffir" in South Africa and "nigger" in
the States OK in a dictionary as long as they are marked, offensive, or
their entry in dictionaries may reinforce hatred and encourage divisions?

   Hanks takes a position that is common amongst corpora-dependent
lexicographers - if it's very rare or doesn't exist in broad-based corpora
like the BNC one would be inclined not to include it as a di! ctionary
entry. Obviously corpus supported arguments lean on the quality of the
corpora itself - badly constructed corpora yield bad word statistics. This
leads us to a different question which I will only raise and not discuss:
What are good corpora for lexicography? I leave this question, though
interesting, since it may lead us into a rather long maze - serving only as
an interesting distraction.
  The argument for leaving out a word just because it is offensive to the
tribes of Scotland, England and Wales, doesn't seem very convincing,
especially when the word is in common use. Leaving it out suggests that it
does not exist or it is rare. But what about dictionaries for schools?
Parents may strongly disapprove of certain kinds of words (swear words,
curses, insults, scatological terms and others) that children may be exposed
to in dictionaries. Fritz, I agree with you that the boundaries are fuzzy
and it decisions may end up varying from publisher to publisher and from one
culture to another.

  Fritz Goerling <Fritz_Goerling at sil.org> wrote:
    Wayne and Thapelo,

    Where do we draw the line? If we have a politically correct dictionary,
    certain entries will be marked sexist, racist, or homophobic or not even
    be mentioned. Of course, there are dictionaries of certain subcultures,
    slang or argot dictionaries.
    But if we want to produce a GENERAL dictionary for the whole population
    of an ethnic group, where do we draw the line about what to include and/
    or what to mark as slang etc.? The "positive social role"  you are
talking
    about, Wayne,  cannot consist of  expunging unwanted words and
expressions
    ("unwanted" by dictionary-makers who have a certain political or
whatever
    agenda; impartiality does not really exist in these matters, as far I am
    concerned).
    Certain great books (the Bible) or authors (Shakespeare) have enriched
    the vocabulary of English enormously. Can biassed dictionary-makers
    expurgate the English language because such and such expressions are
    from the Bible or from a "white dead male" (Shakespeare)? A certain
    Thomas Bowdler, an editor in Victorian times tried to rewrite
Shakespeare,
    removing all profanity so as not to offend the sensibilities of the
audiences
    of his day (hence the term "to bowdlerize"). It did not work.
    Thapelo, can you tell me more about Terry Eagleton's position in the
    chapter of "Literary Theory"?

    Fritz Goerling
    >

      Thapelo,

      My own thought is that a thorough dictionary can, and perhaps should,
include all derogatory information, but I think lexicographers can have a
positive social role and clearly mark such lexical entries as rascist.

      Wayne
      -----
      Wayne Leman
      Cheyenne website: http://www.geocities.com/cheyenne_language

        How would such derogatory information be represented in
dictionaries? "Its all Greek to me", may not be as offensive as "work like a
Black" and I would think that "work like a slave" would also be less
offensive. And does a lexicographer have a responsibility in challenging
steretypes through dictionary entries? Or his role should be better seen as
that of a scientist from without looking in as it were, merely describing
the uses of language that he sees. But does impartiality really exist in
these matters or one is either challenging the status quo or endorsing it (a
Terry Eagleton position in the later chapter of Literary Theory )? Put
differently, are certain entries like 'work like Black' racist when used by
racist communities and also racist when entered and discussed by
lexicographers? In this case the lexicographer guilty of participating in
the development and sustainance of racist views. On the other hand, would it
be accurate to leave ! ! them out from a dictionary?

  Thapelo Otlogetswe
  Information Technology Research Institute
  University of Brighton
  Lewes Road, Brighton
  BN2 4GJ, England
  Tel: (+44) 1273 642912 (office)
        (+44) 1273 642908 (fax)
  http://www.itri.brighton.ac.uk/~Thapelo.Otlogetswe/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050222/745d720a/attachment.htm>