García Aragón, Alejandro. 2009. The LEXILOGON Project: a Multilingual Dictionary of Greek-Spanish-English Literary Terms. In 2nd International Conference on Literature, Languages & Linguistics. Athens: ATINER.
This is the final version of the following article: García Aragón, Alejandro. 2009. The LEXILOGONProject:aMultilingual Dictionary of Greek Spanish English Literary Terms. In 2nd International Conference on Literature, Languages & Linguistics. Athens:ATINER. You can find more articles authored by LexiCon Research Group members at <http://lexicon.ugr.es>. The LEXILOGON Project: a Multilingual Dictionary of Greek-Spanish-English Literary Terms García-Aragón, Alejandro Junior Lecturer Department of Translation and Interpreting Faculty of Translation and Interpreting University of Granada, Spain email@example.com The multilingual specialized dictionary described in this paper focuses on literary terms in three languages (Modern Greek, Spanish, English). The inventory of terms was extracted from monolingual and bilingual specialized dictionaries as well as specialized texts in the field. The main objective of our study is to create an innovative lexicographic product for users interested in Modern Greek Literature and its terminology. It goes without saying that there are presently no multilingual specialized lexicographic resources in this field, particularly for terminological correspondences between Spanish and Modern Greek. Our theoretical approach stems from the Functional Theory of Lexicography (Bergenholtz & Nielsen, 2006; Bergenholtz & Tarp, 2003, 1995; Tarp, 2005), which conceives dictionaries as texts, based on a series of lexicographic functions. The resulting dictionary may also vary, depending on the characteristics of potential users. The macrostructure of our dictionary includes cognitive maps (both mentally and linguistically motivated) which represent the lexical domain covered by the dictionary. These cognitive maps are conceived as pointers to the Subject Field Component as well as to the annexes, which encode encyclopaedic knowledge that cannot be usefully included in dictionary entries. The microstructure of the entries and the structure of the definitions in our dictionary are based on the Functional-Lexematic Model (Martín Mingorance, 1984-1998; Faber & Mairal, 1994a, 1994b, 1997, 1999). When definitions are elaborated according to the premises of this model, circularity is avoided, and the definitions have a high degree of coherence and cohesion. This article describes how data from primary sources (corpora) and secondary sources (dictionaries, glossaries, etc.) can be obtained and cross-checked. We also describe the design of our multilingual dictionary entries. 2 0. Introduction: a Multilingual Specialized Dictionary of Literary Terms There is a great need in Europe for high-quality lexicographic resources. European Union education policies, such as European convergence, call for a wider set of multicultural educational resources such as dictionaries. It goes without saying that the literature and the literary traditions of a nation are one of the most representative manifestations of its identity and its languages within the diversity of the peoples of Europe. In this sense, the LEXILOGON Project (acronym for ΛΕΞΙκό ΛΟΓοτεχνικών όρΩΝ, Greek for ‘dictionary of literary terms’ or DLT) is a multilingual lexicographic project which focuses on users with an interest in Modern Greek literary terms and its literary language and expressions1. The main objective of this dictionary is to increase the number of modern specialized lexicographic resources, and more specifically to provide a multilingual specialized dictionary for terminological correspondences between Spanish, English and Modern Greek. Needless to say, there is no resource of this type that is presently available. In our opinion, reasons for this state of affairs include the following: (i) the lack of high-quality monolingual dictionaries of literary terms written in demotic Greek; (ii) the lack of consensus between definitions in existing dictionaries of literary terms; (iii) the difficulty involved in compiling corpus of parallel texts, due to the degree of specialization of the terms and differences in their use; (iv) difference regarding literary and religious traditions, which lead to an absence of translation correspondences; (v) the existence of different alphabets, which make it necessary to use transcription patterns that become an added source of controversy and confusion; (vi) the lack of systematicity in establishing an inventory of terms and the type of information to be included in entries. 1. Theoretical Approach In order to solve the problems mentioned in the previous section, we used a methodology based on an innovative linguistic theory. In this sense, the theoretical underpinnings of LEXILOGON are based mainly on the Functional Lexematic Model, the Functional Theory of Lexicography, and Corpus Linguistics. The Functional Lexematic Model (FLM) was developed by Martín Mingorance (1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1998) and Faber & Mairal (1994a, 1994b, 1997, 1999) from the Functional Grammar of Dik (1978) and the lexematic theory of Coseriu (1977). The FLM organizes the lexicon onomasiologically according to semantic hierarchies divided into domains and subdomains (Faber & Mairal, 1999, p. 57-66). Words are related to each other by their inherited genus and distinguished by their own differentiae (Faber & Mairal, 1999, p. 57-58). This model is extremely useful because it provides us with a highly coherent, circularity-free way of elaborating definitions. Monolingual specialized 1 This dictionary, directed by Dr Pamela Faber, is part of a larger project funded by the Ministry of Culture of Greece, which is being carried out at the Center for Byzantine, Modern Greek, and Cypriot Studies of Granada, under the supervision of Dr Moschos Morfakidis. 