Practical Lexicography Methods

Practical Lexicography Methods
Different phases of the lexicographical process can be recognized during dictionary creation (see. Gouws and Prinsloo 2005: 9ff., Svensén 1993). Wiegand (1998a: 134ff.) defines the preparation phase as (a) the acquisition of the material and data, (b) the treatment of the material and data, (c) the evaluation of the material and data, and (e) the print process preparation. (f) the period of continued development, according to Engelberg and Lemnitzer (2009: 228) development, as well as the data material's preservation and cultivation. Different decisions must be made, actions must be taken, and different approaches must be used in each phase. The phases apply to both print and online dictionaries; in some cases, they apply in the same way, while in others they do not (see Klosa 2013 for more information on online dictionaries). Furthermore, whether the construction of a dictionary is (a) a brand new project, (b) a dictionary derived from one or more existing dictionaries6, (c) a translation of another dictionary, (d) a revision and/or actualization of an existing edition, or (e) a retrodigitalization must be determined. The latter can be accomplished via copying (e.g., the double-keying approach) or scanning with text recognition (e.g., Piotrowski 2012: 25-52; Burch et al. 2000, using DWB as an example) or by parsing the tape of typesetting instructions (cf. Hauser and Storrer 1996), where the digitalized data can be transferred into single data (e.g. in XML) or into a database system (automatically or semi-automatically) (cf. also Engelberg and Lemnitzer 2009: 223ff.). The methods and the application areas where methods must be utilized will be listed in the following section in relation to the phases of the lexicographical process. 7 All situations will be guided by a completely new dictionary production. Only a few methods will be discussed in depth.
Until recently, lexicography and information science may be considered two separate fields that grew in parallel but had little or no formal relationship. Despite the fact that the two professions grew in nearly perfect isolation from one another, it has been increasingly obvious in recent years that they have a lot in common. This movement originated with lexicography, which began to regard lexicographical works as a distinct type of tool to be used for obtaining information. On this premise, it has been proposed that lexicography be considered a component of information science and so incorporated within it (cf. e.g. Bergenholtz and Bothma 2012, Tarp 2009). It is clear that integrating two formerly autonomous disciplines with lengthy traditions is not a problem that can be solved immediately, nor can it be accomplished in a unilateral manner. This article will delve deeper into the concept of relevance in both disciplines and demonstrate how the theoretical frameworks of both disciplines can complement one another using examples from lexicographical tools. This will be done in the context of Tarp and Bergenholtz's function theory of lexicography (e.g. Bergenholtz and Tarp 2002) and others' relevance theory in information science, as defined by Saracevic (1975, 1996), Cosijn and Ingwersen (2000), and others.
Lexicography is a branch of applied linguistics concerned with the production of dictionaries (practical lexicography) as well as the description of the many forms of lexical relations (theoretical lexicography). It isn't a brand-new science or a brand-new craft. The first dictionaries, according to historians, were explanations of difficult words put into Latin texts throughout the Middle Ages. As Cowie (2009: 2) points out, these glosses grew into glossaries that were arranged alphabetically or topically and came to play an important role in education and knowledge transmission. The use of Latin words to explain more harder Latin words prefigured monolingual dictionaries with their headwords and definitions, whereas Old English or Old French explanations of hard Latin words can be considered as a predecessor to modern bilingual dictionaries.
1. The startLexicographic operations before the letter For the period of the Greeks and Romans, word lists and glossaries had already been documented. TheVocabulistaofPapias (written ca. 1050, published 1485), theMagnae DerivationesofUguccione da Pisa (ca. 1210, ed. Riessner1965), and theCatholiconof Johannes Balbus (written 1286, published ca. 1469) all played major roles throughout the medieval period. The earliest bilingual glossaries with a combination of Latin and the vernacular speech form appeared in direct relation to this Latin-based heritage, followed by the combination vernacular-vernacular. The earliest recordings are from the 12th century. In the beginning, the glossaries were used to aid in the comprehension and study of Latin. Since the end of the 14th century, there has been an increase in interest in practice-oriented aids in the context of increasingly increased trade contact between European nations. The origins of monolingual lexicography in European vernacular languages may be traced back to the 15th century. TheVocabulistaof Luigi Pulci(ed.Volpi 1908), written between 1460 and 1466 (cf.Rossebastiano 1986; Müller 2001; Coseriu 2003: 53ff.; Schweickard 2012: 139ff.) is an early example. 2. The period of the early modern era Early in the early modern era, the first historical dictionaries were created. They were based on a thorough examination and partial reflection of historical literary sources. In comparison to previous glossaries, this beginning signified a greater degree of contemplation and a more specialized framework. The printing press, whose advantages were obvious to the people of the time, ushered in the opening up of the historical perspective: Following Christ's purification, the nymmer genügsam gelobtekunst des Buchdruckens inTeütschen Landen has first been shown under keyserFride-rich, the nymmer genügsam gelobtekunst des Buchdruckens inTeütschen Landen [...].As a result, the kostparn schätz schrifftlicher kunst, which had been hidden for a long time in the grasper's unknowledge, has been opened, and herfür a das liechtgelangt, that is, the vil treffenlich and to mensch-lichem brauch nottürfftige bücher, which had previously been zeügt with onkleine kostung, can now be zeügt with ease. [...] (Franck 1536,RIVv)(One thousand four hundred and forty years after Christ's birth, the art of the printing press, which can never be extolled enough, arrived to the German kingdoms during the reign of Emperor Friedrich the Third [...]. This unlocked the priceless treasure of written art that had been kept for a very long time in the tomb of ignorance, bringing to light the urgently needed and appropriate books for mankind's benefit. This was not something that could be obtained at a low cost, but only via the acquisition of a modest treasure [...]. The fountain of heavenly and inexpressible knowledge and art was shared with everyone through the art of printing). The current conditions of dictionary work were profoundly altered when the printing press was invented. Only a limited affluent section of the population had access to writing and reading culture throughout the early modern era. However, with the new printing technology, the manufacturing and distribution costs are reduced.