|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
A day in the life of a 21st
century lexicographer As
is well known, the great Doctor Samuel Johnson was not greatly
enamoured of lexicography: in his Dictionary of the English
Language (1755) he described a lexicographer as a harmless
drudge and lexicography as dull
Over
the past two decades, computers have changed the face of
lexicography almost beyond recognition, although it could be argued
that the essential nature of the work remains substantially what it
was when Johnson was toiling away 250 years ago. Johnson explained
the meanings of English words and phrases, and So how does a lexicographer spend a typical working day? Typically in solitude, with only a computer for company. These days many lexicographers work freelance from home. The days of large teams working in-house for reference publishers, which were the norm when I started in 1990, seem to have gone for ever. Improvements in computer hardware and software over the past decade have made it eminently practical for lexicographers to work mainly from home: many of us prefer it, and so do the publishers, because it saves them lots of money. Work is received and sent by email, or directly uploaded and downloaded from a central computer. The speed and capacity of modern PCs means that a sizeable corpus can be held and consulted with ease; if for any reason this is not practical, the corpus can be held on a central computer and consulted remotely. On a typical working day, I get up, have breakfast, sit down at my desk, and turn on my computer. The enthusiasm with which I do this depends on several factors, one of which is the particular project I am working on that morning. I normally work on two or three projects at any one time, and inevitably some inspire more enthusiasm than others. The nature of projects differs quite widely, and so do the different stages of a single project. So at different times I might be selecting headwords or other items for inclusion; compiling text from scratch; editing text compiled by other people; cutting compiled text to the requisite length; revising existing text or compiling new words for a new edition; cutting down an existing text to make a smaller dictionary. Other tasks are less directly editorial: devising policy and writing a brief for a particular aspect of a dictionary; revising a style guide; giving feedback to other lexicographers; checking the content or functionality of a dictionary on CD-ROM. Oh and theres another essential component of the working day, which replaces the office coffee machine and water cooler: moaning (or occasionally enthusing) to colleagues (usually via email) about this or that aspect of a project, or the lexicographers life in general. The nitty-gritty of modern day ELT corpus lexicography consists of the compilation of dictionary entries in a computerised editing system, using an electronic corpus as evidence. If you are compiling text from scratch, as happened for the Macmillan English Dictionary, you receive a file of headwords to be compiled. These may or may not have had parts of speech already allocated to them; they may be accompanied by a batch of notes from other compilers about some aspects of some of your entries; in the case of the MED, there may also be a kind of pre-digested snapshot of the corpus evidence to help you decide which senses and patterns are important. Then comes the hard part: deciding and explaining, in accordance with the Style Guide and within the constraints of the defining vocabulary, what this word means, how it behaves, what contexts it is found in, what company it likes to keep with other words; and moulding this information into a coherent dictionary entry. The corpus is there to help: it gives you the evidence of how this word is used by real people in the language of today; it is also the source of examples that illustrate these patterns of use. Although
those with little practical knowledge of lexicography like to claim
that advances in software have made
Illustrations by Martin Shovel |