[Lexicog] Frequency & Attendant Words/Phrases for Lex. Entry

[Randy Radney]

Speaking as someone who just had to look up the terms _anneal_ and  
_spoliator_ used by non-native speakers in recent essays (albeit, the  
former case was a rather bizarre use of a verb 'to anneal' in a  
syntactic construction where it would have been appropriate to use a  
noun: 'The anneal of business experience'), I believe anything that  
would help communicators assess the likelihood that their readers  
(and still more, hearers) would be able to understand terms used  
would be a good thing.
Cheers,
radney
(J. Randolph Radney, Ph. D.
radney at twu.ca)



On 30 May 2007, at 16:12, bolstar1 wrote:

> Case for frequency-listing & attending-words/phrases listing (lexical
> inclusion)
>
> Imagine a person learning, say, English, and randomly picking the
> word `bilious' out of a thesaurus for a term with the meaning
> irritable, grouchy, or ornery, and using it in the next conversation
> with a native speaker. The native speaker might learn a new word for
> the effort-*, and even get a chuckle for the day out of it, but it
> would have been far more practical for the learner to
> learn `irritable' or `spiteful, or `hyper-touchy.'
> I'd like to proffer, or more accurately, add to, the argument for
> including frequency ratings to lexical entries, both dictionaries and
> thesauruses. Although this would require considerable thought,
> organization, and conference-activity in the lexicographical
> community to establish well-grounded and widely acceptable "norms,"
> it would seem to offer great benefits for the effort.
> For the sake of economy of space, as well as for fine-tuning
> leverage, a numbering scale (1-10) could be employed. Short and
> easily distinguished from other information, the ranking would give
> the searcher an idea of how much weight to give to any particular
> term (main entry). It could be listed immediately after the
> pronunciation guide (for general usage) or after the field/context
> identifier (for jargon-related terms). Both main entries and synonyms
> used in defining them (synonyms themselves in thesauruses) "could be"
> ranked. Whether the entries are identified as unique to a particular
> a field, activity, etc. (jargon related) or generally used (common
> vernacular), the result would be a broadening of the `usage' category
> without adding an inordinate amount of space to it.
> For example, under `angry'/'anger' the entry could read as
> follows, with rank designated "r.":
>
> an∙gry |`aeng gree| {r. 1} *adj.; (angrier, angriest) feeling  
> strong
> annoyance, irritation, hostility, ready to lose one's temper: I
> get angry every time I listen to him.
>
> attending words/phrases:
> angry with s…e
> angry at s…e
> I'm so angry I could scream.
> I'm so angry I can't see straight.
> walk off (leave) angry
>
> related phrases:
> righteous anger
> pent-up anger
> filled with anger
> bristle with anger
> take one's anger out on someone
>
> Additional in importance to frequency is the use of particles
> attending the root word, and phrases commonly using the root. To
> determine ranking numbers and inclusions of attending words, using
> computational linguistics that glean frequencies would be easy and
> straightforward -- but additional consensus-forming and vote-taking
> among lexicographers/linguists would refine the results. Identifying
> and selecting the most commonly used attending words & phrases could
> follow a similar strategy.
> The devil would be in the details, each root word having
> variations distinct to that word's uses in their own contexts.
> Naturally, space limitations are a key factor in determining the
> extent of the `attendant-words listing,' (`attending-words listing'),
> but it, along with frequency listing, are integral parts of learning
> & using words correctly, and indeed phrasal and corpus focus have
> become buzz words in linguistics, self-evident aspects of having
> quality lexical collations.
>
> Scott Nelson
>
>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070530/76da7941/attachment.htm>