Prev
| Home | Next
The
prodigious activity in the area of vocabulary study and a keen interest in evolving
a theoretical framework for making different types of dictionaries in the Soviet
Union - these both indicate that lexicology and lexicography have been recognized
by the linguists there as distinct disciplines of language study. The full-length
treatment of lexicology even in their various textbooks (Agayan, 1959; Bulakhovsky,
1953; Muchnik, 1961; Reformatsky, 1955) attests to the fact that in Soviet linguistics
lexicology exists as an autonomous level of linguistic analysis at par with phonology,
morphology, etc. By contrast, no corresponding discipline has been recognized
by the textbook writers of the West, and "to an American observer",
to quote Weinreich (1963 : 61), "the strangest thing about Soviet lexicology
is that it exists".
Among
the many talented Soviet linguists, as a theoretician in the field of lexicology
and as a devoted "dictionary-creator" in the area of lexicography, the
name of the late L. V. Shcherba commands a high respect in the Soviet Union. His
views on the various problems of lexicology and his approach towards creating
various types of dictionaries (lexicography) are. responsible for establishing
lexicology and lexicography as distinct scientific disciplines and, furthermore,
for shaping critically the new directions in these areas.
Section
I of this paper will be mainly devoted to some of the recurrent problems of lexicology
and the insights shown by Shcherba in resolving them. This account may also be
viewed as 2 modest contribution towards constructing a theoretical framework for
lexicology, the basic tenets of which, though implicit in the writings of Shcherba,
have not been explicitly stated and formally defined. The paper, thus, may also
be taken as a rejoinder to the statement made by Weinriech (1963 : 66): "In
the considerable body of Soviet literature on lexicology, it is surprisingly difficult
to find a comprehensive statement of the theoretical foundations and research
goals of the linguistic disciplines". Shcherba's approach towards linguistic
study is the outcome of a fruitful blending of theory and practice. This has already
been shown elsewhere (Srivastava, 1969; 1968) in respect of phonology and language
learning. The same is true for lexicology and lexicography : he enriched his theories
from his experience while working on the Russian (monolingual') dictionary - Slovar
russkogo jazyka Academii Nauk - and creating a bilingual Russian-French dictionary;
at the same time, "all of his lexicographic work is impregnated with the
ideas connected with lexicology" (Istrina, 1951 87).
Section
2 is taken up with the elaboration of the basic typology of dictionaries and the
methodological decisions dependent on this typology.
I
The
following are the basic tenets underlying Shcherba's theoretical framework and
research goals in the area of lexicology (though each of these postulates demands
fuller exposition, we will confine ourselves for the present only to a summary
statement).
Language
is a dialectal unity of thought process and symbolic action and thus the concept
of sign finds its full relevance only as a "bridge" between psychology
and linguistics. This means that, according to Shcherba, language should be regarded
not merely as a means of communication, but as a symbolic activity of thought
process (compare this concept with that of Saussure who holds the view that in
"linguistics proper" sign should be treated "in itself or for itself").
In
language, thought process and symbolic action shade into each other and the overlap
represents the verbal symbol, the basic unit of which is word. By "unit"
Shcherba means that smallest product of analysis which keeps all the properties
of the level of description of which it is a unit (1962; 1910 : 233). However,
it should be noted that Shcherba holds that "the psychological primitive
is the sentence - it is not that the sentence is constituted of words, but a word
is born from the sentence through an analytic process (and, therefore, is not
a scientific construct) and you know, it is born and (hence) it exists".
The relationship between the thought process and the symbolic action has been
represented analogically by the arrangement of knots and threads in a net (See,
Fig.1). Note that the word (a knot) exists simultaneously on two dimensions: as
a functional entity or an element of symbolism on the horizontal axis, and as
a thought element on the vertical axis.
Though
in language symbolic action and thought process interpenetrate so much that it
becomes impossible to isolate them, ontogenetically they have different roots
(Vygotsky, 1962 : 44). The consequence of the deep interpenetration is that language
begins to function as a filter between the objective world and the speaker. It
is for this reason that Shcherba (1962) wrote that "in every language the
world is represented differently. We confuse things (items) with words - things
are understood in the form in which they are given to us in words, and the supreme
act of cultural development rests in setting 2 free the concepts from the imprisonment
of words" .
chart
Relationship
between thought and process and symbolic action
The
whole field of language is divided into two - lexicon and grammar: the former
is "the designation of autonomous objects of thought" while the latter
can be understood as "the expression of relationship between the objects"
(Shcherba, 1945 : 16). The level of grammar has four subsystems - phonetics, word-formation,
form-formation, and syntax.
