Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
what is a dictionary? Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted
quote:
One of the best definitions I know of the term dictionary was given by C C Berg: "A dictionary is a systematically arranged list of socialized (2) linguistic forms compiled from the speech-habits of a given speech-community and commented on by the author in such a way that the qualified reader understands the meaning [...] of each separate form, and is informed of the relevant facts concerning the functionof that form in its community." This definition is concerned with the central types of dictionaries, i.e. with those dealing primarily with lexical meaning.

[...]

[Footnote] 2. The term "socialized" is explained by C C Berg in the subsequent sentence in the following way: "Linguistic forms are social facts in so far as they result from individual utterances being socialized, i.e. imitated time after time, under similar circumstances, by members of the community where they originated". In the overwhelming majority of cases, the data indicated in a dictionary are "socialized forms" in this sense of the word; what remains beyond the boundaries of the definition would be the indications of different occasional forms , e.g. hapax legomena in big dictionaries. It is not necessary to lose much time pondering over such exceptions (which confirm the rule); after all, it can be maintained that each and every hapax can potentially develop into a "socialized form", i.e. into a form whichis stabalized in the system of language (as discussed by C C Berg in his further discussion, loc. cit.) and also that a hapax is usually understood only on the background of the stabalized, "socialized" forms.
[Ladislav Zgusta. 1971. A Manual of Lexicography, p. 197]

The text by Professor Berg of Leiden that Zgusta is quoting is "[a] report [which] was published by CIPSH (Internatinal Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Sciences), document 866717, ca.1960, "Report on the Need for Publishing Dictionaries which do not to-date exist, prepared by the International Academic Union", sine loco, sine anno."

There are many languages that do not have a writing system, let alone a dictionary. I doubt that anyone would suggest that these languages do not have words. I believe that arguing that a word is not a word because it doesn't appear in a dictionary is a type of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
While Professor Berg has given a precise definition, it seems a bit clumsy for ordinary use. A list of words used by a common speech community seems adequate 90% of the time. Of course, that list constantly changes, so a dictionary is always a work in progress.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Zmj, is this in reference to my comments about the spelling bee?

Surely there are words that aren't in the dictionary yet, so it isn't the only authority, especially now with the Internet. Yet, how else can we keep track of words? Would it be okay then to just make up all sorts of words and definitions?
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
A dictionary is just another text, and believe me there's penty of texts out there. There are also plenty of "words" (or linguistic forms in the quote above) that aren't in "the" dictionary. These are words used daily by a lot of different folks. They may fall out of favor in a year or ten, but if they're being used by a bunch of people (a speech-community) then they're words, just like any other. Sure you can make up words but the smaller the community, the less likely that they'll make it into "the" dictionary.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright © 2002-12