روابط معنایی در تعریف نگاری در فرهنگ‌های یک‌زبانه

تعریف نگاری، شاید مهم ترین نقشِ فرهنگ های یک زبانه باشد که بسته به هدف های نگارشِ آن ها و مخاطب هایشان، به شیوه‌های گوناگون انجام می پذیرد. یکی از شیوه های تعریف نگاری، بهره گیری از روابط مفهومی در فرهنگِ لغت است. پژوهش حاضر، بر آن است تا بر مبنای روشی تحلیلیتوصیفی، اهمیت استفاده از روابط معنایی در تعریف نگاری را برجسته نماید.  به این منظور، با به‌کارگیری چارچوب نظری کاساگراند و هِیل (casagrande & hale, 1967)، روابط معنایی در تعریف‌نگاری نمونه های استخراج‌شده از فرهنگ بزرگ سخن (anvari, 2002) مورد واکاوی قرار گرفته اند. نمونه های پژوهش، با در نظر گرفتنِ این نکته که بتوانند حوزه های معنایی گوناگونی را در برگیرند، به صورت تصادفی انتخاب شدند. هدف از این بررسی، آن است که ببینیم آیا به کارگیری روابط معنایی به کارآمدی بیشتری در تعریف نگاری می انجامد و آیا به کارگیری روابط معنایی در تعریف نگاری، نیازمندِ کاربردِ شیوه های متفاوتی در فرهنگ نویسی است؟ بررسی طبقه بندیِ سیزده‌گانه روابط معنایی در چارچوبِ نظری پژوهش نشان داد که الگوی نظری موردِ اشاره به دلیل دقت و ظرافت در مرزبندیِ میانِ روابط معنایی، شایستگیِ آن را دارد که در فرهنگ های موضوعی با محوریت عناصر فرهنگ محورِ زبان، به کار گرفته شود. بررسی داده های پژوهش نشان می دهد که بهره گیری از روابط مفهومی در تعریف نگاری های فرهنگ بزرگ سخن، بیشتر به صورت ترکیبی مرسوم بوده است.

Semantic Relations in Definitions in Monolingual Dictionaries

Making “definitions”, as a part of micro structure, is perhaps the chief function of a monolingual dictionary, which can be performed in various styles depending on the purpose of dictionary and its users’ perspectives. Apart from the theoretical aspect of definitions as an extensive catalogue of meanings in a language, they behold a more practical function which is sorting out the communicative needs of dictionary users. These needs are met in terms of “decoding” or and “encoding” of dictionary lemmas. One of the definition formulas in dictionary compiling is applying semantic relations, through which both decoding and encoding can be characterized.The present descriptiveanalytical study aims to highlight the role of semantic relations in definitions. To this end, extracted definitions of Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary were analyzed based on the theoretical model of Casagrande and Hale (1967). This model, which is derived from 800 definitions of Papago informants for objects, events, processes, qualities and actions from many areas of Papago culture, discovers the most important semantic relations within a language surveying its social and cultural domain. With the purpose of acquiring a list of essential semantic relations in lexicography, the definitions were analyzed into simple declarative sentences each of which represented a fact predicated of the defined word/object (Murphy, 2003; p. 68). This analysis ended in a list of 13 types of semantic relations described in formulalike statements of their nature (Casagrande & Hale, 1967; p. 168). Definitions in this corpusbased study were randomly selected so that they can cover diverse semantic fields. The various types of semantic relations are listed below, accompanied by the examples taken from the Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary. According to Murphy (2003), in the applied model, the X→Y formula is also used here to mean ‘X is defined in terms of Y.’ in the following examples, Persian head words are written in parentheses.Fig. 1. Semantic Relations in Casagrande and Hale (1967) ModelSemantic Relation Formula Example from Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary1 Attributive X is defined with respect to one or more distinctive or characteristic attributes Y (Y can be distinctive marker, habitat, behavior, or other attributes). parrot (tuti)→tropical regions2 Contingency X is defined with relation to an antecedent or concomitant of Y. flood (seyl)→rain3 Function X is defined as the means of effecting Y. computer (rāyāne)→data processing4 Spatial X is oriented spatially with respect to Y. foothills (kuhpāye)→mountains5 Operational X is defined with respect to an action Y of which it is a goal or recipient. cigarette (sigār) →smokegold (sigār) → jewelry making6 Comparison X is defined in terms of its similarity and/or contrast with Y. marimba (mārimbā) → xylophone7 Exemplification X is defined by citing an appropriate cooccurrent Y. echinodermata (xārpustān) →starfish8 Class inclusion X is defined with respect to its membership in a hierarchical class Y. baguette (bāget) →bread9 Synonymy X is defined as an equivalent to Y. difficult (došvār) →hard10 Antonymy X is defined as the negation of Y, its opposite. outside (xārej) →insideclean (pāk) →dirty11 Provenience X is defined with respect to its source Y. sugar (kāqaz) → cellulose pulp12 Grading X is defined with respect to its placement in a series or spectrum that also includes Y. Thursday (panj šambe) →FridayFuture (ʼāyande) →present13 Circularity X is defined as X. sweet (širin) → something of sweet tasteThe main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether applying semantic relations would result in more efficient definitions and also whether this would require different methods in lexicography. Exploring the list of thirteen relations in Casagrande and Hale (1967), including attributive, contingency, function, spatial, operational, comparison, exemplification, class inclusion, synonymy, antonymy, provenience, grading and circularity, showed that due to meticulous boundaries among semantic relations, this framework can be successfully employed to split similar complex concepts, among which cultural elements of a language are the prominent. That is why semantic relations have been highly regarded in ethnolinguistic studies. Semantic relationships provide the ethnographer with one of the best clues to the structure of meaning in another culture (Spradley, 1979; p. 112) and linguists can benefit from them in encoding and decoding cultural materials, both of which can be donated to lexicographers.Mapping the theoretical model of Casagrande and Hale (1967) on the corpus under study and for more complicated lemmas in social and cultural fields of Persian, it seems that the mentioned model can be effectively implemented in compiling thematic cultureoriented dictionaries. The results revealed that applying semantic relations is already a common strategy in the definitions of Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary, but in majority of cases, a combination of relations appeared for a single entry. Except for the most frequent relation, i.e. attributive, in which a lemma is defined with respect to one or more distinctive or characteristic attributes, other semantic relations play complementary roles to one another in a definition. The following example from the corpus shows this multiaspect approach in applying semantic relation in word definitions:Hump (ku(o[w])hān): a protuberance found on the back of animals, like camel, for bearing fatty deposits.Based on the Casagrande and Hale (1967), the following three semantic relations are employed to define the lemma “humpa”:1 Spatial: a protuberance found on the back of animals2 Exemplification: like camel3 Operational: for bearing fatty depositsThis research proposes a novel generation of thematic dictionaries, not the alphabetic ones, which can concentrate on cultural elements of a language, by applying semantic relations and providing word nets of cultural and social materials of a language.