This section will explore some of the different traditions of defining dictionaries and explain why the term ‘dictionary’ best describes the AusDICT. While some traditions are very narrow, others include a wide range of approaches to both content and structure.
The Oxford English Dictionary Online gives the following definition for the entry ‘dictionary’:
Dictionary, n.
1a. A book which explains or translates, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or a particular category of vocabulary), giving for each word its typical spelling, an explanation of its meaning or meanings, and often other information, such as pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, equivalents in other languages, and illustrative examples.
b. In extended use: a book of information or reference on any subject in which the entries are arranged alphabetically; an alphabetical encyclopedia. (OED Online, 2019)
The prototypical dictionary—an alphabetical word list with definitions of each meaning of each word—is only one variation among many different types of dictionaries
(Seargeant, 2011). There are two main traditions of what consists a dictionary, which more or less align with definitions (a) and (b) given above by Oxford Online. The first tradition defines a dictionary as a lexicon, containing a list of words in alphabetical order and information which conveys the meaning of the word including multiple meanings if required (Landau, 2001). This tradition implies that dictionaries are very
specific types of books which are used for looking up the meanings of words. The
second tradition, however, takes a much broader approach to the definitions of a dictionary, contending that the entries should cover information on a subject, including but not limited to the meaning of the word. This definition of a dictionary includes reference materials such as encyclopaedias, where the first definition does not. The second tradition is promoted primarily by function lexicography, adding that a
dictionary (in sense b) should meet any and all needs of a potential user in relation to a topic (Tarp, 2008). The AusDICT has been developed drawing on the principles of function lexicography.
Function lexicography is a relatively new approach to general theories of lexicography. The approach is an explicit attempt to create a more empirical base for lexicography, by focussing research on the users, specifically potential users and the needs which might drive them to a dictionary (Tarp, 2008). By focussing on the potential user and allowing that research to drive the development of the criteria and development of the dictionary, function lexicography is able to develop new models of dictionaries which respond to questions users do not realise they need answered in order to understand their query. According to this perspective, dictionaries should be classified by the function they serve, rather than by the type of information they contain.
In function lexicography, determining which function a dictionary is intended to fulfil is critical to determining what content should be included and how it should be presented. The two definitions of dictionaries—a word list vs a reference book—differ essentially on their position of what kinds of functions a dictionary ought to fulfil, and how it might do so. Dictionaries in either definition can be differentiated based on whether they serve cognitive or productive functions (Fuertes-Olivera, 2010). Dictionaries can fulfil cognitive functions in the sense that they help their user to understand and think about the item they have researched in the dictionary. They can fulfil productive functions in the sense that they help their user to produce accurate language and communicate their point effectively using the information in the dictionary. In considering the different functions a dictionary can fulfil, one must also consider the user, which will be discussed in §4.4 of this chapter.
The debate between dictionary form vs. function is often framed in terms of the
differences between lexicons and encyclopaedias, where the key difference is that of the information included in an entry (see discussion of these differences in §4.6.2). The AusDICT intentionally selects the term ‘dictionary’ over ‘encyclopaedia’. While the headwords veer away from lexical items (in terms of the cultural values, attitudes, and norms), the information coded in the AusDICT is inherently linguistic in nature and does not represent the scientific or technical information which is certainly
encyclopaedic. While in some theoretical circles, a difference between the two is unnecessary, from a publisher’s and user’s standpoint it can be useful to make a distinction in the title of a publication. “Part of the reason [for the continuation of both dictionaries and encyclopaedias] is that the distinction between dictionaries and encyclopedias, while theoretically untenable, has the happy property of working very well in practice.” (Haiman, 1980, p. 355). In the case of the AusDICT, the distinction is a useful one for the users. Therefore, the term ‘dictionary’ is the best label for the AusDICT, and adopting it informs the user that they should not expect the type of information in an encyclopaedia to be included here.
Other approaches to lexicography have been developed to support the inclusion of additional cognitive and cultural information in dictionaries. In the Moscow school of semantics, for example, lexicographers such as Mel’čuk (e.g. Mel'čuk & Zholkovsky, 1984; Mel'čuk, Arbatchewsky-Jumarie, Elnitsky, Iordanskaja, & Lessard, 1984) and Apresjan (e.g. 2000) have been working to include rich combinatorial semantic information in dictionaries through the use of a descriptive metalanguage. While their metalanguage is artificial in origin, several decades of their research has brought it to a similar realisation as NSM (Apresjan, 2000).
In recent years, cognitive lexicography has drawn on the way that information is mapped in cognitive linguistics to better represent intuitive connections between concepts in dictionaries (Ostermann, 2015; Peeters, 2000b). Ostermann (2015) argues for the developing field of cognitive lexicography to focus its efforts both on the development of cognitive definitions, and on structuring dictionaries in a way that is more representative of users’ cognitive processes. The AusDICT responds to this by implementing an innovative structure based on user needs. This structure enhances the connections between articles and encourages a path of discovery between these
connected ideas.
Hanks sums up the path to innovation in lexicography—capturing both the goals of cognitive lexicographers, and the goals of this thesis—as:
[…] examining data with an open mind, then looking at users’ needs, and so gradually working up a framework for analysis and description that will do least distortion to evidence and be most helpful to the target audience. […] What do users need to be told, and how should it be expressed? (Hanks, 2008, p. 221)
In Hanks’ terms, the users of the AusDICT need to be told about the implicit knowledge speakers have of language and how it is used by a community of speakers; and they need to be told in a way that they can communicate that understanding to non-native speakers of English. The only existing framework to do this analysis and description of
both semantics and invisible culture is NSM. These are the presuppositions on which the user needs analysis in this thesis is built.
Many people associate dictionaries with being a list of words in alphabetical order. While this tendency is reflected in the OED Online definitions of a dictionary, it is not the only way to structure information in such a resource. Onomasiological lexicography structures entries via their cognitive or semantic relationships (Trklja, 2016; Zgusta, 1971). This approach to ordering entries and articles draws attention to related terms and means that a user is able to expand their knowledge in a conceptual area more quickly. Another advantage of this approach is that the user does not need exact knowledge of the headword they are looking for, only the main concept.
Conceptual ordering of ideas is ideal for users of the AusDICT, for both searchability and for revealing connections. Searchability is an important need for users, as many of the entries have headwords which are difficult to frame for looking up. As mentioned in Chapter 3, for the goals of the AusDICT, a necessary feature for users is to highlight the connections between different entries, which conceptual ordering achieve better than alphabetical ordering. Therefore, the AusDICT is not ordered alphabetically, but draws on cognitive and onomasiological lexicography to organise its entries based on broad domains and more specific sub-categories.