Talk:Lexicography

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lingshwn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicology

Isn't it that what is called here theoretical lexicography is in fact lexicology?

This has to be checked (maybe by myself).

-- Kwaku

Ok, ok, wikipedia is not a dictionary...that's cool... does anyone know if there is a wiki dictionary out there? I want to help promote wiki use in my classrooms and a dictionary project could be very cool for some of the younger learners, and an etymology for the older learners.... DennisDaniels 20:53, 24 September 2002 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what here is called theoretical lexicography is indeed lexicology. The term theoretical lexicopgraphy should logically be reserved for the theoretical aspect of lexicography, i.e. for theories on how to make and analyse dictionaries, what structure they have, etc. Trondtr 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Original research here, but: two dictionary writers I know, both agreed...almost no one is a pure theoretical lexicographer, and everyone who does theoretical lexicographer, is or has been a paid lexicographer. So, We need a citation to prove that it exists as separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.247.181 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

Today I decided to work on extensive revisions to Webster's Dictionary and in poking around found a stub at Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition and a longer article at Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It seems to me it would be best to consolidate the second and third material at Webster's Dictionary, because it is the familiar name and it would put the history of the work, which has appeared under several names in one spot; then put in redirects under the other names. I've integrated the material at the present "Third" article with my own contributions at Webster's Dictionary. Would anyone with comments please contact me on my talk page? PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Lexicography as an Autonomous Discipline

According to the following claim,"it is now widely accepted that lexicography is a scholarly discipline in its own right and not a sub-branch of applied linguistics, as the chief object of study in lexicography is the dictionary (see e.g. Bergenholtz/Nielsen/Tarp 2009)".

This claim seems to maintain the autonomy of lexicography as an academic discipline. With that being the case is it possible to receive a higher degree in lexicography? If so what universities offer it? --- killercrossover --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercrossover (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Although the Wikipedia page has already made note of this, there are a few problems with the citations. One of the first issues with the article is its sources. The page makes note of this by stating that although the article does include references, they remain unclear. I've clicked the links and the website for the citations is difficult to navigate. Moreover, most of the website is in Greek. Additionally, aside from the etymology portion of the article, the rest of the sentences/paragraphs do not include hyper-citations. ~~lingshwn~~

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lexicography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lexigraphy and lexicography ?

Amongst the 16 "aspects" of the lexicography entry we find at entry 8: "defining words", now for certain philosophical standpoints, eg.https://cldup.com/yYC1Mkj04O.pdf this is 'the most important aspect' BUT wikipedia along with most online, dictionaries doesn't dignify it with it's own word. I say most rather than all because at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lexigraphy we find: "1 : the art or practice of defining words" so pending a wikipedia article and coining of some word, meaning :'the art or practise of defining words'; could we have a link to merriam-webster above ? mclrhn@vfemail.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhnmcl (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly dense lead

In my own notes, I sometimes copy sentences out of Wikipedia leads, and then "blow them up" to make them faster to revisit.

Here's a pair of sentences from the lead (constituting a single bullet item in the article) after my usual treatment:

Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly discipline of:

analyzing and describing:
semantic

syntagmatic

paradigmatic

relationships within the lexicon (vocabulary) of a language

developing theories of:
dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries

the needs for information by users in specific types of situations

how users may best access the data incorporated in printed and electronic dictionaries.

This is sometimes referred to as 'metalexicography'.

For my money, that's too many anchovies spread over not enough pizza crust. You know, because we all blow right on by "syntagmatic" without going instantly pie-eyed.

Additionally, when viewed this way, it becomes clear immediately that "this" beginning the second sentence is an anaphor nightmare.

Its precise scope is what, exactly? — MaxEnt 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]