Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:10:31.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of the Dictionary in Linguistic Description*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Madeleine Mathiot
Madeleine Mathiot*
Affiliation:
Los Angeles, California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A basic theoretical distinction must be made between lexicon and grammar: the lexicon is the cultural system of reference, i.e. the system of reference to the various basic types of phenomena distinguished by the culture; the grammar is the structure of discourse in that language, i.e. the structure of the spontaneous utterances produced by the native speakers of that language. The methodological discussion in this paper concerns primarily the units of the lexicon: what types there are, how they can be identified and collected. They fall into two major categories: minimal units and non-minimal units. On the basis of extensive lexicographic work, the author has found it necessary to posit one category of minimal units and two categories of non-minimal ones. The former are unitary lexemes, the latter are lexeme clusters and lexeme conjuncts. A procedure for the identification and collection of these three categories of units is described in detail.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 43 , Issue 3-Part1 , September 1967, pp. 703 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This is a revised and much extended version of a paper first presented at the Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, 27-8 July 1962, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, under the title ‘The Place of the Dictionary in Linguistic Description’. Work on this paper was done under Contract No. OE-2-14-007, A Study of Method in Language and Culture Research, with the U. S. Office of Education.

References

Black, Mary, and Metzger, Duane. 1965. Ethnographic description and the study of law. The ethnography of law, ed. by Nader, Laura, American Anthropologist (Special Publication), Vol. 67, No. 6, pt. 2, pp. 141–65.Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard B. 1954. Hopi ethics, a theoretical analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Casagrande, Joseph, and Hale, Kenneth. 1967. Semantic relationships in Papago folk definitions. Studies in Southwestern ethnolinguistics, ed. by Hymes, Dell, 165–96. The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar
Conklin, Harold C. 1962. Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies. In Householder and Saporta 1962, pp. 119–141.Google Scholar
Frake, Charles O. 1962. The ethnographic study of cognitive systems. In Gladwin and Sturtevant 1962, pp. 72–85.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1944. Referential adjustments and linguistic structure. Acta Linguistica 4. 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1955. Problems in American Indian lexicography and text edition. Anais do XXXI Congresso Internacional de Americanistas, 1013–38. Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1957. On the relative tractability of morphological data. Word 13. 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1961. Syntactic retrieval. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation, ed. by Edmundson, H. P., pp. 286–92. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1964. On linguistic method, selected papers. The Hague, Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, Paul L., Brewer, Jocelyn, and Mathiot, Madeleine. 1967. Predication-typing, a pilot study in semantic analysis. (Language Monograph 27.) Baltimore, LSA.Google Scholar
Gladwin, Thomas, and Sturtevant, William (eds.) 1962. Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, D.C., Anthropological Society of Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry Allan Jr. 1955. Review of Gedaged-English dictionary, by Mager, John F. Lg. 31. 163–5.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1965. On the use of informants in field work. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10. 108–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Edward T. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. AA 65. 1003–26.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S., and Voegelin, Carl F. 1953. Eliciting in linguistics. SJA 9. 59–75.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1955. Manual of phonology. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1962. Lists in grammars. Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, ed. by Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., pp. 567–76. Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W., and Saporta, Sol (eds.) 1962. Problems in lexicography. (Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics; publ. 21.) Baltimore.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin and Sturtevant 1962, pp. 13–53.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. Style in language, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., pp. 350–73. Cambridge, Mass., Technology Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1957. Ethnographic interpretations, 1-6. UCPAAE 47. 191–234.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilem. 1961. Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně lingvistickém (A functional analysis of present-day English on a general linguistic basis), ed. by Vachek, Josef. English summary, pp. 231–9. Prague.Google Scholar
Mathiot, Madeleine. ms. An approach to the cognitive analysis of language. To appear in Publications of the Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1958. Analysis of meaning and dictionary making. IJAL 24. 279–92.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1961. Some problems of semantic structure and translational equivalence. A William Cameron Townsend en el XXV aniversario del I. L. V., 313–25. Mexico.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles E. 1959. The representational model and relevant research methods. Trends in content analysis, ed. by de, Ithiel Pool, Sola, pp. 33–88. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1957. Grammemic theory. General Linguistics 2. 35–51.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, Percy H., Williams, Frederick, and Hillier, Carolyn S. 1965. Word predictability in the environment of hesitations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4. 134–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, Carl F. 1954. Multiple stage translation. IJAL 20.273.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Carl F. 1962. The generative criterion for deciding alternatives in descriptive linguistics. SIL 16. 46–7.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. Lexicology. Current trends in linguistics, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., Vol. 1, pp. 60–93. The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar