1887

n Lexikos - The design of morphological/linguistic data in L1 and L2 monolingual, explanatory dictionaries : a functional and/or linguistic approach?

USD

 

Abstract

The contributions in Klosa (2013a) provide information on various aspects of the design of morphological data for (German) language dictionaries. Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013), however, reject most of these contributions as sources lexicographers could use for the design of language dictionaries because they are guided by linguistic theory (cf. their critique of Klosa 2013b), instead of Function Theory, and by a misguided application of methods for user research, (cf. their critique of Tópel's 2013 use of the questionnaire as method for user research). The first goal of this article is to provide a critical discussion of Bergenholtz and Gouws's (2013) views on the approach of Function Theory to the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of the design of morphological/linguistic data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. It is argued that the approach of Function Theory provides lexicographers only with a usable overview of the design trends in printed and electronic dictionaries for the selection and presentation of morphological/ linguistic data in dictionaries, but that the theoretical, methodological and practical approach of Function Theory is fraught with difficulties. The strategy Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013) use to debunk the linguistic approach to lexicography is not new; it is a well-known strategy used in the rhetoric of Function Theory. The second goal of this article is therefore to point out some of the general problems with a Function Theory of lexicography for the planning, production and pub-lishing of language dictionaries. Given the problems with the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects of Function Theory, it does not offer a viable alternative to the linguistic approach to the design of morphological/linguistic data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. It is argued that linguistic lexicography provides lexicographers with access to a vast body of theoretical, methodological and practical research to support the design of morphological data in L1/L2 (language) dictionaries. Furthermore, it is argued that Function Theory has established the importance of functional variables in the design of (language) dictionaries, but that what lexicography needs now is a truly multidisciplinary approach to lexicography, and not an approach that reduces lexicography to the status of a hand-maiden of another discipline, for example, information science, or of a reductionist Function Theory of lexicography.


Die artikels in Klosa (2013a) bied inligting oor verskeie aspekte van die ontwerp van morfologiese data in (Duitse) taalwoordeboeke. Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013) verwerp egter die meeste van die bydraes vir leksikografiese doeleindes omdat hulle steun op linguistiese teorie(ë) (sien hulle kritiek op Klosa 2013b), in plaas van die Funksieteorie, en 'n foutiewe toepassing van metodes vir gebruikersnavorsing (sien hulle kritiek van Tópel 2013 se gebruik van die vraelys as metode vir gebruikersnavorsing). Die eerste doelstelling van hierdie artikel is om 'n kritiese ontleding te gee van Bergenholtz en Gouws (2013) se siening van die Funksieteoretiese benadering tot die teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese aspekte van die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke. Daar word aangevoer dat die Funksieteoretiese benadering net vir leksikograwe 'n bruikbare oorsig oor die ontwerprigtings in gedrukte en elektroniese woordeboeke vir die keuse en aanbieding van morfologiese/linguistiese data bied. Verder, dat die gebruik van die Funksieteorie as teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese basis vir die leksikografie teen allerlei probleme stuit. Die strategie wat Bergenholtz en Gouws (2013) gebruik in hulle kritiek op die linguistiese benadering tot die leksikografie is nie nuut nie, maar 'n bekende strategie van die reto-rika van Funksieteorie. Die tweede doel van hierdie artikel is dus om sommige van die algemene probleme van die Funksieteorie vir die beplanning, produksie en publikasie van woordeboeke aan te toon. Gegee hierdie probleem met die teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese aspekte van die Funksieteorie, bied dit nie 'n lewensvatbare alternatief vir die linguistiese benadering tot die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke nie. Daar word aangevoer dat leksikograwe in die linguistiese leksikografie toegang het tot 'n omvattende bron van teoretiese, metodologiese en praktiese navorsing om die ontwerp van morfologiese/linguistiese data in L1/L2 (taal-) woordeboeke te ondersteun. Verder word aangevoer dat die Funksieteorie die belang van die funksionele veranderings in die ontwerp van (taal-) woordeboeke gevestig het, maar wat nou nodig is, is 'n waarlik multidisiplinêre benadering en nie een waarin die leksikografie gereduseer word tot die dienskneg van 'n ander dissipline, soos die inligtingskunde, of tot 'n reduksionistiese Funksieteorie van leksikografie nie.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/lexikos/25/1/EJC180579
2015-01-01
2016-12-04
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error