Chapter: lexicology and its object subject matter of Lexicology

4. Attitudes towards dictionaries
Lexicography depends on its development in the solution of some general problems of Lexicology. So, lexicography is closely connected with the problems of Lexicology. The compilers approach to lexicological problems differently. For example, there is no clear border-line between homonymy and polysemy in different dictionaries. Thus in some dictionaries words such as fly — namuia (Myxa), (a two wingled insect) and a fly — Tynna ynyH Marepnaji.1 (a flap of cloth covering duttons on the garment are treated as two different words and in others (For examplethe Concise Oxford Dictionary and the Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English) — as different meanings of one and the same word.
Many of the significant contributors to the present understanding of meaning (such as Katz and Fodor 1963; FUlmore 1968; Fillmore 1971; Chafe 1970; Jackendoff 1975; Winograd 1972; Schank 1972) have generally ignored dictionaries. Yet, each has presented a formulaic structure for lexical entries to serve as a basis for the creation of a new dictionary. Although their perceptions about the nature of language are well-established, their formalisms for lexical entries have not taken advantage of the equally well-established practices of lexicography.
The rationale underlying the development of new formalisms, expressed in some cases and implicit in others, is that lexical entries in dictionaries are unsatisfactory because they do not contain sufficient information. These formalisms thus require that semantic features such as "animate" or "state" be appended to particular entries. While it is true that ordinary dictionary entries do not overtly identify all appropriate features, this may be less a difficulty inherent in definitions than the fact that no one has developed the necessary mechanisms for surfacing features from definitions.
Thus, for example, "nurse" may not have the feature "animate" in its definition, but "nurse" is defined as a "woman" which is defined as a "person" which is defined as a "being" which is defined as a "living thing"; this string seems sufficient to establish "nurse" as "animate." In general, it seems that, if a semantic feature is essential to the meaning of a particular entry, it is similarly necessary that the feature be discoverable within the semantic structure of a dictionary.
Otherwise, there is a defect in one or more definitions, or the dictionary contains some internal inconsistency. (Clearly, it is beyond expectation that any present dictionary will be free of these problems.)
The possibility of defective definitions has also generated criticisms, more direct than above, on the potential usefulness of a dictionary. One hand, definitions are viewed as "deficient in the presentation of relevant data" since they provide meanings by using "substitutable words (i.e. synonyms), rather than by listing distinctive features" (Nida 1975: 172). On another hand, the proliferation of meanings attached to an entry is viewed as only a case of "apparent polysemy" which obscures the more general meaning of a lexeme by the addition of "redundant features already determined by the environment" (Bennett 1975: 4-11). Both objections may have much validity and to that extent would necessitate revisions to individual or sets of definitions.
However, neither viewpoint is sufficient to preclude an analysis of what actually appears in any dictionary. It is possible that a comprehensive analysis might more readily surface such difficulties and make their amelioration (and the consequent improvement of definitions) that much easier.
Even though dictionaries are viewed somewhat askance by many who study meaning, it seems that this viewpoint is influenced more by the difficulty of systematically tapping their contents than by any substantive objections which conclusively establish them as useless repositories of semantic content. However, it is necessary to demonstrate that; systematic approach exists and can yield useful results.
Some attempts have been made to probe the nature and structure of dictionary definitions. A review of relevant aspects of two such studies will help the material presented here stand out in sharper relief.
We started with the assumption that the English vocabulary comprises all the words and phraseological units existing in the language. The term "phraseological unit", however, is rather vague and allows of interpretation. If term is to be taken as including any "idiomatic expression" the meaning of which cannot be directly inferred from the meaning of its components, then all kind of various lexical items ranging from two-word groups of type give up, take in, etc. to proverbs and sayings For example, its the early birds that catches the worm, that is where the shoe pinches, etc., would have to be listed as separate vocabulary entries, thus greatly increasing the number of vocabulary units in English.
Another problem in Lexicology is connected with phraseological units as best man (noun equivalent), at length (adverb equivalent). They should be treated as individual vocabulary units; other types of the so-called idiomatic expressions are treated in the entries devoted to the component words of the idiomatic expressions.
Another debatable problem is the problem of homonymy, especially lexico- grammatical homonymy. If it is held by, the compiler that identical sound-forms For example, work (noun) and work(verb), are but different grammatical and semantic variants of one and the same word, they are accordingly treated within one and the same dictionary entry and counted as one word. This conception tends to diminish the total number of vocabulary units in English. In some cases of lexical homony my the boundary line between various meanings of polisemantic word and the meaning of two homony mous word is not suffitiontly sharp and clear and allows of different approaches to the problem.
There is one more point of interest in connection with the problem of the number of words that should be mentioned here. Paradoxical as it may seem a great number of lexical items actually used by English-speaking people are never or scarcely ever recorded in dictionaries. These are words like footballer, hero- worshipper and others formed on highly productive word-building patterns. Such words are easily understood, they never strike one as 'unusual' or 'unclear'. They may be used by any member of speech community whenever the need to express a certain concept arises. Such words are usually referred to as "potential", "occasional" or "nonce-words". The terms imply that vocabulary units of this type are created for a given occasion only may be considered as but "potentially" existing in English vocabulary. The approach of the dictionary compilers to occasional words also effects the number of dictionary entries. Those dictionaries that regularly record such occasional words naturally increase the number of dictionary entries.
It may be easily observed from the above that the divergent views concerning the nature of basic vocabulary units can not but affect the estimate of the size of English vocabulary in terms of exact figures.
The connection between Lexicology and lexicography can, perhaps, best illustrated in the discussion of the number of vocabulary units in Modern English.
All the words and phraseological units existing in the language are said to be recorded in dictionaries. But the analysis of dictionaries, even those bearing the little "complete", does not allow one to draw any definite conclusion as to the exact number of vocabulary units in Modern English. Different dictionaries register different number of words. The entries even in the most comprehensive dictionaries range from 500.000 to 600.000. the problem of vocabulary counts is closely connected with the divergent views concerning the nature of basic vocabulary units and also with the difference in the approach of dictionary compilers to some of the crucial problems of lexicological science.
Counting up the entries in dictionaries we are struck by the basically different approachs to the vocabulary units as such. One and the same lexical item, say, "seal: is treated differently in different dictionaries some regarding it as one word and some as five different words. One and the same phrase, e.g by chance, is included in the vocabulary entry under the head-word chance in one dictionary,but is not to be found in another dictionary of approximately the same size. Some of the seemingly "simple" words frequently occurring in spoken English such as footballer, hero-warshiper are not included in the best available dictionaries.
There are many points of interest closely connected with the problem of number vocabulary units in English but we shell confine ourselves to setting down in outline a few of the major issues clustering round the to central problems: 1) divergent views of the dictionary compilers concerning the nature of basic vocabulary units and 2) intrinsic heterogeneity of modern English vocabulary, all dictionaries may be roughly divided into two main types- encyclopedic and linguistic. Linguistic dictionaries are word-books, their subject matter is vocabulary-units (their semantic structure, usage, etc.). encyclopedias are thing- books dealing with concepts (objects and phenomena, their origin and development, relations to other concepts, etc.)- for example, entry influenza discloses the causes, symptoms, characteristics , derivatives, synonyms , etc. in an encyclopedia the entry influenza discloses the causes, symptoms, characteristics and varieties of this disease, various treatments of and remedies for it ,ways of infection, etc.