Abstract
This paper will focus on some principles for lexicographical treatment of a type of fixed word combinations, which could be referred to in English as “stereotyped expressions” (in German: “Routineformeln”), more specifically stereotypes commonly and repeated-ly used as stable parts of certain types of legal documents. The question is raised where word combinations of that kind should be placed in a bilingual law dictionary. Should they be placed as entries according to their status as language units? Or shold they be indicated as examples of the use of the words of which they consist? It is argued that neither of the solutions is good. In stead, stereotypes should be cited in articles describing the documents of which they are a stable part.
Highlights
This paper will focus on some principles for lexicographical treatment of a type of fixed word combinations, which could be referred to in English as “stereotyped expressions”, stereotypes commonly and repeatedly used as stable parts of certain types of legal documents
Som eksempel har jeg i titlen valgt at citere en ordforbindelse: Thi kendes for ret
Med ordbøgers sædvanlige indretning er der som udgangspunkt to mulige placeringer for faste ordforbindelser: Angivelse som lemma, evt. sublemma, i ordbogens makrostruktur eller som eksempel i ordbogens mikrostruktur
Summary
Thi kendes for ret er den ordforbindelse, der er citeret i titlen. Jeg skriver her bevidst “citere”, for der er det særlige ved Thi kendes for ret, at den har sin faste plads i en bestemt juridisk tekstart, en dansk dom, hvor den reproduceres hver gang, der skrives en dom på dansk. At det er rimeligt at betragte “eksempler” som en formel leksikografisk kategori, nemlig som den del af en ordbogsartikel som i en eller anden forstand “viser” en kontekst, og ikke stille noget krav til det sproglige materiale, som kan fungere som eksempler i en ordbogsartikel (se tilsvarende Jacobsen et al 1989, 2784). Efter min opfattelse kan spørgsmålet om eksemplets placering ved lemma eller ækvivalent ikke besvares, medmindre man samtidig tager stilling til, hvilke oversættelsesmetodiske problemer tosprogsordbogen skal kunne løse. Hvor eksemplet er kontekst til opslagsordet og ikke til ækvivalenten betyder dette med generaliserbarheden: “Når ordet i den viste kontekst, skal oversættes som angivet, må jeg kunne gå ud fra, at det i denne beslægtede kontekst skal oversættes på samme måde”.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business
Disclaimer: 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.
