Linguistic and Encylopaedic Information - Essay Example

?Running Head: Linguistic and Encylopaedic Information Linguistic and Encylopaedic Information [Institute’s Introduction Since many decades, nature of linguistics has always remained under discussion and deliberation among language experts, philosophers, educators, scholars, and cognitive specialists especially during the comparison of linguistics with the validity and significance of worldly knowledge that has often opposed the innate nature of language. It has been an observation that this distinction has often been very metaphorical due to inter-relation of lexical and non-lexical knowledge, and thus one can come across different viewpoints regarding possibility of distinction of linguistic and encyclopaedic information. On one hand, few linguistics advocate invalidity of any distinction between the two types of knowledge and/or information due to globalization of language and knowledge that has resulted in increment in spread of semantics and enhanced dependence on semiotics that do not facilitate any distinction between lexical and encyclopaedic information. On the other hand, linguistics of other school of thoughts deny this argument and oppose that it is essential to distinguish both information, especially from the perspective of linguistics as it will allow an in-depth understanding of different elements of a language. In this regard, different viewpoints exist; however, this paper will now include a brief description and discussion regarding dictionary and its entries that will allow a general understanding of information that is provided in the dictionaries, which will later on be considered for discussion on its distinction with encyclopaedic information. Dictionary Entries Precisely, a dictionary is “an actual book constituting an attempt to list the lexicon of a language where the linguistic description of a word is the lexical entry for a lexeme” (Meyer, n.d, pp. 146-153). Course readings also enlighten understanding of lexical entry, as it indicates, “the lexical entry combines all those pieces of information about a lexeme that are not predictable from more general principles, such as the rules of morphology of the language. A typical lexical entry would be that for cat shown in: FORM /kat/ SYNTAX Noun SEMANTICS - furry quadruped that miaows” (Spencer, 2012, pp. 93) Nowadays, it has been an observation that a dictionary entry usually consists of lexical information regarding a particular word. For instance, in the above example also, dictionary entry consisted of form, syntax, and semantic information regarding the word ‘cat’. However, latest versions of dictionaries are now coming with additional information as well, such as semantic relatives and morphologies, pronunciations, as well as alternative spellings (Spencer, 2012). In this regard, one can see distinction between different types of dictionaries as well since one can come across general dictionaries, subject dictionaries, translating dictionaries, special dictionaries, etc, and thus, every dictionary differentiates from one another based on its characteristics. In some dictionaries, dictionary entry will consist of orthographic information that is not a linguistic characteristic of a word according to many linguistic experts and thus will not be present in entries of other dictionaries. According to few linguistic experts, various additional factors play a critical role in understanding of words in English language; they do affect meaning, and consequently utilization of the particular word. Thus, it has now become very difficult to separate worldly meaning associated with lexical word meaning since native speakers although begin with lexical understanding of the language; however, they left the former as soon as they increase the volume of their vocabulary. In this regard, although one can distinguish between lexical that is dictionary information and non-lexical that is encyclopaedic information; however, it will require selection of a particular lens and/or perspective that will enable proper and accurate distinction. Besides understanding the extent to which one can distinguish between purely linguistic information in a dictionary entry and encyclopaedic information, it is very imperative to understand the contents of a dictionary entry in detailed manner. The researcher in this paper will now reflect on his understandings based on the course readings (Spencer, 2012) particularly that were very effective in providing comprehensive understanding about different aspects of linguistics, and mainly, dictionary entries in context of this paper. Chiefly, a dictionary entry always tells its readers about idiomatic combinations that help in understanding the actual meaning and utilization of the particular word, and linguistic experts have been stating this as a ‘kind of cross-referencing function since idioms have their own lexical entries” (Spencer, 2012, pp. 95). Besides idiomatic combinations, collocation is another element that is usually found in dictionary entries that gives an idea of co-occurrence of the particular word enabling a brief understanding of expressions that a word is usually associated with. According to linguistic experts (Bartsch, 2004), it is very essential for learners to benefit from this informative element of a dictionary entry as frequent collocations help in learning new vocabulary in a quick and efficient manner. Moreover, course readings (Spencer, 2012) have already validated this perception while adding to this fact that collocations also play a significant role in assisting language learners, especially foreign language learners to grasp native-like accept in ones’ speech. In addition to collocations and idiomatic combinations, basic information that is usually found in dictionary entries is connotation. In today’s globalized world, connotations are playing a critical role as they add emotions and feelings to the words that we write or speak in the society. In this regard, a good dictionary always offers information regarding related connotations of a particular word that may help the learner in understanding existence of the word in global society. In other words, connotations also fulfill the function of operationalization that facilitates the learners, especially second language learners to grasp understanding of the words more quickly since pure translation often does not work while learning English as a second language. For instance, course reading validated significance of this information in a dictionary entry as it indicated that many dictionaries