Universidade do Minho
Escola de Letras, Artes e Ciências Humanas
David Huerta Meza
December 2022
Conceptualisation of an Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Common Designations of Plants in Mexican Spanish
David Huerta MezaConceptualisation of an Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Common Designations of Plants in Mexican SpanishUMinho|2022
Universidade do Minho
Escola de Letras, Artes e Ciências Humanas
David Huerta Meza
Conceptualisation of an Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Common Designations of Plants in Mexican Spanish
Master Thesis
European Master in Lexicography
Supervised by
Professor Dr Álvaro Iriarte Sanromán Professor Dr Rufus Gouws
December 2022
ii
DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS
Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos.
Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada.
Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho.
Licença concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho
Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual CC BY-NC-SA
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A mamá, in memoriam; con amor y saudades inconmensurables I am grateful to Prof. Dr Álvaro Iriarte and Prof. Dr Rufus Gouws for their guidance, feedback, interest in the topic, kindness, and support. Their remarks helped me to improve the research and solve mistakes in the dissertation. I also want to thank Prof. Dr Idalete Dias for her encouragement during my studies. I am also grateful for her kindness and generosity, which are invaluable to me.
I consider myself the luckiest to have Snizhana Umanets and Yulianti Yudo as colleagues and friends. They made my life easy going through the pandemic and illuminated the part of this dark period of modern history that I had to face. Thank you both for the shared moments that will always be in my heart.
To my beloved brothers that have always been with me, even in faraway places, who have supported and inspired me, of whom I always think when I listen to the verses that our mother liked: “me gusta ir con el verano muy lejos, pero volver donde mi madre en invierno […] y los abrazos que me dan mis hermanos.” We are independent, free and stand together, as she would have wished.
To Aunt Minerva for her generosity, for being with me when my mother could not do it. To Uncle Salvador H., a father who has taught me many values that guide me until today. To Cousins Andre, César, Cyndi, Chavita, Fernando, Jani, Martha, Mine and Nancy for their support and, sometimes, for tolerating me. To Aunt Chelito that has always taken care of me, for her kind love. To Cousin Gabi for his smile and hugs when I come back home. To Aunt Berta, to Uncles Chano and Martín. To all women of my family, my mother, Refugio Huerta, Aunts Chay, Hono, Jose, Nieves, Ofe, and Rafa, Cousin Blandi, Grandmas Guille and Jose who have worked for us many times in unfair loneliness; this work and these words are still in their debt.
To friends in Mexico: Carlos A., Carmen B., Erik F., Esme, Jurado, Kasep, Mariela, Naye, and Ros that have been here through e-mails, messages, and calls. To Jéssica D. for her generosity and for being an inspiration. To Niktelol, friend and always a teacher, for her support, trust in my work and for always listening to me. To Doctors Carmen D. and Luz F., friends, and mentors. To Doctor Luis F. L. for allowing me to be a part of the Diccionario del español de México, a work that brought me here and I will always carry with me.
To Alice M., who gave a different nuance to the library and re-signified coffee breaks with her company, our conversations and discussions about languages, Latin America, and life.
iv
STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY
I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration.
I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho.
v
Conceptualisation of an Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Common Designations of Plants in Mexican Spanish
ABSTRACT
The present MA thesis is a lexicographical conceptualisation of an encyclopaedic dictionary of common designations of plants in Mexican Spanish. Due to type of the lexicographic work planned and the type of nouns that will be provided, the theoretical framework is handled from both a linguistic and a lexicographical approach. The conceptualisation also covers the methodological aspects, such as the elaboration of the corresponding basis and the analysis of the lemmata, and the dictionary plan itself — practically and theoretically justified—, which provides all the elements needed according to the foreseen target user and the genuine purpose of the envisaged dictionary.
Keywords: designations of plants, encyclopaedic dictionary, lexicographic functions, lexicographical conceptualisation, Mexican Spanish.
vi
Conceptualização de um Dicionário Enciclopédico de Designações Comuns de Plantas no Espanhol do México
RESUMO
A presente tese de mestrado é um protótipo de um dicionário enciclopédico de denominações comuns de plantas do espanhol do México. Devido ao tipo de obra lexicográfica planeada e ao tipo de substantivos que fornecerá, o quadro teórico é tratado tanto a partir de uma abordagem linguística como lexicográfica. O protótipo abrange também os aspectos metodológicos, tais como a elaboração da base de dados e a análise dos lemas correspondentes, e o próprio plano do dicionário —prática e teoricamente justificado—, que fornece todos os elementos necessários, de acordo com o utilizador-alvo previsto e o propósito genuíno do dicionário projetado.
Palavras-chaves: denominações de plantas, dicionário enciclopédico, espanhol do México, funções lexicográficas, protótipo de dicionário.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BASIS ... 4
2.1 Introduction ... 4
2.2 Research Questions ... 4
2.3 Most Used Terms in the Present Thesis ... 5
2.4 State of the Art and Literature Review ... 8
2.4.1 Most Relevant Mexican Works about Designations of Plants ... 8
Colonial Period ... 9
20th Century ...10
21st Century ...12
2.4.1.1 General Conclusions from the State of the Art ...13
2.4.2 Brief Discussion about Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias ...13
2.4.2.1 General Presentation of Haiman-Frawley Discussion...14
2.4.2.2 Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias ...15
2.4.2.3 Some Conclusions about Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias ...19
2.4.3 Typological Nature of the Intended Dictionary ...20
2.4.3.1 Phenomenological Typology ...20
2.4.3.2 Features of Language Dictionary, Encyclopaedia, and Encyclopaedic Dictionary according to Hupka (1989) ...22
2.4.3.3 Extended Categories in Phenomenological Typology ...25
2.4.4 Literature about Dictionary Planning ...26
CHAPTER 3. PROPOSAL OF CONCEPTUALISATION ... 29
3.1 Introduction ...29
3.2 Organisational Plan ...30
3.2.1 Genuine Purpose and Target User Group ...30
3.2.1.1 Genuine Purpose ...30
3.2.1.2 Target User ...30
Manner of Use ...30
Usage Situations ...31
3.3 Dictionary Conceptualisation Plan ...32
3.3.1 Type of Dictionary ...32
3.3.1.1 Linguistic Phenomena in PITAYA ...34
viii
A) Polysemy ...34
Polysemy and Homonymy ...35
Linguistic Approaches to Homonym and Polysemy in Lexicographical Works ...36
Homonymy in Plant Designation? ...37
A Lexicographic Perspective on Linguistic Concepts...38
Lexicographical Proposal to Distribute Homonymy and Polysemy Data ...40
Polysemy in the Present Conceptualisation ...41
B) Synonymy ...43
C) Compounds ...43
D) Loanwords ...44
3.3.2 Medium ...45
3.3.2.1 Lexonomy, a First Stage ...45
3.3.3 The Outer Text ...46
3.3.4 Intended Dictionary’s Basis...46
3.3.4.1 Criteria for Sources and Lemma Selection ...47
Sources ...47
Lemma ...48
3.3.4.2 Method of Lemma Abstraction ...49
Abstraction Method for Building the Current Basis ...49
3.3.5 Macrostructure ...51
3.3.5.1 Word-list Constitution ...52
3.3.5.2 Alphabetical or Thematic Ordering? ...54
3.3.6 The Dictionary Article ...54
3.3.6.1 Microstructure ...54
3.3.6.2 Mediostructure ...55
3.3.6.3 Definition ...56
Brief presentation of semantic equation ...56
Type of Definition in the Intended Dictionary ...57
3.3.6.4 Tentative Dictionary Article ...59
CHAPTER 4. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ADOPTED METHODOLOGY ... 60
4.1 Introduction ...60
4.2 Methodological Foreseen Problems ...60
4.3 Further Research ...63
4.3.1 Computational Ontologies ...63
ix
4.3.2 Research on Dictionary Use ...63 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ... 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 71
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 ...22
Figure 2 ...26
Figure 3 ...41
Figure 4 ...50
Figure 5 ...51
Figure 6 ...52
Figure 7 ...59
Figure 8 ...61
Figure 9 ...61
Figure 10 ...66
xi
List of the Tables
Table 1 ...24 Table 2 ...36 Table 3 ...54
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
When considering the long trail of research it involved, I remember experiencing a sensation vaguely resembling vertigo. I naively asked myself whether I would one day have the necessary competence to tackle so vast and complex a theme.
