Abstract
Inspired by one of the most important contributions modern linguistics has made toward lexicography, the present study is an attempt to investigate the practice of the three most frequently used English-Persian dictionaries in incorporating pragmatic information. To this end, 101 pragmatically marked English words were randomly selected and the treatment of the bilingual dictionaries toward them was closely examined. The study revealed that although labeling is the most frequently used policy, it is still far from desirable as a strategy. The deficiencies can be attributed to the inadequate rate of labeling and inaccuracy and inconsistency in the use of labels. Besides, the study suggests incorporating pragmatic information in the translation equivalents through reducing the number of them to the ones which are good representatives of the specifications of the English word both semantically and pragmatically. Finally, as pragmatic translation equivalents can not be always established, the use of other strategies such as pragmatic examples and usage notes are also suggested.
Highlights
Bilingual dictionaries can be regarded as bridges connecting speakers of two different linguistic societies
The results of the analysis of the sampled words indicated four patterns employed by English-Persian dictionaries in dealing with items having pragmatic restriction: (1) the mere translation equivalent; (2) labeling; (3) exemplification; and (4) usage notes
The lack of widely accepted strategies such as labeling, exemplification and usage notes might only be partially justified in case the translation equivalent itself is expressive of the pragmatic load existing in the English word
Summary
Bilingual dictionaries can be regarded as bridges connecting speakers of two different linguistic societies. The reason lies in the fact that inappropriate use of language which results in communication failure mostly happens between people of different cultural backgrounds with different conceptual assumptions who speak different languages Such people are doubtlessly the intended users of bilingual dictionaries. Landau (1989: 174-5) stating that pragmatics concerns with usage of the lemmas, believes that it can cover the study of the uses of language including spoken or written, standard as opposed to non-standard as well as the restrictions imposed on the use of language, for instance time, place or social restrictions He classifies information of this kind into nine categories of currency, frequency of use, geographical variations, specialized terminology, restricted and taboo usage, register and stylistic features, offensive items, slang words, and those lemmas loaded with social status like non-standards, sub-standard and illiterate varieties. Like Landau and Kipfer, Svensén (1993: 4-6) believes that data of this kind are mostly www.ccsenet.org/ijel represented by field and register labels. Yong and Peng (2007) confirming the vital role of pragmatics in learner dictionaries as well as general purpose dictionaries, especially bilingual ones, believe that providing the entries in dictionary with an accurate, consistent labeling system for the words with register and stylistic restrictions can be a good way for integrating the achievements of pragmatics into the task of lexicography in general, and bilingual lexicography in particular
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