The
word is a unit of the sentence and the sentence has two distinct aspects - one
related to lexicon and the other to grammar. Therefore, a word may fall into two
categories - lexical (word) and grammatical (word). Thus, "all the auxiliary
words like prepositions, conjunctions, copula, some of the pronouns, many prepositional
and conjunctive expressions exist only as grammatical items and, hence, totally
disappear from the dictionary" (Shcherba, 1945 : 16).
The
same item may be lexical in one context and grammatical in another. For example,
He
was in America. (lexical)
He was an American. (grammatical)
Similarly,
the Hindi word ja(na) can have two functions - lexical (to go) and grammatical
(passive marker); rah(na) can have three functions - grammatical progressive aspect
marker), lexical ('to live'), and lexical compounding as in intensifier (continuation
of a state) (cf. Beskrovny, 1960).
Grammar
deals with the rule-formation activity and the words generated through such an
activity will always be grammatical words. Each language has enumerable ways of
generating 'new' words. Contrary to this, the lexicon is concerned only with already
'made' words (Shcherba, 1945 : 17).
It
should be asserted that if lexicology is a distinct level, its basic unit should
also be distinct from the units of other levels. Lexical meanings are often confused
with morphemic meanings. But morpheme is a unit of symbolic action, i.e., grammar
(strictly speaking, a sublevel of grammar, i.e., morphology). It is altogether
a different situation when a morpheme may exist as (lexical) word, and then it
may have a lexical meaning as well. As all the units of grammar derive their significance
by rule-function, morphemic meaning should also be defined in terms of 'rule of
word usage'. On the contrary, lexical meaning is defined by the paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relations between the autonomous objects of thought. The two types
of meaning have been shown in Fig.2.
chart
How
a lexical unit derives its semantics (psychological content) out of paradigmatic
and syntagmatic relations can be demonstrated by taking the autonomous objects
of thought (related to the 'mode of movement') of which a native speaker of Hindi
is in possession. Fig.3 defines the semantic range of three Hindi lexical items
- paedal 'on foot', gari 'kinds of transport on land', and jahaj 'kinds of transport
in air or on water'. The lexical item gari can be qualified by many other lexical
items, but all, of them must have a mode of transportation [-person, +land], e.g.,
m°tar- 'motor', rel- 'rail', gh°ra 'horse', bael - 'bullock', etc. On
the other hand, jahaj can have only those which are [-person, -land], e.g., havai
- 'air-' or pani (-ka) 'water-'. It is worth noting that the qualifying lexical
items in the collocations are mutually exclusive.
(-person)
paedal (+person)
jahaj(-land) gar?i (+land)
Fig.3
Semantic
range of Hindi words - paedal, jahaj and gar?i
The
upshot of the above discussion is that a distinction must be made between meaning
as a sign-function and meaning as a lexical-function: the latter concerns a unit
which is psycholinguistic, while the former defines the semantic component of
a sign (Leontev, 1965).
By
the very definition of 'lexical word' (lexeme) polysemous words are different
words rather than one lexical unit with different meanings (see the discussion
on the Russian word igla in Shcherba, 1940 : 70-73).
Similarly,
Shcherba (1945 19) considers that truba 'trumpet' is a different word from its
derivative trubac 'trumpet-player' because the latter designates a person while
the former item designates an inanimate object. But truba and the derivative word
formed out of the diminutive suffix -ock-a i.e., trubocka are the same lexical
items. To take an example from Hindi, the pairs given in set A will be two different
lexical items (as they refer to two different autonomous objects of thought) while
the pairs in set B will be variants of the same lexical item.
A 1. cam 'leather' +suffix for 1. Camar
2. l°ha 'iron' profession = 2.
luhar
3. s°na 'gold' -ar 3. sunar
B 1. am 'mango' +diminutive 1. amiya
2. khat 'cot' suffix = 2. khatiya
3. pul 'bridge' -iya 3. puliva
Word-formation
may be realized through morphological, phonological (morphemic alternation), or
word-compounding processes. It is in the treatrtient of compound words that Shcherba's
contribution is considered significant.