Today I know that I never will.
Carlo Ginzburg This dissertation attempts to face a complex phenomenon: the lexicographical treatment of common designations of plants in Mexican Spanish1. It is not the first effort to address this phenomenon, as we shall see in the following chapter, §2.4.1. However, we approach it simultaneously from a linguistic and lexicographical point of view and always taking as point of reference both the target user, a Mexican layperson interested in non-scientific designations of plants and aspects like their cultural assessment, properties, morphology, etc. and her/his corresponding requirements. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 constitute the core of the present thesis.
Chapter 2 deals with the theoretical basis of the dictionary’s conceptualisation and hence, of the intended work, an encyclopaedic dictionary. We consider that such a category is justified in the lexicographical tradition concerned, in the envisaged work’s typological nature, its foreseen lexicographic functions, and, finally, in the kind of lemma provided. To that end, we first made a brief review of the state of the art, which covers works of three periods of Mexican History: the Colonial Period, the 20th Century, and the 21st Century. From this review, we obtained a typological picture of this kind of works, i.e., their common features. Secondly, we stated our position on the discussion about dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Here, it is pertinent to mention that we do not pretend to settle the controversy, otherwise necessary for lexicography’s development —as any other discussion in the field or science in general—, but to support our theoretical and practical point of view. Indeed, we stand for a distinction since we propose a hybrid work in the sense of gathering not just lexicographical features of the dictionary and the encyclopaedia, but also seeing the lemma as a linguistic object and as a label of a given object. Such hybridisation is only possible if a distinction exists. Thirdly, we state the typological nature of the intended dictionary, based on Hausmann (1989) and other authors, to determine in part both the genuine purpose of the envisaged work (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005) and its functional typology.
This chapter concludes with a review of the literature regarding dictionary planning to provide the essential elements of a conceptualisation.
1 This thesis is focused on Mexican Spanish, but this phenomenon is very complex in any other Spanish variant or language.
2
In Chapter 3, we discuss the conceptualisation itself. The dictionary plan is presented in two general parts, according to the review of dictionary planning literature, namely an Organisational Plan and a Dictionary Conceptualisation Plan. In the former, following lexicographic functions (Tarp, 2001; Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005), we state both the genuine purpose of the envisaged work and the target user group. In this subsection, we also present the foreseen manner of use and usage situations.
In the latter, we provide the features of the intended dictionary. Therefore, in the first place, we state and support the functional category to which the planned work belongs, that is, the knowledge-oriented one. In the second place, as mentioned briefly, we find necessary to consider the linguistic aspects of plants’ designations; thus, the lexical phenomena present in them are dealt with, i.e., polysemy, synonymy, and compounds and loanwords. We make particular emphasis on the first one, its link with homonymy and their general lexicographical treatment. In the third place, we consider the properly lexicographic aspects of the dictionary plan. Particularly the kind of medium foreseen for the intended work and the outer text of the envisaged work, which we review in a brief subsection. In addition, we describe the basis for the envisaged dictionary constituted by common designations of plants registered in the Diccionario del español de México (Dictionary of Mexican Spanish, henceforth DEM for its initials in Spanish), and the different stages of its building. Criteria for additional sources and lemma selection and abstraction are also considered based on the kind of lemmata found in DEM. Consequently, its macrostructure and, in turn, the type of ordering that will be arranged are also handled.
In the fourth place, we deal with the dictionary article, microstructure, and mediostructure; elements as typographical and non-typographical indicators are also presented and explained. In the dictionary article subsection, the type of definition that the planned work will provide is also addressed. We approach the issue based on Lara’s reflections (1997) in this regard, specifically considering the semantic equations frequent in monolingual dictionaries. We briefly review these equations and select the most convenient for the intended dictionary. Finally, we state the kind of definitions that the envisaged work will supply, according to Gouws and Prinsloo (2005). A tentative dictionary article is illustrated at the end of the chapter.
As we considered the methodological aspects in Chapter 3, such as the elaboration of the basis and lemma abstraction, Chapter 4 is, to some extent, a critique of the dictionary plan presented. Certainly, no research is exhaustive enough, and ours is no exception. Therefore, we discuss some relevant methodological procedures which we were unable to perform, such as verification of lemmata retrieved from DEM to avoid perpetuation of failures (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005). We present a proposal to build a
3
filter, i.e., an additional database for the lemmata retrieved, which we would build from some Mexican botanical institutes’ data. Additional further research is one on dictionary use to obtain a more reliable, objective profile of the target user of the envisaged work. Thus, we describe and explain a questionnaire pilot.
Finally, in Chapter 5, rather than presenting the results of our research, which are provided throughout the dissertation in the corresponding section, we make some brief conclusions regarding the theoretical framework and the dictionary conceptualisation plan.
