<b>Modern lexicography:</b> An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Modern lexicography: An introduction by Henri Béjoint Zdenek Salzmann Modern lexicography: An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276. This is a paperback edition of Tradition and innovation in modern English dictionaries published in 1994. In this edition a few minor corrections have been made, and the bibliography has been updated. The book focuses on the decades since the 1960s and is limited to the lexicographies of English-speaking countries. Béjoint is Professor in the Département de Langues Etrangères Appliquées at the University of Lyon. Metalexicography—‘the activities of anyone who writes about lexicography but does not write dictionaries’ (8)—is his specialty. The book is divided into seven chapters. In Ch. 1, ‘Dictionaries and the dictionary’ (6–41), B defines the term ‘dictionary’ and discusses the structure and functions of dictionaries. He then describes their various types: morphological, functional, ‘genetic’, general, specialized, monolingual, bilingual, encyclopedic, and others. The lexicographic scene in English-speaking countries is the subject of Ch. 2 (42–91). It contains a brief but informative survey of dictionaries published in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. Production of dictionaries designed to facilitate encoding—i.e. dictionaries of synonyms or of semantically related words—is a recent trend in English-language lexicography. Other innovations are semantic dictionaries, monolingual-bilingual dictionaries for foreign students, dictionaries of new words, and dictionaries of World English. Despite B’s intent to focus on English lexicography of recent decades, he devotes a short chapter (Ch. 3) to the historical origins of the general purpose dictionary, mentioning Sumerian lists dating back to the third millennium bc as the earliest ancestors of modern dictionaries. Of interest to the reader may be an account of the evolution of general purpose dictionaries over the last several centuries. What are dictionaries for? Functions of the general purpose dictionary are listed in Ch. 4, but the answer is far from straightforward. For example, should dictionaries be prescriptive or descriptive? The reader is reminded of the vigorous debate concerning the editorial policy used in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961). ‘What are general-purpose dictionaries really for?’ is the title and subject of Ch. 5 (140–68). The answer depends on the needs and skills of dictionary users. B lists over 30 studies made since 1962 and discusses several in some detail. This chapter will prove helpful to dictionary authors and editors. Ch. 6, ‘The linguistic traditions of lexicography’ (169–208), would be of particular interest to the readers of Language. In it B discusses the participation [End Page 391] of linguists in American lexicographic projects (‘not entirely unproblematic’), the relationship between dictionaries and linguistic schools, and the various methods of selecting entries and defining words. According to B, ‘the analytic definition is always best’ (198). ‘Whither lexicography’, Ch. 7 (209–37), contains a survey of some of the most promising research in theoretical linguistics that could improve dictionaries compiled in the future. A bibliography and an index conclude the volume. Zdenek Salzmann Northern Arizona University Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle