[Lexicog] folk taxonomies and universal semantic domains within lexical software

[Susanna Imrie]

I'll see what we can do...

-Susanna Imrie
(FLEx Development team)




"Allan Johnson" <allan_johnson at sil.org> 
Sent by: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
11/11/2006 06:39 AM
Please respond to
lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com


To
<lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
cc

Subject
RE: [Lexicog]  folk taxonomies and universal semantic domains within 
lexical software









Yes, this sounds good – enabling a FLEx lexical database to simultaneously 
support two independent systems of semantic domains.
 
Allan J
 


From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Moe
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:48 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] folk taxonomies and universal semantic domains 
within lexical software
 
… … …One easy way to maintain both an etic and emic list of domains would 
be to allow the user to add an emic number for each domain and sort on 
either the etic number or the emic number. The user could then choose 
which domains are relevant for his language, organize/renumber them 
according to his world view, and export the emic list for publication. But 
the etic numbers would still be in the database for reference purposes… … 
…
 
Ron Moe
 


From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Leman
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:19 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] folk taxonomies and universal semantic domains within 
lexical software
 

 
Following is a slightly revised copy of a message I just sent to a 
colleague who is on the FieldWorks (FW) team. The issues are relevant to 
each of us who attempt to discover indigenous semantic domains:
 
___, after you skimmed my database before attempting import to FW FLex, 
you mentioned that my semantic domains did not exactly fit Ron Moe's list. 
Here is why: As Ken Pike used to emphasize, there are etic and emic 
approaches to language data. Ron Moe's approach to lexical research is one 
of the best I have ever seen. His approach can gather lexical data in a 
short period of time what many people used to take years to collect. (Of 
course, one can also benefit greatly from other traditional approaches to 
lexical data gathering, including text collection and gleaning those texts 
for new lexical items.) It is appropriate that language software be keyed 
to the good semantic domains that Ron has developed after careful research 
of his own, in consultation with others working in lexicography. (I've had 
helpful exchanges with Ron, whose work I appreciate very much.)
 
But for any dictionary, we need to ask who the audience for it is and 
whether we want etic or emic categories to be displayed. *IF* a dictionary 
is intended to be used by the native speakers of a language, it is wise to 
shift from using any universal etic semantic domain list to the semantic 
folk taxonomies of those native speakers. As you probably know, different 
people in different cultures have differents semantic domains. So, for 
display, such as in Lexique Pro (a fantastic program for use by native 
speakers for displaying dictionary data), there is wisdom in using native 
(emic) semantic domains, rather than those of a more universal etic set of 
domains such as those in Ron's DDP (http://www.sil.org/computing/ddp/).
 
FLex (part of FW) should allow for using Ron's domains for guiding 
semantic category discovery, but it should also allow for converting 
semantic domains to those actually used by a language/culture group.
 
We have tried hard over the past 30 years to work toward using Cheyenne 
semantic domains so that Cheyennes can locate lexical items within the 
semantic domains that they actually use.
 
Wayne
-----
Wayne Leman
Cheyenne dictionary online:
http://www11.asphost4free.com/cheyennedictionary/default.htm

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.0/524 - Release Date: 11/8/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.0/524 - Release Date: 11/8/2006
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20061115/c0a5c233/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20061115/c0a5c233/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20061115/c0a5c233/attachment-0001.gif>