4
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BASIS1
…donde la rosa no es ya sino el nombre sin rosa de la rosa…
Gilberto Owen 2.1 Introduction
This chapter is about the theoretical framework of both the present dictionary conceptualisation and, consequently, the intended work, which will deal with plant designations in Mexican Spanish. Therefore, the first (theoretical and practical) question about it could be the following: will it be a dictionary or an encyclopaedia? We try to answer it theoretically in the present chapter.
Thus, in the following subsection, we will state the research questions that guide our investigation. In the third subsection, we will present both the terminological usage and most used terms in our dissertation, covering not just lexicographical, but also linguistic and taxonomic ones. The fourth subsection —the most extensive one— is divided into four parts:
(a) State of the art, a brief review of the most important works about designations of plants in Mexican Spanish.
(b) A brief discussion about the theoretical distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia, which is relevant since the planned work is about common designations of plants in Mexican Spanish. Thus, it is inferred that it will also have to refer to plants, which implies that this dictionary should contain not just linguistic but also encyclopaedic items.
(c) Exposition regarding dictionary typology to place the planned work in the corresponding category, specifically an encyclopaedic dictionary.
(d)Literature review regarding lexicographical conceptualisation, which, in addition to providing this overview, also supplies the basic elements of the dictionary plan that we will consider in detail in Chapter 3.
2.2 Research Questions
The following are the research questions that the present thesis poses:
(a) How should a dictionary about common designations of plants in Mexican Spanish be planned?
and
(b) Which features should such a work have?
1 We are sincerely grateful to Yulianti Yudo for helping us edit this chapter. All remaining mistakes are ours.
5
In this chapter, we strive to answer these questions from a theoretical viewpoint presenting the theoretical framework of the dictionary’s conceptualisation. In the following ones, we attempt to answer them from a practical approach, presenting the lexicographical plan and the methodological aspects to develop it.
2.3 Most Used Terms in the Present Thesis
In this section, we state the most used terms and their corresponding definitions regarding dictionary elements used in this dissertation. We begin by stating our terminological usage based on wording or style reasons. Therefore, in the present thesis, encyclopaedic dictionary and hybrid work are interchangeably used; envisaged/intended/planned dictionary and envisaged/intended/planned work are used as synonyms; (lexicographical) conceptualisation, dictionary plan, and dictionary project are equivalent terms; definition, lexicographical definition, definition text, and paraphrase of meaning are also used as
synonyms. Finally, binary/binomial/binominal nomenclature and
binomial/binominal/scientific name are terminologically interchangeable.
binomial nomenclature “a system […] in which each species of animal or plant receives a name of two terms of which the first identifies the genus to which it belongs and the second the species itself.” (Merriam-Webster.com dictionary, hereinafter MW)
comment on form “the search field accommodating those data types that reflect on the form of the lemma sign, i.e. the morphological, phonetic and orthographic form.”
(Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 119)
comment on semantics “the search field accommodating those data types that reflect on the semantic and pragmatic features of the lexical item represented by the lemma.” (Gouws &
Prinsloo, 2005, p. 125)
entry “each and every constituent of a dictionary article”
(Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 115)
6
definition “A component part in the MICROSTRUCTURE of a
REFERENCE WORK which gives an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase or term. The definition provides an essential function: it is the place where compilers locate and users find semantic information.”
(Dictionary of Lexicography, henceforth DLex)
dictionary article “A macrostructural element combined with its microstructural treatment” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p.
64), i.e. the lemma sign and all lexicographic elements addressed to it and to each other, such as grammatical items, definition, typographical and non-typographical structural indicators and so on.
dictionary basis “the total of the source language material for the specific lexicographic process.” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 16)
item “[entry] from which the dictionary user can retrieve some information regarding the subject matter of the specific dictionary.” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 116) lemma “an abstract unit of lexicography, built both on the basis
of the characteristics of the canonical word form and on the needs of the lexicographical method in relation to its representation of lexical units for the type of reader to whom its dictionary is addressed2.” (Lara, 1997, p.
122)
lexeme “A basic unit in the linguistic study of VOCABULARY.
Lexemes are usually interpreted as a combination of a FORM (graphic/phonic substance) with a MEANING (semantic value) in a particular grammatical context.”
(DLex)
2 …una unidad abstracta de la lexicografía, construida sobre la base de las características del vocablo en cuanto forma canónica y las necesidades del método lexicográfico en relación con su representación de las unidades léxicas para el tipo de lector a que dirige su diccionario. Unless otherwise stated, this and the following translations from the original in Spanish or Portuguese are ours.
7
lexicographical label “[Pragmatic markers] employed in the [dictionary article] to give explicit contextual guidance [of usage, e.g., if a given lemma sign has dialectal or specialised restrictions, if its meaning is figurative, offensive, old- fashioned and so on]. [They] are used to relate an item in a dictionary to the world outside the dictionary and they can be used to mark either a macro- or a microstructural item in a dictionary article.” (Gouws &
Prinsloo, 2005, p. 129)
macrostructure “The selection [and ordering structure] of lexical items to be included in the dictionary as lemma signs. They become the primary treatment units of lexicographically process.” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 63; R. Gouws, personal communication, June 17, 2022)
mediostructure “The system of cross-referencing which leads a user from a reference position to a reference address”
(Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 64), i.e. set of elements that indicate the consultation of another one in the same dictionary article, in another article or text of the same dictionary (e.g. conjugation model), or in another work different from the one consulted.
microstructure “The selection of data categories given as part of the treatment of lemma sign [and consequently the ordering structure of these categories.]” (Gouws &
Prinsloo, 2005, p. 64; R. Gouws, personal communication, June 17, 2022)
multiword-lexeme A lexeme constituted by more than one lexical unit.
(Based on DLex’s definition of lexeme)
non-typographical structural indicator “symbols and signs used to mark the beginning of a certain search field or data category […] e.g. diamonds, triangle, squares, brief headings” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 117)
8
polysemy markers entry that functions as a guide for the user to realize the different senses of the relevant lexical item. (Based on Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 126 )
simple lexeme A lexeme constituted by one lexical unit. (Based on DLex’s definition of lexeme)
structural indicator “[entry] assisting the dictionary user to identify the different types of items, data categories and search fields in a dictionary article” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 116)
typographical structural indicator “[typeface], e.g. bold, italic, roman, and the use of capitals, small caps, etc. in a dictionary. The function of these indicators is to mark specific search fields or data categories.” (Gouws & Prinsloo, 2005, p. 116)
word-list “The basic order in which entries in dictionaries and other reference works are sequenced [and that contains the ordered set of article stretches and articles]” (DLex;
R. Gouws, personal communication, June 17, 2022)
2.4 State of the Art and Literature Review
We divide this section into three subsections. The first is a brief review of those works about designations of plants in Mexico that we find relevant, as a point of reference, to our dictionary plan. In the second one, we state our position regarding the distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia to theoretically justify the typological nature of the envisaged work. The third one reviews the specialised literature regarding dictionary conceptualisation.
