<snip>
And I would also expect such a dictionary to be organised not as currently
but rather along the lines of a database from which relations may be derived
according to the needs of the enquirer. [CW]
The OED2 - as most other modern dictionaries - are based around databases.
[RD]
<snip>
Databases in the most general sense of that term, yes; but not 'databases
from which relations may be derived according to the needs of the enquirer'.
Because the 'needs of the enquirer', as a language user, are to link
conceptually (say) the *fabric* of a building with *cladding*, *fabricate*,
*sackcloth and ashes* and so forth. The point being that the cognitive
approaches I had in mind (Lakoff's cognitive metaphor theory and/or
Fauconnier & Turner's blending theory; Talmy's force dynamics; Langacker's
concepts of profile and base etc) all posit, like Filmore's frame semantics,
some idea of central cases which are _conceptual_ rather than _verbal_ (as
in a dictionary) and from which radial categories (variously defined) are
derived.
So the task becomes, How exactly does one organize a usable reference work
based not on words but on (so to speak) *central cases* in a principled, ie
non-factitious, way? In this connection http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/
may be worth a potter.
CW
_______________________________________________
That which is the future here, when read from right to left, has
already happened. (Giorgio Manganelli)
|