What it means to be a lexicographer

Abstract

In this paper I will present some reflections and analyses, and draw some conclusions, based on my own activity as a linguist and lexicographer. I will speak neither about bilingual or multilingual lexicography, nor about specialised, terminological dictionaries (that is lexicons concerning different domains: juridical, scientific, medical, IT, etc.), because I have no work experience in this respect. I will speak about general, purely linguistic (non-terminological) dictionaries. There will be two main directions: i) Linguistic dictionaries which deal with contemporary language, intended for the general public. Mono-volume dictionaries like the well-known DEX represent this type. The main characteristics of this type of dictionaries are related to their synchronic, explanatory, and normative approach(es); ii) Linguistic dictionaries, which treat the language in variation from different points of view: diachronic, dialectal, stylistic, etc. This type is intended mainly for the specialists, and it is represented by multi-volume dictionaries like DA/DLR, DELR and others. Their main characteristics are linked to their variational (diachronic or historic, dialectal, etc.), explanatory and etymological approach(es). The main axis of variation considered is diachronic or historic, and that is why this type of lexicography is usually labelled as diachronic or historic lexicography. But personally I prefer to label it as variational lexicography. “Variational” includes “diachronic”, as well as the variation in respect with other axes. I will focus my attention mostly on the theoretical and methodological principles defining the approaches that differentiate the two main types of linguistic dictionaries mentioned above.