| Abstract |
At the core of lexicography there is an ill-acknowledged, subjective notion of importance. Important words need fuller treatment. When people talk about consistency in dictionaries, this wrinkle is often overlooked. There is an analogous situation in theoretical lexicology and NLP, where the lure of elegant, rule-based theories has taken precedence, and "importance" largely ignored. If lexicography is to become more objective, the concept of importance must be closely studied with a view to finding an objective surrogate for it. This will come from corpora. As yet we have very little idea of which facts from which corpora are relevant, but if we do not take on the challenge, lexicography is forever doomed to ineffable subjectivity. |
| BibTex |
@InProceedings{ELX94-014,
author = {Adam Kilgarriff},
title = {The Myth of Completeness and Some Problems with Consistency (The Role of Frequency in Deciding What Goes in the Dictionary)},
pages = {101-106},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 6th EURALEX International Congress},
year = {1994},
month = {aug-sep},
date = {30-3},
address = {Amsterdam, the Netherlands},
editor = {Willy Martin, Willem Meijs, Margreet Moerland, Elsemiek ten Pas, Piet van Sterkenburg & Piek Vossen},
publisher = {Euralex},
isbn = {90-900-7537-2},
} |
