The Interpretive Function: To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

Heidi Agerbo

doi:10.5788/27-1-1392

Abstract

Approximately a decade ago, it was suggested that a new function should be added to the lexicographical function theory: the interpretive function. However, hardly any research has been conducted into this function, and though it was only suggested that this new function was relevant to incorporate into lexicographical theory, some scholars have since then assumed that this function exists, including the author of this contribution. In Agerbo (2016), I present arguments supporting the incorporation of the interpretive function into the function theory and suggest how non-linguistic signs can be treated in specific dictionary articles. However, in the current article, due to the results of recent research, I argue that the interpretive function should not be considered an individual main function. The interpretive function, contrary to some of its definitions, is not connected to acting and therefore the only difference between reception and interpretation is that they work with different types of sign. However, the type of sign is not relevant for a function, or rather, it should not be a criterion for distinguishing between functions. The lemma selection for the communicative, cognitive as well as the operative functions could and should include linguistic as well as non-linguistic signs. Thus, theoretically, there is no reason to identify a fourth dictionary function as suggested by Tarp (2008), and practically, the development of modern technologies has diminished the distance in the treatment of different types of sign, making it easier for lexicographers to lemmatise non-linguistic signs. Concerning the point that non-linguistic signs are also worthy of lexicographical attention, my suggestion from 2016 still stands, the difference in this contribution being that the interpretive function is not considered an individual function.

Highlights

Opsomming: Die vertolkende funksie: Om te wees of nie te wees: dis die vraag
Bothma and Tarp state that "[t]he operative and interpretive situations have so far been scarcely studied by lexicography and there are only relatively few lexicographical works that cater for these situations" (2012: 91)
Not much has been added to the description of the interpretive function since despite the fact that it was first introduced in the above-mentioned article by Tarp in 2008, and despite the fact that at a symposium held at the Centre for Lexicography in Aarhus in 2008, it was said that the interpretive situations "are starting to gain the attention of lexicographers and are expected to be of interest in the near future" (Fernández and De Alba 2011: 307-308)

Summary

Defining the interpretive function

In the investigated literature that comments on the interpretive function, the authors usually provide a very general definition of this function without further elaboration: Tarp (2008: 11) Leroyer (2009: 115) Bergenholtz and Bothma (2011: 62) Tarp (2011: 65) Gallardo (2013: 87). To understand or interpret a specific phenomenon, sign, symbol, text, etc. Though these eight definitions all define the same function, they differ in two important points: Question 1: Do you need to understand the given sign in order to carry out a certain act?. The following two subsections discuss these two points, i.e. (non)-acting and (non)-linguistic signs, in relation to the interpretive function The following two subsections discuss these two points, i.e. (non)-acting and (non)-linguistic signs, in relation to the interpretive function

Acting or not acting

Linguistic and non-linguistic signs

Future tools: user situations and needs related to search options and signs

A specific occurrence of a rash:

The interpretive function: not to be