Compound-words,
as generally formed by the samasa-process in Sanskrit and German, are considered
by Shcherba as words only on account o their form. Shcherba considers them essentially
as simple units of 'parole' which he calls 'syntagm'. Most of the compound words
in these languages are formed out of the speech process ('parole') and do not
enter into the repertoire of 'langue' (Shcherba, 1945 : 9).
As
opposed to such syntagms, there are compound words which are compound only in
the historical perspective or sign-delineation; otherwise, synchronically they
exist only as a simplex. For example, paro-xod 'steam-boat' (i.e., steamer), paro-voz
'steam-engine' (i.e., engine) are according to Shcherba simplexes. A parallel
example from Hindi will be jala-vayu 'water-air' (i.e., climate).
Word-compounding
elements may actually perform a discriminatory function in designating and locating
the autonomous object of thought. By form they may be compound words; but by function
they are lexical items. Such words have been classed by Shcherba as 'potential
words' (1945 : 18). Russian examples - zeleznaja doroga 'ferrous way' (i.e., railway),
zubnaja pasta 'dental paste' (i.e., tooth paste). English examples are black-berry,
black-board; Hindi examples are kama-deva 'name of the god of love in Hindu mythology'
and sivaratri 'name for a particular religious day'.
Word,
as a unit of language, can be defined only in relation to its form and content.
Shcherba's four types of words (mono-, bi-, potential-, and syntagm-) are thus,
based on the different combinations of features which are binary in function and
bilateral in dimension (See, Fig.4).
Phonetic Word
+
mono-word potential
word
syntagm bi-word
+
Content Word
_
Fig.4
Word-types
In
summary, it can be said that Shcherba's model presupposes the following theoretical
foundations for lexicology -
1.
Lexicology is a distinct level of linguistics and is directly opposed to grammar.
(Compare this with the stand taken by Trager (1949 : 5) - "lexicology often
passes out of the field of linguistics into metalinguistics ..." Similar
is the view of Bloomfield (1933 : 274) who thinks that "the lexicon is really
an appendix of the grammar
2.
The basic unit of lexicology is the lexical word (lexeme) which is a unit in its
own right, distinct from all other linguistic units. A lexeme may be defined as
"the designation of the autonomous unit of thought". (Compare, this
with Whorf's definition (1956 : 160) which equates lexeme with the 'stem'. According
to the descriptivists like Trager (1958 : 5) it is only a list of morphemes, and
for Hockett (1958 : 171) "a lexeme is always a grammatical form, by definition".)
3.
As language is a dialectical unity of thought process and symbolic action, the
researcher is confronted with the interpenetrating factors operating between two.
it is for this reason that the concept of word as a unit of sentence structure
moves from the lexical to the grammatical field and vice-versa. [Compare this
stand with that of Wells (1947) who considers that a word is a 'heterogeneous'
term and hence, it should be Excluded from linguistic description].
A
word may be lexical or grammatical.
A
word may he definable by its phonetic form alone (then it is a syntagm), or by
its content alone (then it is a potential word), or by different opposite combinations
of form and content (then it can be either a simplex or a complex word).
4)
Similarly 'meaning' (the most abused term of the time) is also not, homogeneous.
The model presupposes that a language has no homogeneous semantic basis (Zvegnitsev,
1957 : 93). There are two types of meaning: the psychological component of the
meaning related to the thought process, and the sign component of the mean related
to the symbolic action. [Compare this treatment with that of Hjelmslev (1953)
or Antal (1953) who consider that "meaning is not a p;sychic phenomenon but
that it is objective and does not primarily exist in the minds of the members
of the speech community
" (Antal, 1953)].
5) By definition, polysemous words are not one lexical item with different meanings,
but rather different 'autonomous objects of thought' assigned to different lexical
items. In terms of the present-day discussion, the Shcherba model favours the
stand of Weinreich (1966) rather than that of Katz and Fodor (1963) in regard
to the concept of lexical item.
