Abstract
Two main camps have been formed with regard to the philosophical and academic status of lexicography: one considering lexicography an independent scientific discipline, and the other opposing such a scientific status. This article discusses some of the arguments from the sec- ond camp and argues that lexicography should be considered an independent scientific discipline. The argumentation is based on the fact that the subject field of lexicography is different from the subject fields of any other discipline, including linguistics. In this sense, the concept of a lexico- graphical work is broader than the more reduced concept of a dictionary. Lexicographical works, including dictionaries, are considered cultural artefacts and utility tools produced in order to meet punctual information needs detected in society. In this way, they have during the millenniums cov- ered almost all spheres of human activity and knowledge. The theory and science of lexicography should not focus on the differences regarding the specific content of all these works, but on aspects that unite them and are common to all of them. In this regard, some of the core characteristics of lexicography as an independent discipline are discussed together with its complex relation to other disciplines. Lexicographical theory is understood as a systematic set of statements about its subject field. Finally, the article argues that the fact that this theory may seem too abstract and difficult to some working lexicographers does not in itself invalidate its independent scientific status, although a close relation between theory and practice is recommended.
Highlights
Among scholars dealing with lexicography, there is an old and deep-rooted dispute as to the philosophical and academic status of their discipline
The first camp has up till found two major expressions, the lexicographical function theory developed at the Centre for Lexicography at the Aarhus Business School, Denmark, and the systematic general theory of lexicography presented by the German scholar Herbert Ernst Wiegand
In their introduction to a recent book, Atkins and Rundell (2008: 4) place themselves in one of the three groups belonging to the second camp: This is not a book about 'theoretical lexicography' — for the very good reason that we do not believe that such a thing exists
Summary
Among scholars dealing with lexicography, there is an old and deep-rooted dispute as to the philosophical and academic status of their discipline. We will later return to the claim that "a large proportion of the decisions made by the lexicographer are linguistic decisions", but here it is sufficient to note that the above quotation from Atkins and Rundell (2008) shows that the two authors do not deny the need for theoretical guidance, they refer the corresponding assistance to the sphere of existing linguistic theory Another group of scholars, who are much closer to Atkins (1992) than to Atkins and Rundell (2008), regard lexicography as a sort of subdiscipline of linguistics and are, among others, represented by Ščerba (1940), who called for a "general theory of lexicography", though embedded in linguistics, and Reinhard Hartmann who, in several contributions, has argued for the need to develop a lexicographical theory, frequently called metalexicography. In order to keep this article within acceptable limits, the following reflections will only deal with the other main expression, i.e. the lexicographical function theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