2.4.1 Most Relevant Mexican Works about Designations of Plants
In this subsection, we provide a brief state of the art of works related to designations of plants in Mexico in order to place the intended dictionary in an actual group of works and not just in a theoretical typology. In that regard, we have to make two remarks: 1) there is one exception, a work that does not focus on Mexican Spanish; 2) the colonial works were originally written in Latin, and the first one registered just designations in Nahuatl, a Mexican native language. We should clarify that the present
9
overview has not followed a strict lexicographic criterion, i.e., some of the following works were not conceived as dictionaries, but we have found them important for the present conceptualisation.
Naturally, it was impossible to cover every single atlas, article, dictionary, or encyclopaedia published;
therefore, we offer a general picture of the most relevant productions3. We have gathered the works into three periods: Colonial Period, 20th Century, and 21st Century.
Colonial Period
Historia de las plantas de Nueva España (History of the Plants from New Spain4) was written in Latin, and it was one of the results of the first expedition of Francisco Hernández to New Spain, from 1571 to 1576. In this work, Hernández could describe around three thousand plants and 500 hundred animals. The two first editions of the Historia were published around 1630 in Italy and around 1790 in Spain, respectively (Somolinos D'Ardois, 1960, pp. 296-303; 344-353). The former provided descriptions and the corresponding illustrations of only the medicinal plants. The latter supplied all descriptions of the plants that Hernández made, but it did not contain illustrations. In 1942, under Isaac Ochoterena’s direction, the first volume of an edition in Spanish was published, which included both the descriptions and the illustrations of the first versions. In the Historia, Hernández describes the morphological features of the plant, its properties (e.g., medicinal), flavour, and usage, and usually provides the region where it grows too.
The aim of Hernandez’s descriptions was botanical; nevertheless, some lexical phenomena of plants’ designations arose in his work, specifically synonymy and polysemy5. Generally, Hernández provides just one common designation of the plant in Nahuatl, but sometimes he also provides some synonyms in this language. Where applicable, the Historia shows polysemy in this kind of noun through ordinal numbers before the corresponding designation. The following excerpt shows both linguistic phenomena:
…APITZALPATLI tzontololotli or astringent remedy with round [plant] hairs, which the Malinalcans, in whose lands it grows, call zazaltzin because it is glutinous, has branched roots, thin, hairy and cylindrical stems... […] second AXIXPATLI has a branched root, stems about a span long, thin and
3 Those that have been useful for our research and have inspired the intended dictionary. Undoubtedly, many works are missing in this review, which we do not know or to which we were not able to have access. Of course, their absence here does not cancel their value to lexicographical or botanical purposes.
4 “New Spain” designates the territory colonized by the Spaniards that encompassed most of North America, Central America, the Caribbean islands, and the Philippines.
5 Phenomena that we treat as detailed as possible concerning plants’ designations in Chapter 3, in §3.3.1.1
10
round, full of long, narrow leaves like knotgrass or lentils. […] third AXIXPATLI, which could be called quauhnahuacense6 because of the place where it grows, has hair-like roots, cylindrical stems, oblong and serrated leaves similar to mint leaves, small flowers...7 (Hernández, n.d./1942, pp. 9, 13, 15.
Bold and italics are ours)
Between 1787 and 1803, according to Montemayor (2010, p. 313), the Real Expedición Botánica a Nueva España (Royal Botanical Expedition to New Spain) took place. It was in charge of the Spanish doctor Martín de Sessé with the collaboration of Mexican naturalist José Mariano Mociño and the participation of the artists Atanasio Echevarria and Vicente de la Cerda, who painted the species described. The Expedition described around four thousand plants and 200 animals. Regarding plants, Sessé and Mociño aimed to study New Spain’s species: shape, size, properties, and usages; they describe and classify them according to the Linnaean taxonomy, that is, per classes, orders, and genus (Montemayor, 2010, p. 313). Two results of the Expedition were Flora Mexicana (Mexican Flora) and Plantae Novae Hispaniae (Plants from New Spain), published in Latin during the 19th Century, which contain 2,295 botanical descriptions (Montemayor, 2010, p. 314). In these works, as products of a more modern stage of botany, the Linnaean taxonomy, i.e., binominal nomenclature, has a preponderant role, while common designations are not always registered. In 2010, the National Autonomous University of Mexico (henceforth UNAM, for its initials in Spanish) published a translated edition into Spanish of these works together with the Descripción de distintas especies de aves del Reino de la Nueva España, según sus órdenes y familias (Description of different bird species from the Kingdom of New Spain, as per orders and families) under the title La Real Expedición Botánica a Nueva España.
20th Century
Maximino Martínez was a very important Mexican botanist who published several works about plants from Mexico. According to Valdéz (n.d.), between 1923 and 1929, the Catálogo de nombres vulgares y científicos de plantas mexicanas (Catalogue of Vulgar and Scientific Names of Mexican Plants) was published, which was then improved and reedited two times, the last one in 1979. The Catalogue does
6 It is not clear if it is indeed a synonym or just a designation proposal, so to speak, made by Hernández.
7 El APITZALPATLI tzontololotli o remedio astringente de cabellos redondos, y al que los malinalcenses, en cuyas tierras nace, llaman zazaltzin por ser glutinoso, tiene raíces ramificadas, tallos delgados, vellosos y cilíndricos… […] El segundo AXIXPATLI echa raíz ramificada, tallos de un palmo, delgados y redondos, llenos de hojillas largas y angostas como de sanguinaria o de lenteja. […] El tercer AXIXPATLI, que podría llamarse quauhnahuacense por el lugar en que nace, tiene raíces como cabellos, tallos cilíndricos, hojas oblongas y aserradas semejantes a las de menta, flores menudas…
11
not provide descriptions of the species but just correspondences between common designations —not only in Spanish but also in some Mexican indigenous languages, such as Nahuatl or Maya— and the corresponding binominal nomenclature(s). This work does not provide illustrations, and it has two orderings: common designation – scientific one in the book’s first section, and binomial nomenclature – common designation(s) in the second one. In accordance also with Valdéz (n.d.), Martínez published Las plantas más útiles que existen en la República Mexicana (Most Useful Plants that Exist in Mexican Republic) in 1928, re-edited up to three times. Las plantas medicinales de México (Medicinal Plants from Mexico) was released in 1933 and re-edited three more times, and it is considered fundamental to the record of Mexican herbal medicine. Martínez’s works are still relevant and have been used as a reference for modern works such as Malezas de México (2006).
