In lexicography, semantic relationships of this kind are not always (or cannot

always be) handled consistently. Consider the word bank. What should be the criteria

for separating or conflating the various senses in one or more entries in a dictionary⁰

Although linked by historical derivation (etymology), several distinct sets of

meanings may be specified; bank; raised mass of earth (by a river)', bank} 'financial

institution", bankj 'row of objects'. Disregarding the uses of these words as verbs, we

50 may decide to treat these three senses as different dictionary entries. The result of such considerations is the lexicographer's basic unit, the 'lemma' or 'lexeme', as a distillation of the word from which all non-essential features have been eliminated. But problems remain, nevertheless. Is a bank of clouds like bank;, is a blood-bank like bank_2t and does bankj cover typewriter-keys, bench of rowers, and electrical switches? Should the ing in banking and phrases like don 'r bank on that have separate entries?

4. ALL-INCLUSIVE AND SEGMENTAL DICTIONARIES

We have noted that the lexicographer tries to describe and explain the vocabulary of a language or language variety (Postulate 1) by reference to a theory which allows him to account for the various semantic relationships that lexemes enter into (Postulate 2). Only a small minority of dictionary-makers, however, will ever be in the position of attempting complete coverage of the total vocabulary of a language m all its aspects.

Typically, then, most dictionaries are the result of a deliberate selection. Even in large-scale monolingual dictionaries, there is usually not only selective coverage but also a division of labour which delegates the different aspects, e.g. pronunciation, spelling, etymology, idioms, technical terminology to specialists.

Dictionaries come in all shapes and sizes, from pocket to library edition, for laymen and specialists, many not even containing the word dictionary in their title. They may be concerned with historical changes or contemporary usage, with the standard language or one or more of its variants, with two or several different languages.

Regardless of this multiplicity of dictionary types, one point cannot be

stressed enough: a language's vocabulary reflects its speakers' knowledge of the

world in which it is used. Any strict separation of linguistic-lexical and

extralinguistic-factual information is very difficult, if not impossible. Lexemes like

tree, bank_i height and lexicography can be described and explained only by reference

51 To the contexts in which they are used, For the same reason, it is not always possible to draw a clear dividing line between the dictionary and the encyclopaedia.

5. The metalanguage of lexicography

Whatever the type and orientation of the dictionary, the lexicographical treatment of its contents must be adequate for the specific task it is meant to achieve, The thrust of this book is to suggest that dictionary-making may be usefully guided by a 'metalanguage¹, i.e. a way of talking about language, and for handling and presenting linguistic information. As we have already seen above, many concepts have been adapted from linguistics and other fields (although, ironically, we do not yet have at our disposal a published dictionary of lexicographical terms').

Lexemes, those basic units which we have characterised as composed of a phonetic form and a semantic content, do not function in isolation. They are made up of smaller elements (phonemes, graphemes, syllables, morphemes), and they are embedded in large co-texts (phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs) which in turn are part of the wider extralinguistic context of speech acts and genres.

At least two alternative frameworks are available to model these relationships: (a) the division of linguistic structures into a number of 'levels' along which units can be ranked, in the fashion of a Chinese box, from smallest and least complex to largest and most complex (phonology/graphology, lexicology, grammar, textology), each with a number of sub-levels (e.g. phoneme—syllable—foot in phonology, or morpheme— word—phrase—clause—sentence in grammar); (b) the distinction between the tliree 'semiotic' dimensions or aspects of any linguistic sign, the semantic (in relation to the meaning signified), the syntactic (in relation to other signs in sequence), and the pragmatic (in relation to the participants of the speech context).

These hierarchical and structural models have become arsenals from which lexicographers have been able to pick out what they regard as suitable tools. Two examples from the linguistic framework (a) and one from the semiotic framework (b)

should suffice to iliustrate the application of general principles in lexicography,

'Phonetic transcription' is the technique of reducing speech to wiring, not by ordinary spelling (orthography), but by a relatively narrow representation of the phonetic details in the articulation of speech sounds, both singly and in combination. Most genera! dictionaries in the English-speaking world now use an adaptation of the International Phonetic Alphabet which in turn is based on comparative research in segmental and prosodic phonology. Another example of making use of linguistic concepts is 'grammatical coding', a way of indicating how lexemes function as members of different word-classes (noun, verb, etc.) and thus characterising the possibilities and limitations of their combined use in sentences. Many dictionaries use grammatical criteria to describe the behaviour of words in co-text.

An example of adapting the semioric framework in lexicography is 'stylistic labelling¹, a technique used in many dictionaries of marking specialised uses of lexemes, e.g. as belonging to a particular dialect, style, age, idiom or field, In the current state of our knowledge about how language varies by situation and purpose, it must be admitted that dictionary-makers still have not developed a secure and generally agreed inventory of labels with which to mark special-register uses.