Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion
Until recently, lexicography and information science could rightly be considered two disciplines which had developed along parallel lines but with no or very little formal relation between them. Although the two disciplines developed in almost complete isolation from each other, during the last few...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Afrikaans |
| Published: |
Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WAT
2012-11-01
|
| Series: | Lexikos |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/999 |
| _version_ | 1818884532059766784 |
|---|---|
| author | Theo J.D. Bothma Sven Tarp |
| author_facet | Theo J.D. Bothma Sven Tarp |
| author_sort | Theo J.D. Bothma |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Until recently, lexicography and information science could rightly be considered two disciplines which had developed along parallel lines but with no or very little formal relation between them. Although the two disciplines developed in almost complete isolation from each other, during the last few years it has nevertheless become increasingly clear that they have a lot in common. This trend began within lexicography which started viewing lexicographical works as a special kind of tool designed to be consulted in order to obtain information. Upon this basis, it has been suggested that lexicography should be considered a part of information science and, hence, integrated into it (cf. e.g. Bergenholtz and Bothma 2012, Tarp 2009). It is evident that this integration of two hitherto independent disciplines with long traditions of their own is not something to be solved overnight and neither can it be a unilateral process. This article will explore the concept of relevance in both disciplines in more detail and show, at the hand of examples from lexicographical tools, how the theoretical frameworks of both disciplines can complement one another. This will be done within the framework of the function theory of lexicography, as discussed in the many works of Tarp and Bergenholtz (e.g. Bergenholtz and Tarp 2002) and others, and relevance theory in information science as defined by Saracevic (1975, 1996), Cosijn and Ingwersen (2000) and others. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T15:51:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3dd4ee374ad24c4193a50e3afc207d6a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1684-4904 2224-0039 |
| language | Afrikaans |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T15:51:02Z |
| publishDate | 2012-11-01 |
| publisher | Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WAT |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Lexikos |
| spelling | doaj.art-3dd4ee374ad24c4193a50e3afc207d6a2022-12-21T20:15:12ZafrWoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WATLexikos1684-49042224-00392012-11-01228610810.5788/22-1-999Lexicography and the Relevance CriterionTheo J.D. Bothma0Sven Tarp1University of PretoriaUniversity of PretoriaUntil recently, lexicography and information science could rightly be considered two disciplines which had developed along parallel lines but with no or very little formal relation between them. Although the two disciplines developed in almost complete isolation from each other, during the last few years it has nevertheless become increasingly clear that they have a lot in common. This trend began within lexicography which started viewing lexicographical works as a special kind of tool designed to be consulted in order to obtain information. Upon this basis, it has been suggested that lexicography should be considered a part of information science and, hence, integrated into it (cf. e.g. Bergenholtz and Bothma 2012, Tarp 2009). It is evident that this integration of two hitherto independent disciplines with long traditions of their own is not something to be solved overnight and neither can it be a unilateral process. This article will explore the concept of relevance in both disciplines in more detail and show, at the hand of examples from lexicographical tools, how the theoretical frameworks of both disciplines can complement one another. This will be done within the framework of the function theory of lexicography, as discussed in the many works of Tarp and Bergenholtz (e.g. Bergenholtz and Tarp 2002) and others, and relevance theory in information science as defined by Saracevic (1975, 1996), Cosijn and Ingwersen (2000) and others.https://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/999lexicographyfunction theorycognitive situationscommunicative situationsoperative situationsinterpretive situationspre-lexicographical phaseintra-lexicographical phasepost-lexicographical phaseinformation sciencerelevance theorytopical relevancecognitive relevancesituational relevancesocio-cognitive relevanceaffective relevance |
| spellingShingle | Theo J.D. Bothma Sven Tarp Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion Lexikos lexicography function theory cognitive situations communicative situations operative situations interpretive situations pre-lexicographical phase intra-lexicographical phase post-lexicographical phase information science relevance theory topical relevance cognitive relevance situational relevance socio-cognitive relevance affective relevance |
| title | Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion |
| title_full | Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion |
| title_fullStr | Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion |
| title_short | Lexicography and the Relevance Criterion |
| title_sort | lexicography and the relevance criterion |
| topic | lexicography function theory cognitive situations communicative situations operative situations interpretive situations pre-lexicographical phase intra-lexicographical phase post-lexicographical phase information science relevance theory topical relevance cognitive relevance situational relevance socio-cognitive relevance affective relevance |
| url | https://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/999 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT theojdbothma lexicographyandtherelevancecriterion AT sventarp lexicographyandtherelevancecriterion |