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

[Hayim Sheynin]

Dear Scott,

I praise your intentions, but ask yourself how many people learn English from a
dictionary. I think there is no alternative for learning English vocabulary, but from
reading the text and practicing conversation. I myself passed this process as well as people around me. The only use of dictionary for learning English as second or third language is to look for 1) meaning; 2) spelling; 3) pronunciation; 4) idioms.
The simpler structure of a dictionary, the easier its use. Think well, is it worth to invest time and effort for frequency-listing & attending-words/phrases listing (lexical inclusion).

Another thing completely is a frequency dictionary. Those are used mostly by teachers of ESL. These kind of dictionary is suited for direct instruction. First beginners learn 100 most frequent words, then 1,000 most frequent words, then 3,000 most frequent words, etc., etc. But even in this kind of instruction the words are not learned from the dictionary. A teacher uses text constructed with these words, and the words are learned in the context, using a vocabulary that usually placed at the end of a reader, text-book or anthology.  When vocabulary reaches 5,000 to 6,000, the learner needs separate  dictionary. In most of the cases the learner continue to use bilingual dictionary, like English-Spanish/ Spanish-English; English-Russian/Russian-English, etc., etc.
Probably there is a need for the type of dictionary you propose, but the audience
for such dictionary is different from that you envision, for example for translators of advertisement, translators or creators of titles/captions for foreign movies and similar projects. Such people frequently need to know what is the most frequent word from two or three synonyms, so for them frequency rating might be important.

Hayim Y. Sheynin 

bolstar1 <bolstar1 at yahoo.com> 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
 
 
     
                       

       
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070530/a6d6b8e2/attachment.htm>