6) The psychological element of semantic content
namely, lexical meaning, is like a field - "obsceje" (the universal
- which is realized only through the individual. (For the concept of 'universal'
and 'individual', see, Srivastava, 1959). The range of the lexical meaning is
defined by the paradigmatic and syntagmatic opposition in which a given lexical
item stands against all other lexical items of a language.
II
The
cardinal point concerning dictionaries is that they are 'creation' rather than
'compilation'. Furthermore, lying behind them are the purpose and goals which
determine a great many methodological decisions for reorganizing the data into
a properly presented lexicon. As the purpose and goals for making dictionaries
are always set against the practical needs of the user, the orientation of dictionaries
differs from type to type, i.e., the choice in various types of dictionaries is
related to the value-judgements arising out of the governing purpose.
Thus,
three basic factors come to the forefront in evaluating any particular type of
dictionary: (1) the purpose, (2) the user, and (3) the methodology. It is in this
context that Shcherba wrote (1940 : 54) "Of course, one of the basic problems
of lexicography is the problem of different types of dictionaries. It bears a
direct practical significance and somehow the problem has always been empirically
decided". In all, Shcherba talks about nine different types of dictionaries:
(1) Reference (Vade-mecum) - RD, (2) Academic - Ad, (3) Encyclopaedic - EnD, (4)
Thesaurus - ThD, (5) Explanatory - ExD, (6) Bilingual - BD, (7) Ideological -
ID, (8) Synchronic SD, and (9) Diachronic - DD.
When
opposed to the type ID, ExD and BD are classed in one group and the common group
is termed as Common Dictionary - CD. The two types CD and ID are commonly grouped
as General Dictionary - GD as opposed to EnD. In his paper entitled "An attempt
towards the general theory of lexicography", Shcherba (1940) tries to unsnarl
the theoretical base and premises on which different types of dictionaries are
created. This he does through a series of dichotomies, i.e., (1) AD vs. RD, (2)
EnD vs. GD, (3) ThD vs. CD, (4) ID vs. CD, (5) ExD vs. BD, and (6) SD vs. DD.
In
this paper we propose to limit our discussion to exploring the different parameters
and registers which underlie the different types of dictionaries and which, in
a way, influence a great many decisions in respect of the methodology of lexicography.
A schematic representation of the typology of dictionaries based on different
parameters and registers is proposed (See, Fig.5). It should be mentioned here
that though our attempt has been to explicate the parameters and registers envisaged
by Shcherba, for the sake of presentation and further discussion, the order of
parameters that has been followed does not represent the one Shcherba proposes.
2.1.
Based on the concept of overall pattern and sub-systems, dictionaries may be classified
as RD or AD. The overall pattern includes every lexical item that is in the repertory
of a given language, productively or receptively. Here, the lexicographer accepts
the complexities and 'heterogeneity' of a language in all its dimensions: temporal
and spatial;
chart
social
and cultural. RD is representative of that dictionary which has been characterized
by Shcherba as a type "behind which does not lie any unified language consciousness:
the collected words may belong to heterogeneous speech-groups of different periods
and which do not in the least form a system" (1940 : 55).
Contrary
to this, AD is based on the concept of 'coexistent systems'. Here, a lexicographer,
by accepting certain defined parameters, consciously selects his data so that
the lexicon of a language, regardless of its heterogeneity, turns out to be a
self -contained and homogeneous system. This type of dictionary is characterized
by Shcherba as a type "at the root of which lies a unified (real) language
consciousness of a defined speech-group of a specified time-span" (1940 :
55).
Based
on this parameter, these two types of dictionaries, according to Shcherba, reflect
the following differences:
RD |
AD |
a)
Speech-groups are different hence, lexicon is heterogeneous. | a)
Speech-groups are defined hence lexicon is homogeneous |
b)
The aim is to know the meaning of one or the other words. | b)
The aim is to verify whether or not in this or that situation, this or that (already)
known word can be used. |
c)
Descriptive in nature. | c)
Prescriptive in order to establish stylistic norms. |
It
is obvious that dialect dictionaries in general fall within the RD-type, but if
the region is defined and that lexicon is selected in order to give a detailed
picture of the regional lexicon, the dictionary will be considered to be of the
AD-type. All technical dictionaries made for the use of the concerned professionals
are of the AD-type.
