Titel:	Why Dictionaries are no Better Than They are - and no Worse
Personen:	Ilson, Robert
Jahr:	2016
Typ:	Aufsatz
Verlag:	Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Ortsangabe:	Tbilisi
In:	Margalitadze, Tinatin/Meladze, George (Hgg.): Proceedings of the 17th EURALEX International Congress: Lexicography and Linguistic Diversity. Tbilisi, Georgia 6 - 10 September 2016
Seiten:	49-60
Untersuchte Sprachen:	Arabisch*Arabic - Deutsch*German - Englisch*English - Französisch*French - Russisch*Russian
Schlagwörter:	einsprachige Lexikografie*monolingual lexicography Lernerlexikografie*learner's lexicography lexikografischer Prozess*lexicographic process Metalexikografie*metalexicography Wörterbuchkritik*dictionary criticism zweisprachige bzw. mehrsprachige Lexikografie*bilingual/multilingual lexicography
Medium:	Online
URI:	http://euralex.org/category/publications/euralex-2016/
Zuletzt besucht:	22.10.2018
Abstract:	1) Why Dictionaries are no better than they are:- Lexicography is beset with problems at three levels: 1.1) Metalexicography (i.e lexicographic theory), which includes linguistic theory; 1.2) Lexicography Proper (i.e the confection of dictionaries; 1.3) Dictionnairique (i.e the organisation of lexicographic projects and the selling of their products). Or, in plainer words, problems about what to say, how to say it, and how to present it. Many such problems stem from the failure to generalise best practice across genres and languages, and from the failure to exploit fully the Explanatory Technique of Exemplification. 2) Why Dictionaries are no worse than they are: 2.1) Dictionary-users, as native speakers of at least one human language, already know a great deal about language in general and about the world, which enables them to supplement and interpret correctly the information offered by dictionaries; 2.2) Many dictionary-users come from dictionnairate [sic!] communities, in which dictionaries and their conventions are widespread and well known.