Speaker
Description
The deictic expressions are some of the most obvious linguistic elements that require contextual information for their semantic interpretation, thus linking the so-called denotational situation (i.e., what is said in an utterance) and the speech situation (i.e., when, where and by whom the elements are used: they form a link between truth-conditional semantics and context-dependent pragmatics. Considering deixis as a pragma-semantic category the present study takes up the issue of how semantic and pragmatic characteristics encoded in deictic signs are presented in lexicographic practice, particularly in monolingual English and Armenian dictionaries, and tries to introduce the ways of tackling problematic entries. Deictic words often pose problems for the dictionary representation of word meaning because of their specific semantics. The very specific character of deictic semantics makes it reasonable and necessary to rely on its uniqueness when lexicologically processed: as all deictic expressions share typical properties, they can be similarly explicated in the dictionary definitions. Proceeding from the assumption that lexicographers should take into account the type of meaning the word conveys, a cognitive-oriented research has been undertaken as to how adequately and systematically dictionaries integrate semantic and pragmatic information into the definitions of such specific type of language units as deictic words. Cognitive linguistics is claimed to be a good tool to offer a useful framework for lexicographers and provide certain kinds of structured background information (Fillmore, 2003), which can help to create systematic and well-grounded dictionaries with comprehensive information about specific words and their meanings. The focus of the research is on the following questions: (1) How deictic semantics should be reflected in dictionaries? (2) Which form of lexicographic reflection is preferable and adequate? (3) Which concrete phenomena should be addressed specifically? From the methodological point of view, we rely on modern trends in lexicography based on the concept of compiling dictionaries with a systemic descriptive approach (Apresjan, 2001). The method draws on the detailed semantic grouping of deictic expressions into different semantic types according to the degree of the word’s deicticity. In our research, we claim that the meaning of deictic terms is multilayer: it includes a semantic layer proper with its designative component, or ‘value’, a specific pragmatic layer that points to the speech-situational factor this value is relative to and presupposes its reference point, and a more general layer – that of part of speech belonging which is also indicative of some degree of deicticity (Yerznkyan, 2013). We also discriminate subclasses of deictic expressions that are distinguished semantically, structurally, and pragmatically and suggest that they are accordingly introduced in dictionaries based on a system of parameters, which characterize each lexical unit as to the degree of their deicticity. The empirical evidence from earlier and contemporary English and Armenian dictionaries suggests that they show few signs of having directly addressed this issue. A notable difference observed in the overall number of descriptors/ markers of deicticity proves that this issue has not been adequately covered. The explicit presentation of semantic and pragmatic information in the definitions of deictic words in the dictionaries under study lacks uniformity. And as the lack of information about the composition of deictic meaning might be misleading and confusing our research calls for a reconceptualization of the lexicographic principles when dealing with this specific class of signs with intrinsic pragmatic loading. The achievement of this goal presupposes the elaboration of universal criteria for presenting the deictic signs as a system, for one of the main features of this class of words is its systemic character. In our research, we have singled out some components of structural, semantic and pragmatic information typical of deictic signs, which should be systematized and standardized in order to be adequately presented in a dictionary and facilitate the speakers’ ability to improve their communicative competence. We propose to tackle this issue through four main parameters and suggest the following classification of deictic signs into several groups: pure or impure (semi-deictic) deixis – depending on the type of nomination (pointing and/or naming) employed in each case, subjective or objective deixis, depending on the type of deictic orientation, implicit or explicit deixis – depending on the mode of expression considered from a morphological perspective, and abstract or concrete deixis – depending on the type of the reference point (Yerznkyan, 2013). As solving the identification problem in deictic reference involves primarily the setting of a basic reference point, the deictic centre, or the ‘Origo’ in K. Buhler’s terminology (Buhler, 1990), dictionaries can deal with it as the most fixed and indispensable part of deictic semantics: the way the intended referent is to be decoded should be signalled in the dictionary definition of deictic words. Thus, what we need to do is to organize that information according to the deictic categories with special reference to the type of deictic sign and the degree of their deicticity taking into particular account the interaction between lexical semantics and pragmatics. We believe that this type of information is linguistically (and lexicographically) relevant, as it totally governs the use of deictic expressions in speech. Admitting that the reference point (the Origo) we spoke about is the lexicalized pragmatic component, which is directly embedded in the meaning of deictic words and has a constant systemic status in language, it should be systematically integrated and accordingly defined in the dictionary definitions as a marker of deicticity. Thus, we believe that any attempt at a detailed semantic analysis of the actual linguistic data in its complexity may help to adequately present it lexicographically. Deictics are one of those areas where semantics can largely contribute to lexicography.