It
is in fact due to the lack of knowledge of the aims and objectives and, consequently
the methodological principles following therefrom in respect of these two types
of dictionaries, that the publication of Webster's Third New International Dictionary
evoked a bitter response. It was characterised as "a massive and shameless
display of ignorance of simple linguistic facts and of long established lexicographic
principles" (Allen, 1964 : 433). To think that the lexicographer as a linguist-reporter
is superior in kind to a linguistlegislator (Mathews, 1955) is also a fallacious
stand because lexicography is an applied science and, like other applied sciences,
its methodology is conditioned by its aims and objectives.
The
second parameter drawn for organizing the lexical material is based on the nature
of the relationship between the signifier and the signified: the relationship
may be fluid or rigid. Where the relationship is fluid we find lexeme in the form
of a 'word', and where it is rigid we have a 'term'.
"A
word", to quote Vygotsky (1962 : 146), "means both more or less than
the same word in isolation: more, because it acquires new content; less, because
its meaning is limited and narrowed by the context". It is due to this fluid
relation that the word mean in English, depending upon different uses, conveys
eight different senses 'insignificant', 'cruel', 'intend', 'result in', 'signifies',
explanation', 'implies', (Alston, 1964 : 10).
On
the other hand, a lexeme becomes a 'term' when it shows a rigid relationship;
it stands for a fixed notion of a given theory. "The status of term in the
vocabulary is considered as dual: on the one hand, systematicity is manifested
at its utmost in a term; on the other hand, a term enters a system of notions
of a given sphere of terminology, which does not necessarily coincide with the
system of the vocabulary of a given language. Therefore, a term is a 'servant
of two masters' and cannot be a perfect example of a word regarded as a member
of a lexical system" (Reformatsky, 1967 : 125).
Proper
nouns are not 'terms' because the signified object is not defined against any
specific theory, but they also, like terms, have a rigid relationship, i.e., they
refer to fixed objects of the objective world (in contrast to a word which refers
to an autonomous object of thought).
Thus,
the dictionary which selects lexicon based on a rigid relationship between the
signifier and the signified is of the EnD-type, while that which is concerned
with the lexicon having a fluid relationship is of the GD-type.
Here,
we would like to discuss in brief the solution that Shcherba offers for two of
the questions which a lexicographer has to face during his work on both EnD and
GD: (1) What should be the underlying principle for including or rejecting items
of the dictionary of the EnD-type in the GD-type dictionary? (2) What should be
the manner of offering meaning for 'terms' if they are selected as items for GD?
Shcherba's
answer for the first problem is in favour of including in GD all those lexical
items which, due to usage, lose their specificity. This happens because proper
nouns may, at times, be' related to common nouns in the same way as a definite
common noun is related to indefinite ones. For example, see how the semantic component
of a meaning (of the word 'philosopher') is actualized in the two sentences given
below:
1. A philosopher/philosophers is/are in the habit of appreciating form.
(Common noun in a strict sense).
2.
A/The philosopher went to the interlocutor. (Common noun referring to a specific
person).
Shcherba
argues that though Khlestakov is a name (proper noun) of a character of Gogol's
comedy Revizor, his very name projects the image of an impudent liar and a flap;
the name has lost its reference to an individualized character, so much so, that
in Russian we get a derivative word like xlestakovscina. Similar words from Hindi
would be ram, ravan, vibhisan, etc.
As
regards the second problem, Shcherba is of the opinion that if a term in EnD should
derive its meaning by the place it occupies in the theory of which it is a term,
its semantic component in GD must flow from the social situation in which it is
used by a native speaker in the overall pattern (and not as in a restricted code).
Thus, to take Shcherba's own example, the manner of referring to the meaning of
a term like straight line will be different for EnD (for geometry) and GD; in
EnD if it is somewhat like 'the shortest distance between two points', in GD it
will be explained as 'a line which deviates neither to the right nor to the left
(and moves neither up nor down)'. It should be noted that the same 'term' - say,
a term like particle may mean differently in EnD and GD, and the difference can
even be noted in two EnD's if they refer to two different theories:
particle
in GD 1. 'a minute piece or amount'
2. 'A minor part of speech; as an article
(the), conjunction, etc.
(Webster's Coillegiate dictionary).
particle
1. 'marker' (EnDl - linguistics, Bloomfield, 1938 : 199).
