1887

n Lexikos - The interpretive function : to be or not to be, that is the question

Volume 27 Number 1
  • ISSN : 1684-4904
  • E-ISSN: 2224-0039
USD

 

Abstract

Approximately a decade ago, it was suggested that a new function should be added to the lexicographical function theory: the interpretive function1. However, hardly any research has been conducted into this function, and though it was only suggested that this new function was relevant to incorporate into lexicographical theory, some scholars have since then assumed that this function exists2, including the author of this contribution. In Agerbo (2016), I present arguments supporting the incorporation of the interpretive function into the function theory and suggest how non-linguistic signs can be treated in specific dictionary articles. However, in the current article, due to the results of recent research, I argue that the interpretive function should not be considered an individual main function. The interpretive function, contrary to some of its definitions, is not connected to acting and therefore the only difference between reception and interpretation is that they work with different types of sign. However, the type of sign is not relevant for a function, or rather, it should not be a criterion for distinguishing between functions. The lemma selection for the communicative, cognitive as well as the operative functions could and should include linguistic as well as non-linguistic signs. Thus, theoretically, there is no reason to identify a fourth dictionary function as suggested by Tarp (2008), and practically, the development of modern technologies has diminished the distance in the treatment of different types of sign, making it easier for lexicogra-phers to lemmatise non-linguistic signs. Concerning the point that non-linguistic signs are also worthy of lexicographical attention, my suggestion from 2016 still stands, the difference in this contribution being that the interpretive function is not considered an individual function.

Die vertolkende funksie : om te wees of nie te wees : dis die vraag.

Omtrent 'n dekade gelede is daar voorgestel dat 'n nuwe funksie by die leksikografiese funksieteorie gevoeg moet word, naamlik die vertolkende funksie. Min of geen navorsing is egter oor hierdie funksie gedoen nie, en hoewel daar slegs voorgestel is dat hierdie nuwe funksie relevant was en by die leksikografiese teorie ingewerk behoort te word, het sommige navorsers sedertdien aanvaar dat hierdie funksie bestaan, insluitende die outeur van hierdie bydrae. In Agerbo (2016) bied ek argumente ter ondersteuning van die opname van die vertolkende funksie in die funksieteorie en doen aan die hand hoe nietaalkundige tekens in spesifieke woordeboekartikels behandel kan word. Weens die bevindinge van onlangse navorsing argumenteer ek egter in die huidige artikel dat die vertolkende funksie nie beskou behoort te word as 'n aparte hooffunksie nie. Die vertolkende funksie, in teenstelling met sommige definisies, hou nie verband met toneelspel nie en dus is die enigste verskil tussen resepsie en interpretasie dat hulle werk met verskillende soorte tekens. Die soort teken is egter nie relevant vir 'n funksie nie, of eerder, dit behoort nie 'n maatstaf te wees om tussen funksies te onderskei nie. Die lemmaseleksie vir die kommunikatiewe, kognitiewe sowel as die operatiewe funksies kan en behoort sowel taalkundige as nietaalkundige tekens in te sluit. Teoreties is daar dus geen rede om 'n vierde woordeboekfunksie te identifiseer nie, soos voorgestel deur Tarp (2008), en prakties het die ontwikkeling van moderne tegnologie die afstand in die behandeling van verskillende soorte tekens verklein, wat dit vir leksikograwe makliker maak om nietaalkundige tekens te lemmatiseer. Wat betref die punt dat nietaalkundige tekens ook leksikografiese aandag waardig is, bly my voorstel uit 2016 steeds geldig, met die verskil in hierdie bydrae dat die vertolkende funksie nie beskou word as 'n aparte funksie nie.

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/10520/EJC-bdb0eb1cf
2017-12-01
2018-12-10

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