How to Catch Your Unicorn: Defining Meaning in Ælfric's Glossary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Urban Dictionary

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Dictionaries Pub Date : 2020-12-17 DOI:10.1353/dic.2020.0013
A. Seiler
{"title":"How to Catch Your Unicorn: Defining Meaning in Ælfric's Glossary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Urban Dictionary","authors":"A. Seiler","doi":"10.1353/dic.2020.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Based on the entries for the word unicorn, this article investigates how meaning is defined in three very different dictionaries: Ælfric's Glossary (ÆGl), the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and Urban Dictionary (UD). Starting with ÆGl in the Old English period, the article shows that different types of definitions as described by Lew (2013) are already present and that Ælfric's definitions of unicorn, in fact, combine divergent concepts of this mythological creature. The different meanings of unicorn presented by Ælfric are reflected in some of the multiple senses of the word as defined by the monumental OED. A comparison with the numerous entries for unicorn in UD reveals that one of its most prominent senses—'a very attractive (and hence unobtainable) person'—is missing from the OED and also from Lexico, an online dictionary of contemporary English provided by Oxford University Press. On the one hand, these similarities and differences reveal each dictionary's bias for a particular register. On a more fundamental level, however, the evidence calls into question how far classic dictionary definitions are actually able to convey word meaning. In a sense, the multiple overlapping and competing definitions of UD are more successful in representing the fuzziness of word meaning. In a similar way, ÆGl, though written by a single author, combines different sources on the unicorn without merging them into a unified account. Thus, from a typological perspective, medieval glossaries turn out to share certain features with crowd-sourced lexicographical resources like UD, and both are quite distinct from professional lexicography in how they approach word meaning.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2020.0013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dictionaries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2020.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Based on the entries for the word unicorn, this article investigates how meaning is defined in three very different dictionaries: Ælfric's Glossary (ÆGl), the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and Urban Dictionary (UD). Starting with ÆGl in the Old English period, the article shows that different types of definitions as described by Lew (2013) are already present and that Ælfric's definitions of unicorn, in fact, combine divergent concepts of this mythological creature. The different meanings of unicorn presented by Ælfric are reflected in some of the multiple senses of the word as defined by the monumental OED. A comparison with the numerous entries for unicorn in UD reveals that one of its most prominent senses—'a very attractive (and hence unobtainable) person'—is missing from the OED and also from Lexico, an online dictionary of contemporary English provided by Oxford University Press. On the one hand, these similarities and differences reveal each dictionary's bias for a particular register. On a more fundamental level, however, the evidence calls into question how far classic dictionary definitions are actually able to convey word meaning. In a sense, the multiple overlapping and competing definitions of UD are more successful in representing the fuzziness of word meaning. In a similar way, ÆGl, though written by a single author, combines different sources on the unicorn without merging them into a unified account. Thus, from a typological perspective, medieval glossaries turn out to share certain features with crowd-sourced lexicographical resources like UD, and both are quite distinct from professional lexicography in how they approach word meaning.
如何抓住你的独角兽:在lfric的词汇表、牛津英语词典和城市词典中定义意义
摘要:本文以“独角兽”一词的词条为基础,研究了三本截然不同的词典:《牛津英语词典》(OED)、《牛津城市词典》(UD)对含义的定义。本文从古英语时期的ÆGl开始,表明Lew(2013)所描述的不同类型的定义已经存在,而Æ; lfric对独角兽的定义实际上结合了这种神话生物的不同概念。Ælfric提出的“独角兽”的不同含义反映在该词的一些多重含义中,正如不朽的《牛津英语词典》所定义的那样。与UD中众多独角兽词条的比较表明,它最突出的意义之一——“非常有吸引力(因此无法获得)的人”——在《牛津英语词典》和牛津大学出版社提供的当代英语在线词典Lexico中都缺失了。一方面,这些相似性和差异性揭示了每本词典对特定语域的偏见。然而,在更基本的层面上,这些证据让人怀疑经典词典的定义实际上能在多大程度上传达单词的含义。从某种意义上说,UD的多重重叠和竞争定义更成功地表现了词义的模糊性。以类似的方式,ÆGl虽然由一位作者撰写,但它将独角兽的不同来源结合在一起,而没有将它们合并到一个统一的账户中。因此,从类型学的角度来看,中世纪的词汇表与UD等众源词典学资源有着共同的特点,两者在处理词义方面都与专业词典学截然不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dictionaries
Dictionaries Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信