Although it does not provide only designations of plants, and it does not focus on Mexican Spanish either, we have found Augusto Malaret’s Lexicón de fauna y flora (Lexicon of Fauna and Flora, published in 19618) to be a meaningful work for the present conceptualisation. On the one hand, because it is a lexicographical work that emerged from a broader one, specifically the Diccionario de americanismos (Dictionary of Americanisms9, published in 1946). On the other hand, it reflects that these kinds of designations need to be treated lexicographically different since, among other reasons, they imply some particular difficulties in registering them, as we can read in the following excerpt:
Doubt [of mistakes] remains in many cases, as we have an overwhelming excess of indigenous synonyms and deplorable confusion in both common and scientific terminology. The Latin index at the end highlights the hesitations in the vocabulary relating to the most common animals and plants known to us10. (Malaret, 1945, p. 68).
According to Biblioteca Digital de la Medicina Tradicional Mexicana (n.d.), between 1990 - 1994, a series of essential works regarding traditional Mexican medicine and indigenous herbal medicine were published sponsored by the National Indigenist Institute and directed by Carlos Zolla. Among these, we
8 Malaret’s work was published firstly in instalments from 1945 to 1959 in Thesaurus, the journal of the Caro and Cuervo Institute from Colombia. The first edition was released in 1961 by this institute; a second one was released by the Royal Spanish Academy in 1970. We have used the version of Thesaurus.
9 In this dissertation, we use Americanism in the sense of ‘characteristic feature of Spanish of Latin America’s Countries as contrasted with other Spanish variates of other regions’, which differs from that of Standard English, i.e., “a characteristic feature of American English especially as contrasted with British English” (MW). Our usage is because we follow the lexicological and lexicographic current in Spanish that studies this phenomenon, as Rona (1969), Gútemberg Bohórquez (1984), Alatorre (2001), and Fernández Gordillo (2006).
10 …subsiste la duda en muchos casos, ya que tenemos abrumador exceso de sinónimos indígenas y deplorable confusión tanto en la terminología autóctona como en la científica. El índice latino que damos al final pone de relieve las vacilaciones del vocabulario relativo a los animales y plantas más comunes que conocemos.
12
can find Atlas de las plantas de la medicina tradicional mexicana (Atlas of Plants of Mexican Traditional Medicine), Diccionario enciclopédico de la medicina tradicional mexicana (Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Traditional Mexican Medicine), Flora medicinal indígena de México (Medicinal Flora of Native People of Mexico), and La medicina tradicional de los pueblos indígenas de México (Traditional Medicine of Native People of Mexico). These works reflect the importance of providing two or more orderings, for instance, according to the common designation (in any Mexican native language or Spanish), as per the scientific one, under the botanical family, by the region where the plant grows, or by the use for specific purposes. The relevance of the cultural or traditional information regarding plants in Mexican society is another aspect that manifests through the publication of these works.
21st Century
In April 2006, Malezas de México (Weeds from Mexico) was released under the direction of Heike Vibrans; a digital work available in English, Mayan, and Spanish, whose last update was in 2012, and is considered as a specialised encyclopaedia of weeds, although the author sees it as a “site”. Binominal nomenclatures constitute the macrostructure of Malezas, which is ordered alphabetically and gathered according to the taxonomic family of the species and the genus. Each article generally provides the following data:
(a) Images of the plant in question;
(b) synonymic binominal nomenclature(s);
(c) common designations in Spanish (not just the Mexican variant), in Mexican native languages, and English;
(d) taxonomic comments about the plant in question;
(e) superior taxonomic categories to which the species belong;
(f) links to other digital sources about the plant;
(g) origin of the plant and its geographical distribution (not just in Mexico);
(h) morphological specialised identification and description of the species in question;
(i) habitat of the plant;
(j) species’ life cycle;
(k) impact and importance of plant, i.e., if it is harmful to other species or if it is used medicinally;
other specialised sources about the species.
13 2.4.1.1 General Conclusions from the State of the Art
Bearing in mind the kind of designations and referents considered, we can make some general conclusions from this brief overview. On the one hand, it reinforces our position on the need for a dictionary with encyclopaedic features: description of the species, illustrations, properties and usage of the plant, region where it grows, and so on. On the other hand, in the absence of research into the use of a dictionary of designations of plants, a question in the section of Malezas de México (2012),
“Preguntas Frecuentes” (Frequently Asked Questions) also supports, to some extent, our position on the need for a linguistic approach: “Why are plants not ordered by common names, instead of scientific names, known only to specialists?”12 (Vibrans, n.d.). We find her answer no less telling, “Common designations are highly variable from one region of Mexico to another, and often the same designation refers to different species…”13 (Vibrans, n.d.).
Vibrans’ response is in addition to Malaret’s remark, which is about the difficulty of registering plants’ designations because of the number of synonyms and what he calls “confusion” in both common and scientific designations. Indeed, like many others, this sort of designation entails several difficulties. Both the question and remark above reveal the interest of the non-specialist users in a plant through its common designation, which is the one they know, the closest to them, and even an endearing one14. They also reveal that a lexicographical work that aims to deal with such designations will necessarily have to face the difficulty involved in synonymy and polysemy (like Hernández’s Historia reflects it), among other factors such as documentation problems, not forgetting the complexities of taxonomy identification and classification. Such a dictionary will have inaccuracies, if not mistakes, like any other human product, which, however, can be overcome or favourably reduced with proper lexicographical planning. Based on all the above, our position on the necessity of a hybrid work is reinforced, a posture that will be theoretically supported in lexicographical terms in the following subsection.
2.4.2 Brief Discussion about Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias
This subsection deals with the distinction between dictionaries and encyclopaedias. On the one hand, this part of our dissertation aims to support that there is a difference between these lexicographic
12 ¿Por qué no se ordenan las plantas mejor por nombres comunes y no por los nombres científicos que sólo conocen los especialistas?
13 Los nombres comunes son sumamente variables de una región de México a otra, y a menudo se aplica el mismo nombre a diferentes especies…
14 José Martí wrote “…En los montes,/ monte soy.// Yo sé los nombres extraños/ De las yerbas y las flores…” (With the hills,/ I am one.// I know the strange names/ of herbs and flowers…).
