0


谷歌怎么说——严格审查下的网络搜索结果:从传统到基于网络的词典编纂

And What Does Google Say? – Web Search Results under Scrutiny: From Traditional to Web-Based Lexicography
课程网址: http://videolectures.net/euralex2018_sorli_web_search/  
主讲教师: Mojca Šorli
开课单位: 卢布尔雅那大学
开课时间: 2018-07-27
课程语种: 英语
中文简介:
在过去十年中,对字典使用的研究急剧增加(例如Dziemanko 2012; Lew 2011a,c;Müller-Spitzer2012,2014; Nesi 2012; Wlkker 2010),但许多问题仍未得到解答。尽管人们一直在探索改善字典功能的潜力,特别是由于数字化和语言技术的进步,但对新可识别关系的关注却越来越少,例如网络上的词汇资源与所谓的“传统”关系之间的关系。资源。人们经常强调当代字典用户对专业字典出版者的权威并不敏感,而是优先考虑易于使用和使用的情况。然而,在词典学正朝着“信息科学”发展的时代,向主要基于网络的词典和词典资源的过渡存在着一个以上的悖论(Tarp 2012; Verlinde et al。2010)。实际上,辛克莱(Sinclair)对词典学的预测是在“语言学和信息技术的交汇处”进行的(1984:6)。我们可能倾向于按照“用户参考Google / Web而不是单独的(基于Web的或电子的)词典的方式”来概括用户的搜索偏好,但是这种说法可能会产生误导。这里有两件事要牢记。首先是Google搜索仅聚合基于Web的词汇资源(词典,同义词词典,单词参考论坛等),而不提供语言解决方案。第二个结果是,它提供了到现有(主要是传统)词法资源(尤其是词典)的链接。在本文的第一部分中,我们研究了Google在选定单词和短语上进行搜索的第一页,并在此基础上力求确立(更好地:修改)传统词典(即经过编辑)在以下方面的作用:称为“ Google搜索”。作为可用于根据用户需求组织和选择基于Web的文本的搜索引擎,Google显然本身并不是(词汇/语言)资源,但我们将其视为一种资源,因为它现在是Google的起点各种形式的查询和数据搜索。但是,正如所指出的那样,我们很可能会由Google指导具有悠久的出版传统(竞争领先的搜索引擎页面上的突出地位)的已建立(编辑)的词典编目作品,或指向合作词典编目的产品。一旦我们弄清了“基于网络的”资源与它们的“传统”对应资源(无论是纸质还是CD-ROM和DVD格式)之间的区别(和重叠),一方面是另一方面,从“专业编辑”和“协作”资源的意义上讲,我们最终可以检查“新”词典在内容方面可能吸引大多数词典用户/编译者的哪些方面。现有的词典使用研究表明,大多数用户喜欢基于实际用法的数据,真实的示例,数据的定期更新,信息的可访问性,超链接,清晰的定义等方面。在本文的第二部分,我们正在处理协作词典学和专业词典学的一些指导共同分享的词典学描述的各个方面。词典编纂者可以从其他语言描述方法(例如“城市词典”或“词典”)中了解很多用户的需求和期望。例如,Wictionary的既定目标是“不仅包括单词的定义,而且包括足够的信息以真正理解它”。约翰·辛克莱尔(John Sinclair)几十年前就创立了长期的经验词法分析传统,为扩展词法描述提供了科学依据。然而,尽管技术上有进步,但使字典成为“用户可以通过它观察生活语言……通过字典观察语言……渐进式词典学的下一个目标”的词典,仍有许多工作要做(1987: 5)。这将涉及将重点从基于单词的字典转移到基于文本的字典。为了探究这到底意味着什么,我们将限制自己去定义实践,分析公认的主流单语词典与一些协作词典学实例之间的关系。通常,协作词典包括关于意义情况的数据,这在社会交往的指导下更加突出了单词在社会互动中的评价功能。我们试图证明,将这种信息包含在以交流为导向的词汇资源中非常重要。
课程简介: Research into dictionary use has increased dramatically in the last decade (e.g., Dziemanko 2012; Lew 2011a,c; Müller-Spitzer 2012, 2014; Nesi 2012; Welker 2010), yet many questions remain unanswered. While the potential for improving dictionary functionalities has been explored, particularly as a result of digitalisation and the advancement of language technologies, less attention has been focused on newly identifiable relationships, such as that between lexical resources on the Web and so-called “traditional” resources. It is often emphasised that contemporary dictionary users are not sensitive to the authority of professional dictionary publishers, instead prioritising ease of access and of use. However, the transition to predominantly web-based dictionaries and lexical resources has been marked by more than one paradox in a time when lexicography is moving “towards information science” (Tarp 2012; Verlinde et al. 2010). In fact, Sinclair’s prediction of lexicography operating “at the intersection of Linguistics and Information Technology” goes way back (1984: 6). We may be inclined to generalise about users’ search preferences along the lines of “users consult Google/ the Web rather than individual (web-based or electronic) dictionaries”, but such assertions may be misleading. There are two things that should be kept in mind here. The first is that a Google search merely aggregates web-based lexical resources (dictionaries, thesauruses, word reference forums, etc.) rather than offering linguistic solutions. The second is that, as a consequence, it offers links to existing (predominantly traditional) lexical resources, notably dictionaries. In the first part of the present article, we examine the first page of Google searches on selected single words and phrases and on this basis seek to establish (better: revise) the role of traditional – that is, edited – dictionaries featured in so-called “Google searches”. As a search engine that can be used to organise and select web-based text according to the user’s needs, Google is obviously not in itself a (lexical/linguistic) resource, but we perceive it as such because it is now a starting point for enquiries and data searches of all forms. Nevertheless, as pointed out, we will most likely be directed by Google to established (edited) lexicographic works with long publishing traditions (competing for prominence on the leading search engine pages) or to products of collaborative lexicography. Once we have clarified the distinctions (and overlaps) between “web-based” resources and their “traditional” counterparts (be it in paper or CD-ROM and DVD format), on the one hand, and between “traditional” – in the sense “professionally edited” – and “collaborative” resources, on the other, we can finally examine which aspects of the “new” dictionary in terms of content may appeal to the majority of dictionary users/ compilers. Existing research into dictionary use suggests that most users appreciate aspects such as data based on actual usage, authentic examples, regular updates of data, accessibility of information, hyperlinks, clear definitions, etc. In the second part of the article, we are dealing with aspects of lexicographic description shared by collaborative lexicography and some directions of professional lexicography. Lexicographers can learn a lot about users’ needs and expectations from alternative approaches to language description, such as Urban Dictionary or Wictionary. The stated aim of Wictionary, for example, is “to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it” . It was John Sinclair who, decades ago, initiated a long tradition of empirical lexical analysis that provided a scientific basis for expanding lexicographic description to do just that. However, despite the technological advances, much remains to be done in the way of making dictionary “a device through which the user will observe the living language ... language through the dictionary ... the next target of progressive lexicography” (1987: 5). This would involve shifting the focus from word-based to text-based dictionaries. In order to explore what this really means, we will, limiting ourselves to defining practices, analyse the relationship between well-established mainstream monolingual dictionaries and some examples of collaborative lexicography. Typically, collaborative lexicography includes data on circumstances of meaning, giving greater prominence to the evaluative function of words in social interaction, which is guided by social convention. We seek to demonstrate that including this kind of information in communicatively orientated lexical resources is important.
关 键 词: 词典学; 信息科学; 语言学
课程来源: 视频讲座网
数据采集: 2020-11-21:cjy
最后编审: 2021-12-20:liyy
阅读次数: 49