2. 'a thing which
has no precise position or velocity' (EnD2 - physics, F;ank, 1958).
The
parameter on which dictionaries are classified as ThD and CD concerns really the
distinction between what Sapir calls language and language system. The latter
is Saussure's liangage', while his concept of language material can be understood
in the sense of the term 'text' as used by Gardiner (1951 : 329): "It is
true that the term 'text' is, in ordinary parlance, confined to what is written
or printed, but for the purposes of a linguistic theory the term can and should
be extended to anything that has been spoken or reported as spoken on some particular
occasion ..."
Long
before the transormational grammarians, Shcherba, as a linguist, put forth his
laudable goal of finding out the native speaker's intuition in language description.
But at the same time he laid stress on "differentiating the living language
process which goes on in the consciousness of a native speaker from that of artificial
linguistic procedures which are merely a convenient tool for certain operations
carried out by the linguists themselves" (Srivastava, 1969 : 51).
According
to Shcherba, it is on the basis of Oparolel (recevaja deiatelnost) and language
material (jazykovyjmaterial) that a speaker deductively evolves his linguistic
consciousness. (Saussure's 'faculte du langage' corresponds to Shcherba's recevaja
sposobnost (Shcherba, 1931).
The
distinction between the two types of dictionaries - ThD and CD, lies in the fact
that the former is directed towards building and evolving linguistic 'intuition'
by putting language material (as exhaustive as possible) at the disposal of a
user (and hence, it insists even on listening hapax legomena) while the latter
attempts at explicating the 'intuition'.
The
following may be considered as the main differences between these two types of
dictionaries:
ThD |
CD |
a.
Evolves 'intuition'. | a.
Explicates 'intuition'. |
b.
Meaning, from the point of view of the user, is assumed not defined. | b.
Meaning is assumed as defined. |
c.
Data-oriented, process-based. | c.
Model-oriented, explication based. |
d.
Deductive process in focus. | d.
Vade-mecum in focus. |
e.
Stress on the specific meaning of 'ailo-variants' (through which a speaker is
supposed to know the universally. | e.
Stress on the 'universal' meaning of a lexical item with reference to which lailo-variants'
are illustrated. |
f.
Citation are given for all those usages where a lexical item is capable of projecting
a different image. | f.
Citations to illustrate the meaning. |
The
parameter on which dictionaries are divided into CD and ID types is the same that
divides linguistic units into expression and content. it should always be borne
in mind that in reality all linguistic units are composite wholes, and any such
bifurcation is to be Laken as artificial. It is only for practical purposes and
use that a linguist lays stress on one aspect or the other.
The
main difference between CD and ID is that the former organizes its material on
lexical items, defined first as 'phonetic word', while the latter accepts them
first as 'content word'. This leads to the different treatment of polysemous words
as a dictionary entry; CD, like Katz and Fodor (1963), considers them as one item
with different meanings, while ID favours the approach of Weinreich (1963).
As
CD is based on the opposition of words mainly on the expression level, phonetic
forms demand the organization of the dictionary on alphabetic lines. Contrary
to this, as concept words, are items of thought, and thought has different dimensions
of realization, lexical items in ID are grouped into 'families' where each one
of them stands for one particular psychological dimension. In a qualified sense
it can be said then that the concept-words are, in fact, those lexical items which,
being manifested in phonetic complex system, and this system is expressed in ID
in such a way that they fall under one lexical item, but, in fact, are actualized
by different signs, letters, etc. ' (Shcherba, 1940 : 78). In this respect it
should be noted that dictionaries of synonyms are, in a sense, a sub-type of ID.
The
parameter on which ExD and BD are placed in binary opposition is mainly conditioned
by the different motivations and objectives with which a user consults the dictionary.
Users of ExD are native speakers, and the target set for creating ExD aims at
native speakers with a view to explain one or the other lexical item which might
be half-known or totally un know to them. Users of BD are not native speakers
of the language and they approach the language with the primary aim of understanding
texts foreign to them by finding equivalents in their own language.
Shcherba's
advice to lexicographers working on BD's in the Soviet Union has been the main
driving force for shaping the new critical directions in the creation of good
dictionaries of the BD-type. A summary statement will, therefore, not be out of
place here.
