The definitions of anaphora in these dictionaries ought to be revised. In (5), the antecedent of 'himself is 'Bill', while in (6) the antecedent of 'each other' is 'Mary and Joe'. _Dictionary Definitions of Linguistic Terms_151 the anaphoric words himself and each other have antecedents that do not precede die words to which they refer.
(6)The promises to each odier diat Mary and Joe made were never broken. In sentences such as: (5)A picture of himself would be acceptable to Bill as a gift. Neidier definition can accommodate routine cases in which antecedents do not precede die words to which diey refer. It is significant that the word preceding is used in both definitions. WlO defines anaphora as: use of a grammatical substitute (as a pronoun or a pro-verb) to refer to die denotation of a preceding word or group of words. The RHWCD defines anaphora as: the use of a word as a regular grammatical substitute for a preceding word or group of words, as the use of it and do in I know it and they do, too. All three define die rhetorical meaning of anaphora properly, but the linguistic meaning is eidier not mentioned at all (WNWD) or incorrectly defined (WlO and RHWCD). Yet anaphor is listed only in one of these diree dictionaries (WlO). Closely related to reflexives and to pronouns in general, die words anaphor and anaphora have also been topics of scholarly discussion for many years (see Reinhart 1983 and works cited there). Since better definitions or descriptions of reflexive appeared long ago (see Lees and Klima 1963, FaIu 1977, and Saha 1987), die shortcomings in these dictionary definitions should have been remedied by now. the reflexive himself is not an object but rather a predicate nominative. " According to diis definition, a reflexive must be an object of some kind, but in sentences such as: (4)John is not himself today. Here is the definition of reflexive from die RHWCD: "(of a pronoun) used as an object with the same referent as die subject of a verb. WNWD and RHWCD bodi make the problem worse by claiming diat a reflexive is necessarily an object. the reflexives clearly have direct objects as dieir antecedents. (3)The government cannot protect individuals from diemselves. (2)The chef folded die dough over itself. Saha (1)You can divide a number by itself. In many sentences, however, the antecedent of a reflexive can be an object. All three dictionaries say that the antecedent of a reflexive must be a subject. WNWD and RHWCD also make the same basic claim. A striking example of the first problem is the definition of reflexive pronoun in WlO: a pronoun referring to the subject of die sentence, clause, or verbal phrase in which it stands specif: a personal pronoun compounded with -self. The problems are of three types: first, some of the definitions are inaccurate second, there is inadequate coordination between definitions of some related words third, there is the problem of incomplete or missing linguistic definitions. The three dictionaries are Merriam-Webster's Collegiate * Dictionary, Tenth Edition 1993 (WlO), Webster's New World Dictionary, 3d College Edition 1988 (WNWD), and Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1991 (RHWCD).
The average college dictionary contains about a thousand words that involve language in one way or another, and in this paper I will examine about a dozen or so linguistic terms in three widely used dictionaries and show that there are serious inadequacies in the definitions of these words. In keeping with the logic of the proverb, however, it is this particular area that needs some extra illumination. Since language is the main concern of dictionaries, one might expect dictionaries to pay special attention to linguistic terminology. Saha JLIictionary definitions of some linguistic terms exemplify an old South Asian proverb which notes that the darkest spot is right beneath the lamp. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ĭictionary Definitions of Linguistic Terms P.
0 kommentar(er)