14
works, although it is not an undisputed distinction. On the other hand, it justifies the typological nature of the planned work, namely an encyclopaedic dictionary, i.e., a hybrid work, since such hybridization, so to speak, makes sense only if there are at least two distinct types of works.
2.4.2.1 General Presentation of Haiman-Frawley Discussion
In a well-known discussion between Haiman (1980, 1982) and Frawley (1981) about the dictionary- encyclopaedia distinction, the former argues that such difference does not exist, and all objects called dictionaries are, in fact, encyclopaedias. In contrast, the latter claims that dictionaries and encyclopaedias are different (cultural) entities (Frawley’s term). Although it is perhaps easier to draw such distinction theoretically rather than practically, we consider, as Frawley (1981) and other authors, e.g., Lara (1989, 1997), that these lexicographical works have features that make them different. This will be addressed below.
Haiman (1980) calls into question the traditional criteria for distinguishing between dictionary and encyclopaedia, namely, 1) linguistic and cultural knowledge, 2) subjective and objective facts, 2) essence and accidence, 4) semantics and pragmatics, 5) analysis and synthesis, and 6) exclusion or inclusion of proper names. A dictionary deals with the first element of these pairs, while encyclopaedia with the second one. Haiman takes as starting point an agreement, in a manner of speaking, between structural linguists and language philosophers about the proper lexicographic definition of common nouns (1980, p. 330). According to this viewpoint, the definition of elephant is “an animal of the species ‘elephant’” (Leech, 1974, p. 88, as cited in Haiman, 1980, p. 330) since “species names like
‘horse’ are essentially proper names like John” (Haiman, 1980, p. 330).
Haiman’s position is based on the fact that the boundaries of the criteria above are rather blurred.
Thus, according to him (Haiman, 1980, pp. 331-354): 1) it is barely possible to talk about the meaning of any word without mentioning the object referred to by such a sign. 2) Even scientific knowledge, i.e., objective, could be considered subjective. 3) Essence and accidence are contingent on the culture, therefore, arbitrary. 4) Semantics and pragmatics are inseparable. 5) Both analysis and synthesis (or truth of reason and truth of facts, respectively) depend on experience. Finally, 6) proper names, as common ones, have meaning, i.e., they also make sense in shared cultural knowledge; therefore, the former should also be included in dictionaries and not just in encyclopaedias.
It is not possible to draw an undisputed distinction between those criteria, and consequently, between dictionaries and encyclopaedias, and their elements, definition texts. In this regard, Peeters (2000) states, “the distinction [dictionaries-encyclopaedias], when made, is not being made along the
15
same lines by everyone with an interest in the matter” (2000, p. 2), as an instance, he goes on, “it is most unlikely that any issue in linguistics will ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.”15 (2000, p. 2) This does not mean that there are no lexicographic works with distinct features and purposes, which in turn make them different cultural objects. Haiman’s critique (1980) appears to be biased16. One reason is his analysis of the lexicographical treatment of linguistic signs whose preponderant function is referential17, specially the nouns that have concrete referents, like designations of animals or trees given without discussing how other parts of speech or other substantives are lexicographically treated. For instance, nouns that refer to abstractions, concepts, feelings, and imaginary beings, cf. Frawley (1981, p. 54) and Lara (1997, pp. 218-219). Another reason is that Haiman does not make a historical review of lexicographical works; instead, he focuses on modern lexicography, which, as we shall see, does tend to encyclopaedism. The reasons will be discussed below.
2.4.2.2 Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias
We experience the world through our senses; however, existence also reveals itself in ways beyond them: ideas, emotions, concepts, and so forth. Language is the most evolved medium for referring to those objects perceived from the real world and those things evaded by our senses, which, nonetheless, also exist. In this regard, we think that our perspective coincides with some aspects of Cognitive Linguistics’ approach to meaning, specifically with Frame Semantics’ viewpoint, which essentially claims that it is not possible to understand the meaning of a given linguistic sign without the encyclopaedic knowledge related to such sign (Geeraerts, 2006, pp.15-16) since the latter is a dimension of linguistic knowledge. Especially, in our opinion, when linguistic signs refer to concrete referents. However, it does not mean that we follow Cognitive Linguistics (henceforth CL) when considering that it is not possible to distinguish between dictionaries and encyclopaedias18, as Wierzbicka already condemned (1996, p. 336, as cited in Peteers, 2000, p.13). What we think CL considers as “encyclopaedic knowledge” is ‘world experience’, based on Geeraerts:
15 It is hard to make undisputed distinctions or statements not only in lexicography or linguistics, but also in any field of knowledge.
16 In addition to Frawley (1981), cf. Lara (1997, p. 204) and Peeters (2000, pp. 11-17).
17 In this regard, Fillmore states, “for a very large part of the vocabulary of our languages, the only form a definition can take is that of pointing to these things and actions and institutions and indicating the words used for naming and describing parts and aspects of them.”(1977, as cited in Peeters 2000, p. 8)
18 Regarding frame semantics, Geeraerts states, “that meaning in natural language is not separated from other forms of knowledge implies that is not very useful to maintain a strict separation between world knowledge and knowledge of linguistic meaning.” (2006, p. 15)
16
The meaning we construct in and through the language is not a separate and independent module of the mind, but it reflects our overall experience as human beings. Linguistic meaning is not separate from other forms of knowledge of the world that we have, and in that sense, it is encyclopaedic and non-autonomous… (2006, pp. 4-5)
Here, we consider that “encyclopaedic knowledge” encompasses two distinct types of knowledge, namely world experience (simultaneously individual and social, and interlaced with language) and scientific knowledge (more precise and objective) disseminated in the manner introduced by the Enlightenment. These types of knowledge (world experience and scientific) do not necessarily coincide;
moreover, they can contradict each other, as Lara (1997, p. 186) —following Putman— and Iriarte (2001)19 have already pointed out. A typical case is the perception of the movement of the Sun; as in many (all?) languages, we talk about the rising and setting of the Sun, for instance, PT “O sol nasce pelo leste” (lit. Transl. The Sun is born in the east); GR “die Sonne ist schon untergegangen” (lit. Transl.
The Sun has already set); ID “Matahari sudah terbenam” (lit. Transl. The Sun already sank)20. Nonetheless, modern astronomy has scientifically demonstrated that it is the rotation of the Earth around its axis that causes such a perception21.
