Dictionary Source
INTRODUCTION
While
trying to answer this question: “Discuss the peculiarities of Dictionary
Source”. What comes to mind in the first instance is the ability to understand
or ask oneself, what kind of source are we talking about? In this regard we can
vividly conclude that we are discussing about the Sources of Information. Yes,
quite alright, we are referring to dictionary as an information source. For us
to discuss the peculiarities of Dictionary Source among the other sources of
information, we have to broadly make sure we understand some related terms
attached to this question, before we can move further to explain fully what
this question is all about. Words like: Dictionary, Peculiarities, Sources and
information as a whole have to be explained briefly in this assignment. A
Dictionary is a book that contains a list of the words of a language in alphabetical
order and also explains their meanings. A dictionary also gives the origin of
words, spellings and phonetic sounds, synonyms, antonyms. According to Dictionary.com
“Dictionary is a book,
optical disc,
mobile device,
or online lexical resource containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies,
inflected forms,
derived forms,
etc., expressed
in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary. “Peculiarities” simply means
characteristics. Some certain features that make something to be unique in its
own way. According to Dictionary.com defined peculiarities as “a trait, manner, characteristic, or habit that is
odd or unusual”. While
on the other hand, Source simply means a way of getting something be it
material or a piece of information. According to Dictionary.com “Source is anything or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained.
PECULIARITIES OF DICTIONARY SOURCE
Dictionaries
have limits on their utility. Earliest usages of words usually cannot be
definitively determined from a dictionary. Neither can styling, such as
hyphened or open. Definitions are separate from etymologies; to use an
etymology for a modern definition is an error. And while dictionary definitions
are usually reasonably precise, they are not quite mathematically precise for
every word. Classifying a dictionary is by its overall character. For instance,
the original Oxford English Dictionary ([1st
ed.] 1933) is generally a primary dictionary that is secondary for other
publishers or authors, yet reportedly at least one entry in it is not based on
an identified source. That entry was provided by the dictionary's editor who
had enough certainty of the word's existence to justify adding it without
citing evidence. It would probably be absurd to classify that dictionary as less
than primary because of that one entry. Likewise, a children's dictionary,
generally derivative and thus secondary or tertiary for authors, could have
cited a published source for one of its entries, yet it should not be
considered a dictionary primary among linguists just because of the one
exceptional entry.
A list
of important people or of many people somehow involved in editing a dictionary,
especially if they're advisors, is not very valuable when judging a dictionary.
Because the actual roles of such people are nearly impossible to determine, use
other criteria for evaluating a dictionary.
Dialectal,
professional, slang, phrasal (phrase), neologistic (new-word), grammatical
(about grammar), biographical, encyclopedic, foreign language, bilingual, polyglot,
reverse, symbolic, picture-to-word, etymological, thesaural, reconstructive
(for long-dead unwritten or unattested languages), dictionaries for
professional audiences such as doctors, and other specialized dictionaries have
to be judged as do standard dictionaries as to whether they are primary,
secondary, or tertiary for other authors or publishers like Wikipedia. Online
dictionaries have to be judged like offline dictionaries. Being called
unabridged is a little suggestive but not probative and so is the number of
volumes. Fame or the lack of it does not matter; some less-well-known
dictionaries are especially authoritative. Neither does whether it is new or
old, although, if succeeded by a newer edition, it may no longer be reliable
for other authors or publishers.
LIMITS
ON DICTIONARY'S USEFULNESS
As
earlier mention in the first paragraph of the main part of this assignment, It
is worth knowing that despite the importance of dictionary as a source of
information, it has its own limitations as explain below:
Etymology as modern restraint
Defining a word according to its etymology is a frequent descriptivist
error. It seems sensible, but meanings can change at any time, whereas
attestable etymologies are only discovered later and otherwise hardly change. The
belief that how a word was used at its beginning or in a certain long-ago time
and place is how it should be used today, a prescriptivist error, may be valid
for some words in some contexts, but not for most of them most of the time.
It's not even the case for most words that came from, say, Latin. People have
new needs. Language grows with us. Language is learned, therefore cultural, and
culture includes other practices, such as slavery. We don't continue enslaving
people today just because slavery used to be big. How we ask people to work and
whether we pay them changed. Words change, too.
Definitions as precise
Most well-known words are defined only approximately and most synonyms
are only near-synonyms. Exceptions with precise definitions include some
mathematical and scholarly terms, some new terms, and some terms that are
rarely used. But, for example, it's becoming common to place intensifying
adjectives in front of unique, as in very unique, indicating that
in popular use unique is understood to be inexact, and that pattern is
true for many words in widespread use. A definition for nice normally is
not exactly precise and that has not stopped most people from saying the word
perhaps a few times a day, on average. If precision is desired, generally it's
more pragmatic to seek greater precision, not perfection, and to consider using
a phrase or a paragraph instead of searching for just the right lonely word.
Dates for words in dictionaries
Some dictionaries give the earliest known dates for a word or for one of
its meanings, functionalities, or spellings. Some people mistakenly believe
that the word, meaning, or spelling did not exist before that date. However,
usually the date is only of the earliest evidence known to the dictionary's
editors. Relatively few words, meanings, and spellings are deliberately coined
on the record and then widely adopted into English, such as if a chemist
invents a chemical and names it. Instead, most words, meanings, and spellings
evolve with little notice, often rejected as mistakes before repetition and
acceptance. The date may be of only linguistic interest anyway. A word may
simply replace a short phrase. To a nonlinguist, the difference may be trivial.
Whether a word or a phrase was in use, the defined concept may already have had
a handle that people were using before the new word was invented, assuming the
date is accurate. So the concept may already have been communicated, and that
may be more important than the word.
Hyphenated, set solid, or spaced
The same word may appear styled in only one way in a dictionary but in
two or three ways in English texts. The only difference in spelling, function,
and meaning may be in the spelling having a hyphen, a space, or neither (set
solid). (Linguists recognize as a single word a spelling that includes a space,
such as open up in "it's time to open up the store", because open
up behaves linguistically like a single word even if a word processor's
spelling checker doesn't recognize it.) When a dictionary gives only one of
these stylings, the choice may have been arbitrary or change may
have occurred over time, but other stylings may be valid. Exceptions are rare;
an exceptional set is sweetbread and sweet bread, which have different meanings.
REFERENCES
"In the strictest
sense, synonymous words scarcely exist". Standard Dictionary
(Funk & Wagnalls, 1894), entry for synonyms or synonymous, as
quoted in Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms: A Dictionary of Discriminated
Synonyms with Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words (Springfield,
Mass.: G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster ser.), [4th ed.] 1973 (SBN
0-87779-141-4)), p. 19a (Survey of the History of English Synonymy,
in Introductory Matter); accord, Webster's New Dictionary of
Synonyms, id., pp. 23a–25a, passim (Synonym: Analysis
and Definition (titular word & colon italicized in original &
subtitle not), in Introductory Matter).
Comments
Post a Comment