Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
[In this two-part series, we will first consider the complexities of developing bilingual dictionaries and then move on to how these specifically translate to the context of language documentation and revitalisation.)
Developing a bilingual dictionary is a challenging undertaking for any lexicographer. Dictionary writing, which is a complex task to begin with, becomes that much more complex when the lexicographer must deal with two languages and their different structures, ways of encoding information, and idiosyncrasies. One easy-to-anticipate difficulty might arise from a simple lack of lexical equivalence--what we may term the “words for snow” problem, based on the oft-repeated observation ascribed to Franz Boas, that Eskimo languages have 50 different words for snow. So, a lexicographer attempting to create an Inuit-Tamil dictionary would be faced with the challenging task of explaining the several different words for “snow” in a language (Tamil) that not only doesn’t have that many words to describe snow, but also uses the same word to refer to both “snow” and “dew.”
But this is just the tip of the iceberg (to pursue the cold-weather reference). Structural differences between languages present an even bigger problem to the lexicographer--how does one match, for instance, what the source language may call an adjective and the target language calls an adjective or an adverb depending on how you use it in a sentence? For instance, the English adjective ‘beautiful’ is an adjective in the sentence ‘That cat is beautiful’ and ‘That’s a beautiful cat’. In Tamil, different forms of the word for ‘beautiful’ would be used in these two sentences: respectively, the adjective azakAna (ஆழகான) and the adverb azakAka (அழகாக). These are common problems that, as one may expect, have no simple or straightforward answers. The solutions must be devised by every lexicographer depending on three factors: the purpose of their dictionary, the needs of their target users, and the available resources.
The financial resources available to a lexicographer will often dictate some of the most basic questions--will the bilingual dictionary be a print dictionary? If so, how many pages can we afford to print, how many copies, and what would be the channel and cost of distribution? How should the print dictionary be organised and what should the front and back matter cover (general grammatical information, pronunciation guides)? If the dictionary is to be published online or as a mobile app, how would the data be organised, maintained, and published? What would the hosting costs be? These practical matters can decide many aspects of the dictionary even before the meat of the lexicographer's work has begun.
The purpose of the dictionary and its user’s needs are very closely intertwined questions. The purpose of a bilingual dictionary is often characterised in terms of being either “reception driven” or “production driven.” Reception-driven dictionaries are those that seek to help the native speaker of the target language understand the words in the source language. Such dictionaries are useful for, for example, language learners or tourists who speak the target language and who can read the script of the source language but have no idea what a certain word in the source language means. The reception-driven bilingual dictionary simply helps them interpret the word by providing a clear definition of it in the language they are already competent in.
Production-driven dictionaries, on the other hand, are more interested in helping native speakers of the source language produce words in the target language--to actively translate and use words in the target language. Such dictionaries may be used by more advanced language learners of the target language who have a fair understanding of its basic vocabulary, but who may need help finding the most appropriate word to use in the same context where they would use a word from the native language (presumably, the source language).
We see from these scenarios that the target user’s needs often help anticipate the type of dictionary the lexicographer must create. The lexicographer would have to imagine an “ideal user” who has a certain level of knowledge of the two languages involved in the dictionary, and then would need to decide what types of information would be most pertinent to the user. So, our beleaguered lexicographer of the Inuit-Tamil dictionary must decide whether they want to simply tell their Tamil audience, under all the various Inuit headwords for “snow”, that they refer to the white substance that falls from the sky in winter in cold places; or if they would want to explain the specific shade of meaning conveyed by each headword related to “snow.” Finally, considering that Inuit is a polysynthetic language, would the lexicographer want to list just the “base” form of the word for snow and explain the various ways it could be inflected resulting in “50 different words”? And if so, how? Would this be useful to the Tamil user at all or would the Tamil user just throw up their hands and completely abandon their interest in Inuit?
Let’s leave the poor lexicographer to ponder their troubles and turn next to the context of endangered languages, where these questions will become even more important...
(To be continued in part 2)
Comments