Lexicographical data and structures ·················································

The terms “data”, “information” and “item” are commonly used to characterize the lexicographical content of a dictionary. According to NORDISK

LEXICOGRAPHICAL ORDBOK, a dictionary “does not contain the lemma data or lexicographical data”, but instead contains what are referred to as items. An “item” is defined as:

“that part of a treatment or processing unit which is rhematic and provides

information about the lemma sign or other text segments in a dictionary article, or in textual parts in the outer text of the dictionary.

The genuine purpose of an item is to enable the dictionary user to draw conclusions that provide lexicographical information. Thus, items are concrete text segments, whereas lexicographical information is the cognitive elements with which the user is left after having consulted a dictionary”

(Tarp; 2008:98)

“Data” is the new concept which gradually gets more popular than “item” in the lexicographic field. “In the years after 1989, computers started to make their mark in the world of lexicography, and the term data or lexicographical data started to appear with increasing frequency in theoretical texts on lexicography.” (Tarp; 2008:99) Wikipedia defines “data” as follows:

“Data are often viewed as the lowest level of abstraction from which information and then knowledge are derived.---The terms information and knowledge are frequently used for overlapping concepts. The main difference is in the level of

abstraction being considered. Data is the lowest level of abstraction, information is the next level, and finally, knowledge is the highest level among all three. Data on its own carries no meaning. In order for data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning.”

Although “item” and “data” sometimes refer to the same thing, “data” puts more emphasis on the idea of its being the “lowest level of abstraction”, which is why Tarp chooses the concept of “data” for use in Function Theory.

Depending on first user needs and secondary user needs, the lexicographical data, which, it must be remembered, is different from lexicographical information, “can be divided into function-related data (primary data) and usage-related data (secondary data)”. It can then be further divided into “word-class data, genus data, inflection data, etc.” according to its special content. (Tarp; 2008:100) The classification of the data does not really matter, however, only when it is used in lexicographical structures.

How to arrange the data and make it accessible to the users is one of the important aspects a lexicographer needs to consider.

3.2.5.2 Lexicographical structures

In the years since lexicography was established as an independent field, attempts have been made to study the different lexicographical structures found in dictionaries. German researchers such as Herbert Ernst Wiegand were particularly active in this field. It was Wiegand who identified “dozens of types and sub-types of structure, the most important of which are overall text structure, macrostructure, microstructure, article structure, addressing structure, mediostructure, access structure and search field structure”. (Tarp; 2008:102) These types of concepts, especially macrostructure and microstructure, are very important to work on lexicographical research, and will be carefully discussed in Chapter four of this thesis.

Tarp criticizes three aspects of the existing theories on lexicographical structures: “1. The lexicographical relevance of all the structures that have been identified has not been explained sufficiently.

2. The structures are described formally not in relation to dictionary functions 3. No clear structure theory has been formulated which is common to both printed and electronic dictionaries.”

(Tarp; 2008:102) These points are a little too fastidious. For example, although it is reasonable and good to construct a theory of lexicographical structures within the Function Theory, it is not really necessary to require that all the structures be described in relation to dictionary functions. Function Theory is a good way to study lexicography, but not the only way. As for the third point, the necessity and possibility of working out a common structure for both printed and electronic dictionaries seems doubtful at best. Because of the fact that they rely on different mediums, printed and electronic

dictionaries have many very different characteristics. There is a huge variety of new possibilities when it comes to the development of electronic dictionaries since the field itself is relatively new. It is important that a general theory of lexicography should not be directed at dictionaries belonging to only one medium. However, within such a theory the differences in different media of dictionaries need to be

acknowledged. The advantage of Function Theory is its user-target, which makes the theory adaptable to the needs of users and allows it to focus on the specific needs of specific groups of users. This flexibility also makes it easier for Function Theory to cope with the new items and new phenomena. Therefore, to work out a general or fixed structure theory contradicts the principle of Function Theory. Structures and functions should be components of a general theory of lexicography.

To sum up, Function Theory is a great step towards reflecting the independence of lexicographical theory. Its user-orientation changed the focus from the dictionary itself to the needs of dictionary users and helped move the creation and criticism of dictionaries to a new level. According to a dictionary’s desired functions, the

lexicographer can choose relevant data to meet the knowledge and information needs of the user, and arrange the dictionary using the most accessible structure to help the user gain the utmost possible benefit from the dictionary.