[Lexicog] stereotypical beliefs and lexicography

Tue Feb 22 18:57:18 UTC 2005

Thanks Fritz. I am a second year PhD student at Information Technology Research Institute, Brighton (UK) supervised by Adam Kilgarriff and Roger Evans.
My PhD investigates ways of corpus compilation of what I call languages with a Limited Written Tradition (LWT languages). These are mainly "native" languages in contact with another dominant language like English, Afrikaans or French whose written tradition does not go back beyond, say about 300 years. Examples include many African languages like, Xhosa, Sesotho, Shona, and my language Setswana, but also many languages spoken in South America and Asia. They are usually characterised by code-switching, code-mixing and sometimes diaglossia. Compiling a corpus for such languages is usually challenging since they are not used in many areas like the media, textbooks and legal documents. One of the questions I would like to answer statistically is whether it is essentially to spead the collection of texts in a corpus so that they include many varieties of a language or whether, although such a spread may be desirable, it may not be crucial for lexicographic work. Maybe people in this list
 may have interesting comments, papers, links or suggestions they could offer.

Fritz Goerling <Fritz_Goerling at sil.org> wrote:
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

   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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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!?
 The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050222/212bc1bf/attachment.htm>