Thus, as cultural objects22, dictionaries and encyclopaedias contain linguistic signs that refer to both real and abstract entities. The difference lies in the treatment, namely the type of information provided and, as Haiman (1980, p. 338) himself seems to acknowledge, in the degree of precision of that information, which, in the case of the scientific information, is also contingent on the changing
19 Scientific explanations of a given fragment of the world do not necessarily coincide with the common or popular explanations that a given community (linguistically and culturally defined) makes of that same portion of reality (Iriarte, 2001, p. 227).... As representações científicas de um determinado fragmento do mundo não coincidem necessariamente com as representações quotidianas ou populares que uma determinada comunidade (definida linguística e culturalmente) faz dessa mesma porção da realidade.
20 We are grateful to Yulianti Yudo for this example in Indonesian and for verifying our English translation. Its pertinence, of course, is on our own responsibility.
21 We sincerely thank Alice Mevis for the discussions about this phenomenon that helped us polish this example and her guidance on Cognitive Linguistics.
Of course, inaccuracies or omissions are our own responsibility.
22 Modern-day lexicographical theory sees them as “utility products”, according to Tarp and Begenholtz (2002, pp.254, 255) and Gouws and Prinsloo (2005, p. 8). For his part, and from a linguistic and historical point of view, Lara considers the monolingual dictionary to be a verbal object and, as a book, a cultural object (1997, p. 10, 11). Although these theories contradict each other in some respects, we think they do not cancel but rather complement each other. Rather than discussing their contradictory elements —which is not the aim of the present thesis—, in our dissertation, we try to use them in the envisaged dictionary’s favour. Therefore, we consider lexicographical works as cultural objects since they account for the lexicon of a given language; they also have a historical background and a social value that should not be ignored. The above does not cancel, from our point of view, its raison d’être being the users and their specific consultation, i.e., being a utility.
17
standards of science23. In this regard, Raskin (1985) states that “identical representation does not necessarily preclude differences along other dimensions, and divergent representations do not necessarily rule out the existence of a different format of representation that suits both kinds of knowledge to perfection, and therefore makes their identity obvious.” (as paraphrased in Peteers, 2000, p. 18). Regarding the definition text, where the difference between dictionary and encyclopaedia is perhaps even harder to draw, we try to use to our advantage Haiman’s argument for no distinction between these lexicographic works, that there is no etic knowledge24, but just a more sophisticated one (1980, pp. 338-339). Indeed, we think that language, world experience, and scientific knowledge (the more sophisticated one, in Haiman’s words) are not isolated spheres, but influence each other. Thus, it is not unexpected that modern science has influenced language, specifically the semantic realm and, therefore, the lexicographical definition (see Lara, 1997, p. 215).
According to Lara (1997, pp. 213-215), the dictionary bias toward encyclopaedism, i.e., a tendency toward providing more information about the referent of a given sign supported by scientific knowledge, is due to three main reasons: in the first place, 1) the influence of the philosophical discussion about definition theories and the adoption of the Aristotelian definition as a model for lexicographic ones; in the second place, 2) the socialisation of scientific knowledge, i.e., when specialised understanding leaves the somewhat restricted sphere of science and becomes part of the knowledge shared by most people; finally, 3) a cultural preference for the criteria of philosophy of science instead of a theory of the linguistic sign, and the preference for knowledge of the extension of the linguistic sign —that is, the class constituted by entities that can be referred by a word— over its meaning25 (Lara, 1997, p. 216).
Let us illustrate the previous argument: in Spanish, mamífero ‘mammal’ appears in dictionaries in 1846, while gato ‘cat’ is included in monolingual works since 1611, in Covarrubias’ Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española (henceforth TLCE). In an extensive dictionary article, TLCE’s definition of gato starts by stating: “Cat is a domestic animal that keeps the house free from mice…26”, naturally, without mentioning that it is a mammal or that it belongs to the felid family; although Covarrubias compares it with other felines, such as a tiger or a wildcat. It is in Dominguez’ work, Diccionario nacional o gran
23 For example, modern genetics can gradually influence common knowledge and help us reduce racist ideas, which, otherwise, we must remember, were also supported by science, especially during the positivist period (Villavicencio, 2010, p. 37).
24 Namely, an analysis of cultural matters without involving at all any cultural viewpoint, either of the culture studied itself or of a different one. The above is based on MW's emic and etic definitions.
25 It is not clear to us what Lara means when he says “cultural”, i.e., does he talk about culture as a set of expressions in a certain community or culture as lexicographic tradition? Although it is not our purpose to discuss his lexicographic theory, we ask ourselves if it is possible to expect from culture, in the first sense, an inclination to the theory of linguistic sign since such a theory is specialised knowledge and therefore restricted.
26 El gato es animal doméstico, que limpia la casa de ratones.
18
diccionario clásico de la lengua española, about 1846-1847, where we find an encyclopaedic definition of gato: “Mammal. Type of quadruped [belonged to] suborder of digitigrade carnivores. It comprises several beasts spread over the whole globe that zoology gathers into the feline race or into cat genus”27 (emphasis is ours). Another case is that of sangre ‘blood’, when we compare the following definitions:
“Properly, blood is what is carried by veins, this is according to ancient Latins, but we [Castilian speakers] do not distinguish between sanguinem and cruorem. Sometimes, blood means kinship…28” (TLCE, italics are ours), and “Liquid, generally red, that flows through veins and arteries of animal bodies. It is constituted by a liquid part or plasma and suspending cells: haematids, leucocytes and platelets…29” (Diccionario de la lengua española, hereinafter DLE. Italics in the quotation are ours).
In the previous cases, definition texts refer to the referent, which is necessary, from our point of view since the preponderant function in the designations of concrete entities is referential. In that regard, Leiss (1986, p. 80) states: “Nun ist es tatsächlich so, daß Substantive bzw. vorwiegend referentielle Termini, ohne ‚Weltwissen‘ nicht adäquat beschrieben werden können.” (Italics are ours). (Regarding this, see footnote 17 in this chapter). About the definitions of cat, the former focuses on the domestic purposes of this feline at the time30, while the latter does it on the taxonomic typology adding a specialised register and appealing to zoology. This animal has always had the same features, so to speak, but lexicographic works and linguistic communities emphasise either one or the other, according to the general thinking of their times, their purposes, and so on. In this regard, we agree with Lara (1997, p. 216) when he states that contemporary culture, as a set of manifestations of a community, seems to tend towards encyclopaedism, and also when he asserts that in western societies, common knowledge (world experience) is not enough anymore. Thus, the objective one, that is, scientific knowledge, becomes the most valid31 (Lara, 1997, p. 204). The consequence in modern lexicography is
27 Mam[ífero]. Género de cuadrúpedos, subórden de los carniceros digitígrados. Comprende muchas especies de fieras, diseminadas en todo el globo, y reunidos en zoología bajo el nombre de raza felina, género félix ó género gato.