go into detail to offer an in-depth understanding of the connotations by presenting information regarding connotative aspects of particular word, such as “formality – highly formal, formal/written, neutral, colloquial/spoken, slang, vulgar, taboo • usage – archaic, technical, jocular, pejorative, etc” (Spencer, 2012). Furthermore, history has always been a concern for scholars, educators, and philosophers. In linguistics, history enjoys significant importance since a dictionary always offers knowledge about historical associations of the words in English language. One of the major reasons of presence of this information in dictionary entry is due to the fact that English has borrowed majority of its word from other languages, and thus historical associations allow crucial understanding of words, particularly, English language. This function is typically known as etymology, and in English language, etymology refers to two kinds of historical association that are “original vocabulary and borrowed vocabulary” (Spencer 2012). As course reading indicated the first type that is original vocabulary; “English is a Germanic language and much of the basic vocabulary of English dates back to the earliest form of Germanic. A great many common words can be found in most or even all of the Germanic languages, such as hand, arm, head, day, night, water, give, be, have” (Spencer, 2012, pp. 96). Besides original vocabulary, a dictionary entry offers understanding of second type of etymological information that is borrowed vocabulary, which happens in the case when a particular word is not associated originally with Germanic word but with some other language. In this regard, words taken from other historical contexts fall under the category of borrowed vocabulary, thus a dictionary entry consists of etymological information as well. Besides this information that is presented in dictionary entries, it is very imperative to understand the complexity that exists before the paper tries to attempt distinction between lexical and non-lexical information. It has been an observation that natural kind terms often create controversies when it comes to distinguishing the two types of information. Natural kind terms are those words that belong to the natural world and not the outcomes of fabricated world, such as dog, yellow, etc. Linguistic experts (Spencer 2012) have agreed to this fact that ‘natural kind terms’ is one of the categories of terms that do not come with prescribed definitions. Thus, it is almost impossible to offer their genuine or accurate definition, which becomes one of the major issues that do not allow distinction between purely linguistic information in a dictionary entry and non-lexical information in an encyclopaedia. For instance, in case of a dog, dictionaries in the past used to define it as a domesticated animal that uses three legs to pee instead of its four legs. This in no way defines a dog properly and does not give any idea at all to the reader regarding the relationship of dog with cat that exists in worldly society (Hudson, 1990). At this juncture, encyclopaedic entries play a critical role in providing a comprehensive definition, and more appropriately, contextual definition of the particular words. Similar is the case of artefacts that also cannot be understood without historical connotations and contextual interpretations, and thus, this call for a debate regarding the possibility of any distinction between purely linguistic information in a dictionary entry and encyclopaedic information. Before the paper attempts to argue over the extent to which both can be distinguished, the paper will quote some of direct examples of dictionary entries from Online Oxford Dictionary (2013) that will allow a practical understanding of abovementioned discussion regarding different elements of a dictionary entry: Examples of Dictionary Entries 1. “Bollock Pronunciation: /?b?l?k/ (also ballock) Definition of bollock verb [with object] British vulgar slang reprimand (someone) severely. 2. Gee-gee Definition of gee-gee noun British informal (in children’s use or in racehorse betting) a horse. Origin: mid 19th century (originally a child's word): reduplication of gee2 3. Rebec Pronunciation: /?ri?b?k/ (also rebeck) Definition of rebec noun a medieval stringed instrument played with a bow, typically having three strings. Origin: late Middle English: from French, based on Arabic rabab 4. Recce Pronunciation: /?r?ki/ British Definition of recce noun informal term for reconnaissance. verb (recces, recceing, recced) informal term for reconnoitre. Origin: 1940s: abbreviation 5. Ribonucleic acid Pronunciation: /?r??b?(?)nju??kle??k, -?kli??k/ Definition of ribonucleic acid noun see RNA. Origin: 1930s: ribonucleic from ribose + nucleic acid 6. Rubato Pronunciation: /r??b??t??/ Music Definition of rubato noun (plural rubatos or rubati /-ti/) (also tempo rubato) the temporary disregarding of strict tempo to allow an expressive quickening or slackening, usually without altering the overall pace. adjective performed with rubato: a rubato phrase Origin: Italian, literally 'robbed' 7. Samnite Pronunciation: /?samn??t/ Definition of Samnite noun a member of an Oscan-speaking people of southern Italy in ancient times, who spent long periods at war with republican Rome in the 4th to 1st centuries bc. adjective relating to the Samnites. Origin: from Latin Samnites (plural); related to Sabinus (see Sabine) 8. Spandrel Pronunciation: /?spandr?l/ Definition of spandrel noun Architecture the almost triangular space between one side of the outer curve of an arch, a wall, and the ceiling or framework. the space between the shoulders of adjoining arches and the ceiling or moulding above. Origin: late Middle English: perhaps from Anglo-Norman French spaund(e)re, or from espaundre 'expand' 9. Spec Pronunciation: /sp?k/ Definition of spec noun (in phrase on spec) informal in the hope of success but without any specific plan or instructions: he built the factory on spec and hoped someone would buy it Origin: late 18th century: abbreviation of speculation”(Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). Abovementioned dictionary entries clearly indicate different information that a dictionary presents in its entries, such as precise definition, pronunciation, origin that is etymology, lexical information, etc. This paper will now include discussion on the possibility of distinction between purely linguistic information in a dictionary entry and encyclopaedic information Distinction between Encylopaedic and Dictionary Information Analysis of the literature