最后的字典
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录，以代替摘要： The Last Dictionary Jeffrey R. Di Leo (bio) 词典，n. [约 1480-] 1.a. 通常按字母顺序解释或翻译一种或多种语言（或某一类词汇）的词语，给出每个词的典型拼写、词义解释，通常还提供其他信息，如发音、词源、同义词、其他语言中的对应词和示例。另外（从 20 世纪末开始）：具有这种功能的电子资源。参见词典 n.、单词书 n.-《牛津英语词典》（在线） 最后一本字典，n. [2024-] 通常按字母顺序解释或翻译一种或多种语言（或某一类词汇）中的单词，并给出每个单词的典型拼写、词义解释以及其他信息，如发音、词源、同义词、其他语言中的对等词和例证的最后一本书。在 21 世纪，这一功能被电子资源取代。牛津英语词典》（在线）的未来增补 除了英语中的每一个单词之外，每件事都有一本词典。对于某些词典狂人来说，这样的词典是词典学的圣杯。他们梦想着有一个空间，通过一本世界上从未见过的字典，可以查到所有的英语词汇。这本字典收录了任何人在英语中使用过的每一个单词。这不仅包括从书籍到博客的正式和非正式写作，还包括从音乐到营销的所有语言行为。其收录原则是，英语中使用的任何单词都不会被排除在词典之外。简而言之，这本很长的词典将是一本没有把关人的词典，把关人不会纠结于哪些词该收录，哪些词不该收录。[第 ix 页末] 然而，对其他人来说，这个梦想相当于彻底解构词典在词汇学中的作用。词典是把关人。这些把关人是词典编纂者，他们决定一个词是否应被收录到词典中。例如，《牛津英语词典》（OED）有多达八十多位词典编纂者为即将出版的第三版词典工作。他们的大部分工作是确定哪些词需要加入词典。这些词典编纂者非常认真地对待这项任务。为了证明这一决定的严肃性，可以考虑一下，将一个新词加入 OED 可能需要长达五年的时间。"简-约翰逊（Jane Johnson）说："你可以为在词典中收录任何词条提出理由。"她接着说："这只是优先顺序的问题。约翰逊作为《词典》第三版的新词编辑，部分工作就是帮助她的编辑团队确定这些优先事项。"她说："你必须找出哪些词看起来最有价值。至少就《词典》而言，决定是否将一个新词加入词典的优先顺序和价值涉及使用情况。如果一个词只用过一两次，那么无论谁用过这个词，它都不会被收录到《OED》中。但如果一个词的使用量开始增加，那么它就会开始吸引像约翰逊这样的《OED》把关人的注意。那么，多少使用率才算足够？在什么情况下，词性排斥会让位于词性收录？"菲奥娜-麦克弗森（Fiona McPherson）说："没有一个神奇的数字。"这不是说，'好吧，我们有十个例子，所以我们要看看'。自 1997 年以来一直担任 OED 词典编纂员的麦克弗森认为，这取决于一个词使用的 "广度和深度"。如果一个词被广泛使用，并开始在用法上扎根，那么它就值得考虑纳入。但即便如此，收录的道路也是艰辛而不确定的。该词的用法不仅需要引起把关人的注意，还必须成为他们的优先事项。举个例子，比如 "always already "这个短语。这个词用于...
- The Last Dictionary
- Jeffrey R. Di Leo (bio)
dictionary, n. [c. 1480–] 1.a. A book which explains or translates, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or of a particular category of vocabulary), giving for each word its typical spelling, an explanation of its meaning or meanings, and often other information, such as pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, equivalents in other languages, and illustrative examples. Also (from the late 20th cent.): an electronic resource performing this function. Cf. lexicon n., wordbook n.
—Oxford English Dictionary (online)
last dictionary, n. [2024–] The last book that explained or translated, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or of a particular category of vocabulary), and gave for each word its typical spelling, an explanation of its meaning or meanings, and often other information, such as pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, equivalents in other languages, and illustrative examples. Replaced in the 21st century by an electronic resource performing this function. Cf. dictionary n.
—a future addition to the Oxford English Dictionary (online)
There is a dictionary for everything—except every word in the English language.
For some, the lexicographical maniacs, such a dictionary is the Holy Grail of lexicography. They dream of a space where the entirety of the English language is accessible through a dictionary the likes of which the world has never seen. It is a dictionary with an entry for every word that has ever been used by anyone in the English language. This includes not only formal and informal writing from books to blogs but also any and all verbal acts from music to marketing. Its principle of inclusion is that no word used in the English language will be excluded from it. In short, this very long dictionary would be a dictionary without gatekeepers who agonize over what words should be included and excluded. [End Page ix]
For others, however, this dream amounts to a complete deconstruction of the role of the dictionary in lexicography. Dictionaries are about gatekeepers. These gatekeepers are lexicographers who determine whether a word should be in the dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), for example, has had upwards of eighty lexicographers working on its forthcoming third edition. A large part of their job is to determine what words need to be added to this dictionary. It is a task these lexicographers take very seriously. As evidence of the gravitas of this decision, consider that it can take up to five years to add a new word to the OED.
"You can make a case for including any lexical item in a dictionary," said Jane Johnson. "It's just a case of priorities," she continued. Part of Johnson's job as a new-words editor for the third edition of the OED is to help her editorial team to establish those priorities. "You have to work out which ones seem to have the most value," she says.
At least in the case of the OED, the priorities and values that determine whether a new word is added to the dictionary involve usage. If a word is only used once or twice, it is not going to be added to the OED no matter who used it. But if a word starts to grow in usage, then it begins to attract the attention of OED gatekeepers like Johnson. So then, how much usage is enough? At what point does lexical exclusion yield to inclusion?
"There's no magic number," says Fiona McPherson. "It's not, 'Well, we've got ten examples so we're going to look at it.'" For McPherson, who has worked as an OED lexicographer since 1997, it comes down to the "breadth and depth" of a word's use. If a word is used by a broad range of people and starts to establish roots in terms of usage, then it warrants consideration for inclusion. But even so, the road ahead for inclusion is an arduous and uncertain one. Not only does the word usage need to come to the attention of the gatekeepers, but it also has to become a priority for them.
As an example, consider the phrase "always already." This term is used a...
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