28 …propiame[n]te la sangre es aquella que está dentro de las venas, esto es según los Latinos, pero nosotros no hazemos [sic] diferencia inter sanguinem,
& cruorem. Sangre, alguna vezes [sic] significa pare[n]tesco…
29 Líquido, generalmente de color rojo, que circula por las arterias y venas del cuerpo de los animales, se compone de una parte líquida o plasma y de células en suspensión: hematíes, leucocitos y plaquetas…
30 The corresponding definitions in contemporary works, such as the Diccionario del español actual (DEA), the Diccionario del español de México (DEM), the Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE), prioritise the morphological description of cat. DEA still keeps mice hunting as an important aspect of the animal, while for DLE, the domestic purpose is contingent. For its part, and apart from the morphology of this animal, DEM provides information about its behaviour.
31 For instance, in Mexico, it is heard from Spanish speaker community, whether specialist or not, that the true designation of a given plant or animal is the binominal nomenclature, i.e., the scientific name. (We mention this case based on our experience as members of the community of Mexican Spanish speakers. Therefore, we do not pretend this example to be a sociolinguistic assessment of Mexican society, regarding, for instance, prestige in language use, but we think that it can illustrate what we are discussing here).
19
a preference for definitions that provide mostly objective (scientific) knowledge about the referent itself rather than its social shared significance, as already seen in one of the above excerpts for blood, where the authors of a general dictionary (DLE) opted for terminology to support their definition.
2.4.2.3 Some Conclusions about Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias
We do not deny that the difference between dictionaries and encyclopaedias is blurred.
Nevertheless, such distinction depends also on the culture and the language concerned, which we will consider in §2.4.3.2 (regarding linguistic meaning and knowledge, Larrivée suggests that distinction does not cancel interaction, as paraphrased in Peeters, 2006, p. 46). We do not dispute (western)32 dictionary bias to the so-called scientific encyclopaedism either, which seems to be beyond lexicographic works, i.e., a cultural tendency. However, it does not mean, as previously mentioned, that there is no such distinction. The impossibility of not mentioning the referent of the linguistic sign in the lexicographical definition is not a sound argument to deny the difference between the dictionary and encyclopaedia since it is through language that we refer to the world, explain it, understand it, and so forth, and both types of works contain linguistic signs that refer to it. Therefore, we do not think that there is a dichotomist distinction between the dictionary and encyclopaedia, but a difference in the conception of linguistic signs and in the corresponding treatment. Following Lara (1997, p. 204), in the former, linguistic signs are ways to say with meaning, while in the latter, they are labels of the things.
Also, in this regard, according to Frawley (1981, p.59), when the distinction is not clear between analytic (dictionary matters) and synthetic (encyclopaedic matters) statements, the difference is a scale rather than a dichotomy.
Finally, following the theory of lexicographic functions33, the lexicographer, according to the target user and the genuine purpose of the planned dictionary34, should decide what preponderant bias, or rather, functions (knowledge-orientated or communication-orientated functions) the intended work will have. In that regard, the relevance for the present thesis of the dictionary-encyclopaedia discussion
32 We use parenthesis because we do not know other lexicographic traditions, for example, Asian, Arabic or the ones of American Native Languages. Due to the historical imposition of European cultural aspects on other continents and the current globalisation, we expect those traditions to have similar tendencies, but consider it irresponsible to generalise or assert them without knowing them.
33 Lexicographic functions will be handled in Chapter 3 regarding the conceptualisation plan. Some remarks about this lexicographic theory: except for Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera and Marta Niño Amo (see § Bibliography), whose works and research in this regard otherwise are written mainly in English, this current appears to be not very known or spread in the lexicographic literature in Spanish. For instance, in Mexican lexicography, which we are more familiar with, we dare say it is barely known and discussed.
34 These are conscious decisions; however, there are other aspects that can influence lexicographers —which they could not even be aware—,and consequently, their works, for instance: the current of thought at the time, the influence of scientific discussions, for example, linguistic or, as we mentioned above, philosophical ones.
20
made above and the following subsection is based on the following statement: “The genuine purpose of a dictionary is co-determined by, among others, its typological nature and its intended target user group.” (Gouws and Prinsloo, 2005, p. 13) In addition, regarding dictionaries elaboration, these authors also state: “When planning dictionaries, lexicographers should not see themselves bound to the existing typological models but should have the freedom to create innovative typological models.” (Gouws and Prinsloo, 2005, p. 55). Therefore, in some cases, dictionary makers can deliberately opt for a hybrid work35, like the encyclopaedic dictionary36, which we find the most suitable for the envisaged work. Thus, we have tried to justify the difference between the dictionary and encyclopaedia theoretically, as mentioned in the introduction of this subsection. Based on this distinction, it is possible to consider the possibility of planning a hybrid work, whose features are dealt with in the following subsection, §2.4.3.
2.4.3 Typological Nature of the Intended Dictionary
We have discussed briefly in §2.4.2 that the distinction between dictionaries and encyclopaedias is relevant and only mentioned the possibility of making a hybrid work. In this subsection, we will focus on the characteristics of this type of work where we locate the intended dictionary. To this end, we will first place the planned work in the corresponding category according to the phenomenological typology (Hausmann, 1989). We will then gather the features of the dictionary, encyclopaedia, and hybrid work in a table, according to Hupka’s reflections (1989). Finally, we propose extended categories for the envisaged work based on Hausmann’s typology and Lara’s (1989) and Hupka’s (1989) reflections regarding the encyclopaedic dictionary.
2.4.3.1 Phenomenological Typology
A given work can be placed in different typologies or classifications according to the approach of the (theoretical) lexicographer (see Hausmann, 1989, p. 970). To some extent, typologies are arbitrary since any criterion can be applied (Hausman, 1989, p. 969). Thus, for example, dictionaries can be classified as general or restricted; encyclopaedic or linguistic; in this case, as monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual; and into different types in succession (Gouws & Prisloo, 2005, pp. 47-48). A function typology should be based on all possible usage situations of the dictionary; therefore, these situations
35 Perhaps it is worth remembering, as we stated in §2.3, that we use “hybrid work” in the sense of ‘encyclopaedic dictionary’ and not in the sense of Gouws and Prinsloo, namely a work that “[satisfies] some of the needs for a monolingual descriptive and some of the needs for a bilingual dictionary.”
(2005, p. 56)
36 This is certainly not an innovative type of lexicographic work, but it has an important tradition, as we shall see.