(a)
Remember that there are no two languages which have identical lexical items and
semantic systems, and hence, in each language the world is represented differently.
We conceive things in the form in which they are given to us in words.
(b)
The so-called equivalent words across languages are never equivalent in semantic
range. For example, the Russian word stol is translated in French by an equivalent
word table, but the French word stands for the meaning 'desk (for writing)' or
'table (of figures)" while the Russian word designates 'desk (for writing)',
'(cooking) board', and 'department' (Shcherba, 1940 : 65).
Thus, it is
incumbent upon the maker of a BD to give the equivalent words not in isolation,
but in a system in which the word stands (at least the over-lapping area must
be covered). Following this line, Soviet linguist-translators (Gak and Lvin, 1962
: 19) enter in the French-Russian dictionary relationships in 'the manner given
below:
A. education = 1, 4, 1. vospitanie = A,B
B. formation = 1,
2 2. podgotovka = B, C
C. instruct ion = 2, 3, 4, 5 3. obrazovanie = C, D
D. enseignement = 3, 5, 6 4. prosvescenie = A, C
E. apprentissage = 5 5. obucenie
= C, D, E
In Shcherba's view, on account of practical difficulties, BD
cannot offer real meaning and the exact semantic range for the words of a second
language. It can (and so it does) only conjecture about the possible meaning in
a given context.
Under such conditions, Shcherba advises the users of
BD to avoid assuming the load of conjecturing and shift to ExD. According to him
BD (in the form it exists today), is useful only for (beginners). A new - type
of BD is, thus, necessary wherein the effort should be directed towards overcoming
the limitations of BD by palliative measures. The new type of BD should have the
primary objective of letting the user move in the thought domain of the second
language by releasing their concepts from the imprisonment of words with which
they are habitually associated.
BD, according to Shcherba, is a type
where the lexicon must be supplemented by grammatical and stylistic apparatus
as an index for the usage of lexical categories.
The last parameter which
distinguishes SD from DD is relatively straightforward in so far as the theory
of linguistics is concerned, but it is the most confusing one with reference to
lexicography. The difference between SD and DD is conditioned by the temporal
factor.
Shcherba raises a basic question - what kind of dictionary can
be labelled DD? Should one consider a dictionary to be of the DD-type because
it is based on the history of language and provides enough facts about the word-etymology
of that language? Furthermore, can we consider a dictionary to be of the DD-type
if it claims to be 'A dictionary of old-language upto xth century'?
For
example, the purpose, as stated in the preface to The Oxford English Dictionary,
originally entitled A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, is as follows:
"The aim of this dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the
words which have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest record
down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history,
pronunciation, and etymology". Can this dictionary be classed within the
DD-type?
Shcherba's answer to this question is an emphatic no'. To cover
every aspect of a language is the function of a RD. According to Shcherba DD is
that type of dictionary which first of all, like AD, must define the temporal
axis on which it wants to build up its lexicon, i.e., it must settle the starting
point in the history of that language. Secondly it must register every lexical
item which falls within that domain; thirdly, the listing should be exhaustive
in the sense that it should include not only possible 'becoming' words and 'becoming'
meanings but also the dead words- fourthly, it must reveal the changes in the
form-content relationship existing within a word; and finally, it should reveal
the movement of the lexical system itself, i.e., it -should reflect changes in
the system as a whole.
NOTES
1. In the preface to his Russian-French
dictionary (1939) Shcherba expresses his concern at the scornful attitude of Soviet
linguists of the time towards lexicography.It is owing to this attitude and their
deficient training in this field that, according to Shcherba, dictionary-making
was till then confined only to the "compilation" (sostavlenie) activity.
To him, dictionary making is a scientific activity and dictionaries are "creation"
(sozdanie) rather than compilation. For creating an object, ... the nature and
function of its constitutive elements must be worked out in detail, and consequently
Shcherba (1940 : 72) was of the opinion that "any word which is even slightly
complex in its nature must be a topic for a scientific monograph and, therefore,
it is hard to expect to complete any good dictionary with speed".
2. Observe that this is not exactly equivalent to the Whorfian concept. Shcherba
talks only about the word, conceding thereby, that at the sentence level of expression,
any thought expressed in any language is translatable into any other.