regarding distinction between encyclopaedic and dictionary information has indicated that this debate has been in continuance since many decades and yet, there has been no conclusion. Thus, the researcher in this paper does not aim to come to a conclusion; however, the discussion will enable an enlightened understanding of the aspects that play a critical role in this setting. To avoid understatement, the paper will include quotes to acquire a credible perception. For instance, in the year 1998, Daniele Goddard (1998, pp. 15) stated, “it is a minority view, but an imperative one, which denies the presence of any boundary between real-world and linguistic knowledge”. Analysis of his statements has indicated that he was of the perception that one cannot distinguish between the two paradigms since both are interrelated and attached with each other, and creation of a partition will demolish the holistic nature of the language. In this regard, according to him (Goddard, 1998), distinction between lexical and non-lexical information that is dictionary and encyclopaedic information is “largely artifactual” that is it is not truthful and linguistics will only create false dichotomies while distinguishing semantics and pragmatics. On the other hand, in the year 1988, Geeraerts stated that it is very imperative that linguistic experts should continue to distinguish between lexical and non-lexical information, as it will allow an in-depth understanding of human cognition in general. Although lexical information is not enough to understand structure and concepts of a language; similarly, non-lexical information cannot be understood in the absence of lexical that is dictionary information. In this regard, Geeraerts indicated lexical as essence and non-lexical as accidence indicating that both are inseparable; however, the attempt to distinguish them should remain in continuance that was the view of John Haiman who considered the same and called distinction as creation of artificial boundaries (Haiman, 1980). In the year 1969, Charles Fillmore (pp. 124-125) stated, “Let us examine some of the ways in which users of English speak of the horizontal dimensions of pieces of furniture. If we consider a sofa, a table, and a chest of drawers, we note first of all that a sofa or a chest of drawers has one vertical face that can be appropriately called its front, but the table does not. For a non-vertically-oriented oblong object that does not have a natural front, its shorter dimension is spoken of as its WIDTH, the longer dimension as its LENGTH. For the two items that do have a front, the dimension along that front is the WIDTH (even though it may be the longer of the two dimensions), the dimension perpendicular to the front is its DEPTH. Objects with fronts, furthermore, are typically conceived of as confronted from the outside, as is the case with the chest of drawers, or as viewed from the inside, as with the sofa. The terms LEFT and RIGHT are used according to this inner or outer orientation. Thus the left drawer of a chest of drawers is what would be to our left as we faced it, the left arm of a sofa is what would be to our right as we face it. This information is clearly related to facts about the objects themselves and the ways in which they are treated in our culture, and cannot be something that needs to be stated as lexically specific information about the nouns that name them. It seems to me, therefore, that the truly lexical information suggested by these examples is the information that must be assigned to the words LEFT, RIGHT, WIDE, LONG and DEEP (and their derivatives). In addition, that the facts just reviewed about the items of furniture are facts about how these objects are treated by members of our culture and are therefore proper to an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary”. In the year Wierzbicka (1996, pp. 336) stated, “it is impossible to draw a line between ‘meaning’ and ‘knowledge’ or between ‘dictionaries’ and ‘encyclopaedias’ for the unfortunate effect that it has had on the study of the lexicon. She added, “belief that a dictionary definition represents nothing other than a selection from a (real or imaginary) encyclopaedia entry, with the choice being determined by practical considerations and having no theoretical justification, leads to stagnation in lexical semantics” (Wierzbicka, 1996, pp. 336). Conclusively, the above quotes indicate the complexity that exists in the process of distinction between lexical and non-lexical information; however, further research will help in more in-depth understanding of the related aspects of linguistics. References Bartsch, S. (2004). Structural and Functional Properties of Collocations in English. Copenhagen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fillmore, C. J. (1969). “Types of lexical information”. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Studies in syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 109-137. Geeraerts, D. (1988). “Cognitive grammar and the history of lexical semantics”. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 647-677. Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haiman, J. (1980). “Dictionaries and encyclopedias”. Lingua, Vol. 50, pp. 329-357. Hudson, R. (1990). English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Oxford Dictionaries. (2013). Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Retrieved on March 21, 2013: http://oxforddictionaries.com/ Meyer, P. G. (n.d.). Synchronic English Linguistics. Copenhagen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Spencer, A. (2012). “Meaning and words: words and dictionaries.” LG287 Course Booklet. University of Essex. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics. Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bibliography Hudson, R., and Willy, V. L. (1991). “Word grammar”. In: Flip G. Droste & John E. Joseph (ed.), Linguistic theory and grammatical description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 307-336. Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row. Lakoff, G. (1974). “Interview with Herman Parret.” In Herman Parret (ed.), Discussing language. The Hague: Mouton. 151-178. Also in Charles J. Fillmore, George Lakoff & Robin Lakoff (ed.). 1974. Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 1. Berkeley: Institute of Human Learning & Department of Linguistics, UCB. XI-1 – XI-44. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Raskin, V. (1985). “Linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge in text processing”. Quaderni di semantic, Vol. 6, pp. 92-102. Read More