Introduction

Abstract

Introduction William Frawley J. he Montague tradition (1974 and after; Montague, Formal Philosophy. New Haven CT: Yale UP) makes a clear distinction between semantics and lexicography. The former concerns the nature and very possibility of meaning and is basically a branch of mathematics . The latter involves cataloging actual meanings and is, if anything , a kind ofapplied psychology. Semantics is to lexicography what economics is to accountancy. What an orderly, fenced-off landscape! In the dozen or so years that I have been going to lexicography conferences and reading and writing for the journals, I have often found myselfin the Great Montague Divide. But it is my doing, having criticized lexicographers without fully recalling the conditions under which they have to work. (Is there a practicing lexicographer out there willing to own up to the converse?) Tension manifests itself among those who make dictionaries for a living (practicing and practical lexicographers ) and those concerned with what dictionaries should or could be (theoretical lexicographers, for want of a better term). For unity and progress, I offered to oversee a forum on the connections and antagonisms between theory and practice. I asked a semanticist and a dictionary maker, each well respected, influential, and inclined to commentary on the other's field, to write lead papers outlining the basic issues in lexicography from their respective standpoints . I also invited commentary on these papers from six others. (Actually many more than six, but a number ofthose invitations fell to the usual interferences of the profession—overcommitment, sabbatical year, etc.) I then asked the authors of the lead papers to respond, if they wished, on those commentaries. (One of the lead authors thought it best not to make final comments.) I chose these particular contributors because I was certain that they would say interesting things. I was not worried about getting a William Frawley balanced sample of the field, and in truth none of the contributors is wholly theoretical or practical. I suppose, then, that I left myselfopen to the charge that I cast the invitation net too narrowly. But, frankly, I would rather learn a whole lot from a little than learn a little from a whole lot. The forum can be read from beginning to end in a couple of sittings and yield profit all along the way. I thought it best to exercise little control over the content of the contributions. But I did circulate a number of questions to help the contributors focus on the issues and get started. Here are some of those questions: 1.What are the principal issues that inform practical lexicography? 2.Is a practicing lexicographer the same as a practical one? 3.Is practical lexicography the same as commercial lexicography? 4.What does the term theoretical lexicography mean? Lexicalsemantics! Computational lexicography? 5.Does practical lexicography already have its own (in-house) theoretical lexicography? 6.What is "boiler plate" in a dictionary? What can and must be changed? 7.How can theoretical lexicography be used in actual practice? 8.What theoretical proposals are useless for practical lexicography? 9.Is computational lexicography more a tool than a guide to practice? 10.Where are theoretical and practical lexicography incommensurable (and thus immune to disputes)? 1 1 . Is circularity, a favorite bugaboo of theoreticians, a non-issue in dictionary making? 12.Aren't appeals to the market, the user, production schedules, and budget not very good reasons for the practicing lexicographer's limitations? 13.Where must theoretical and practical lexicographers work together for progress? Where have they worked well together? And what counts as progress in lexicography anyway? 14.Is cooperation between theory and practice more likely with certain kinds of dictionaries? 15.Can legitimate critiques of dictionaries be made by those who have never worked as lexicographers per se? As for the answers, I will let the papers speak for themselves. But let me at least set out the terrain a bit by commenting on the contributors ' tactics. Atkins's style is panoramic. She gives us the working Introduction dictionary-maker's catechism (though my feeling is that Atkins, like Wierzbicka, wants to improve definitions, too— but would also like to improve theoreticians' views ofwhere, how, and why they can...