Construction of Definitions in Monolingual Dictionaries

Ahmed  Kassem

Construction of Definitions in Monolingual Dictionaries

A paper about construction of definitions in Monolingual Dictionaries

Construction of definition: I.Define content, not expression * We are concerned here with the content- intension- not the extension. Sometimes it is impossible to paraphrase or give true definition like function words or interjections. II.Systematic Procedure: Definition work should be done by categories. It has two aspects. Content Aspect (Genus) Words that are content related should be treated together. Therefore, correct distinctive features must be considered to avoid redundancy and/or contradiction. Genus Proximum must be chosen consistently. Formal Aspect (phrasing) Definitions should be worded in a uniform manner; with similar choice of words to deal with content related words. III.Choice of Distinctive Features. It is important to ensure that the chosen features match the concept (headword). Number of Distinctive Features is important. Increasing the number of features narrows the content. Sometimes, a definition may have too many features without being wrong but being redundant. E.g. triangle: sides, angles, 180 degrees. The number should not be too small to avoid concepts not belonging to the concept- item to be defined. E.g. balloon: airship. The number should not be too big so that the concept excludes co-concepts belonging to the definition. E.g. set: tennis/table tennis. In general dictionaries, this feature (of the triangle example) may lack metaphorical information that is logically unnecessary but semantically is necessary. E.g. lion: lionshare IV.Circular Definition: There are two main types. Using the definition in the word being used. e.g. triangle فسر الماء بالماء However, part of the headword if used might be accepted. E.g. blacksmith. Using two or more headwords to define one another. e.g. cell/battery. Circular definitions are prohibited in lexicography. There is less sensitivity on this point in general language dictionaries. V.Definition Format: Different words have different semantic properties and are defined in different ways. One way to formulate that is to syntactically label them. (it is not common in modern monolingual dictionaries). Nouns They are normally the leading words in the definition. Various determinatives are utilized. E.g. (adj-prep. Phr…etc.) Abstract nouns are defined by abstract nouns. E.g. percussion: action Definition by stating that the thing is a member of a finite set. E.g. element. The number of members is sometimes convenient. E.g.month. Adjectives It is very rare to see an adjective definition by genus proximum as the leading word. Adjectives are not hierarchical as nouns. They are so in technical language. The main content of the definition lies rather in the other parts. It is common when the adjective is defined by means of a word that is from the same root. E.g. sarcastic: sarcasm. (Morphosemantic) More complicated content requires phrases or clauses. E.g. scriptural. Morphosemantic definitions raise certain problems. i.abstract words such as ‘relating to’…cannot cover all conceivable meanings. E.g. electric…this is for two reasons..a.takes a lot of space. b.lacks precision. ii.there is a chance of wrongly straying into etymology. E.g. the French example. Verbs: A keyrole player in a definition is a verb as it is located in a middle of a clause. Syntactic properties of a verb shall be restricted in the syntax of the definition. A case discussed is the transitivity of verbs. e.g. faint v.i. no problem, e.g.bequeath v.t.:there must be object. The object is semantically necessary, but it cannot go if it is substituted with the headword; so, in order to resolve the issue brackets are included to provide semantic collocation and to mark the presence of object. Thus outside the brackets can replace the headword. In transitive verbs, objects must be stated explicitly in a way that the reader realizes it is not part of the interchangeability. Adding example is another method. E.g.bequeath. In case of transitive/intransitive verbs; the two uses are mentioned separately. E.g. cook v.i. cook v.t. To save space, they are sometimes given one entry. e.g. cook v.t.&i. [with square brackets]. Many dictionaries avoid this classification. Verbs accompanied by prepositions or adverbs constitute a problem of interchangeability. They are given separate headwords or given in phrases under the verb. E.g. come by Sometimes in dictionaries that focus on semantic manifestations, the stress remains on the head verb providing prepositions in brackets. Interchangeability is not complete as the definition extends to more than a headword. (headword+prep/adv). Adverbs: Mostly defined by paraphrase. For higher precision, true definitions are called. E.g. up Prepositions, Conjunctions, and other function words: No consistent system of definition is aimed at. They are usually defined by synonyms. The function of the word is described as syntactic interchangeability does not work here. Hybrid Forms: Some words are paraphrased or given true definition followed by synonyms. It is a form of giving several definitions then followed by partial synonyms. This may run the risk of misleading the user. To avoid that, new synonyms when stated in a definition must be labeled as such. E.g.mesozoic. Description of the function of the headword. Paraphrase and/or true definition fail with function words and interjections. To avoid confusion, description and examples are given. E.g. in pg. 5

Log In

Construction of Definitions in Monolingual Dictionaries

Related papers

Related papers

Related topics