3 dictionaries are then the cornerstone of the semantic information needed for this definitional system. Martín Mingorance (1984, p. 229 apud Faber & Mairal, 1997, p. 222) explains the usefulness of dictionary information: (i) Standard dictionaries contain the body of knowledge gathered by lexicographic tradition. (ii) Such definitions have the status of referential authority for users of the language in question. (iii) Generally speaking, dictionary definitions provide a basis for extracting the stocks of more generic terms, which are intuitively felt by most speakers to be close the status of archilexemes. The Functional Theory of Lexicography (Bergenholtz & Nielsen, 2006; Bergenholtz & Tarp, 2003, 1995; Tarp, 2005) also provides us with a consistent and well-structured basis for dictionary making. According to the FTL, dictionaries should be regarded as teaching tools aimed at specific groups of potential users (Tarp, 2005, p. 7). Our dictionary target users are laymen and semi-experts with basic notions of Greek, English and/or Spanish. This profile is always taken into account along with the process of gathering, presenting, and expressing the information in LEXILOGON, since the resulting dictionary may vary depending on the cognitive or language skills of potential users (Tarp, 2005, p. 7). This theory also conceives dictionaries as texts with a specific purpose, which is very close to the functionalist theories of Skopostheorie (Reiss, 1989; Vermeer, 1996; Reiss & Vermeer 1984; Nord, 1991, 1997). Consequently, ‘everything in a dictionary, absolutely everything, is to a greater or smaller extent influenced by its respective functions’ (Bergenholtz & Tarp, 2003, p. 177). The two main lexicographic functions of this theory are communication-oriented and cognition-/knowledge-oriented (Tarp, 2005, p. 8-9). In this way, LEXILOGON is being developed according to the cognition-orientated function a specific user profile, so that we can offer a ‘utility product’ (Bergenholtz & Tarp, 2003, p. 172). Moreover, one of the most important contributions of the FTL was also included: the subject-field component, a type of encyclopaedic section on the field, which complements the information in the entries. The third cornerstone of our project is Corpus Linguistics. The meaning of a word is contextual, and any study of meaning should include the contexts in which the word appears. Defined as “the empirical study of language using computer techniques and software to analyze large, carefully selected and compiled databases of naturally occurring language” (Conrad, 2000 in Strazny, 2005), Corpus Linguistics is the most efficient way to reflect the empirical occurrence of literary terms. For this reason, our dictionary entries include examples. We also cross checked the information of monolingual dictionaries with other relevant lexicographic information, such as related terms, additional defining elements, and synonyms. 2. LEXILOGON As part of our methodology, we analyzed the macro- and microstructure of a series of monolingual dictionaries of literary terms and monolingual thesauri. This allowed us to create a new resource, which is an improvement over existing ones. 4 2.1. Macrostructure The structure of our dictionary was meant to be exploited by the largest number of users possible. In order to do this, the prologue, the user’s guide, and other language-dependent parts of the dictionary had to be written in Greek, Spanish, and/or English, and organized accordingly. The macrostructure of LEXILOGON is the following: Front matter 1. prologue in Greek about Greek literary terms 2. prologue in Spanish about Greek literary terms including their differences with Spanish literary terms 3. prologue in English about Greek literary terms including their differences with English literary terms 4. a brief user’s guide in Greek 5. a brief user’s guide in Spanish 6. a brief user’s guide in English Nomenclature 7. Greek to Spanish and English 8. Spanish to English and Greek 9. English to Spanish and Greek Back matter 10. SFC with a general cognitive map of Greek literary terms linked to the Greek lemmata 11. SFC with a general cognitive map of Spanish literary terms linked to the Spanish lemmata 12. SFC with a general cognitive map of English literary terms linked to the English lemmata As previously mentioned, one of the most important contributions of the FTL is the subject field component (SFC), which we included in the macrostructure. According to the premises of the FTL, there are six possible ways of distributing the SFC in a dictionary (cf. Bergenholtz & Nielsen, 2006, p. 293). One of them is annexing the SFC in a way that complements the information already included in the entries. In our view, this option is the most appropriate for our potential user profile. The SFCs introduce users to literary terms. Each SFC is accompanied by a conceptual or cognitive map (CM), which is one of the most original implementations of our project. It goes without saying that the information contained in this structure had to be accessible to laymen and semi-experts with an interest in Greek literature and an intermediate level of Greek. These user characteristics have influenced both the 5 macrostructure and the microstructure of our project. More information is available on the latter in section 2.3. 2.2. Sources 2.2.1 Primary Sources Following Čermák’s (2003, p. 18) classification, there are two general types of lexicographic resources, i.e., primary resources such as archives and corpora, and secondary resources such as fieldwork (interviews, questionnaires), other dictionaries, and encyclopaedias. Our primary sources are three synchronous, comparable corpora composed of complete texts, mainly monographs and articles on the field) in Modern Greek, Spanish, and English. The subject matter of the texts is related to the diverse aspects of the literature of these three cultures, relevant to both frequent and rare terms. Even though “there is hardly any alternative to corpora as the primary and main resource for lexicographers no” (Čermák, 2003, p. 18), we use corpus analysis to gather additional and complementary information. This allows us to cross-check it against the definitions, examples, and contexts obtained during the analysis of secondary resources. We also use lexical analysis software in order to analyze the key-word-in-context (KWIC) lists. The resulting information allowed us to: (i) validate and complement the results obtained from secondary sources, especially definitions; (ii) widen the range of paradigmatic usage examples; (iii) find the most appropriate synonyms of the lemmata; (iv) locate other new candidate terms, (v) and produce semantic markers and notes. This process is represented in Figure 1: [SEE Figure 1] 2.2.2 Secondary Sources Secondary sources also provide crucial information, i.e. monolingual dictionaries of literary terms, followed by glossaries and vocabularies, as well as semi-specialized lemmas included in other bilingual and general dictionaries. Even though Faber & Mairal (1997, p. 222) admit that the majority of standard dictionaries “are not consistent in their methods of defining words, they nevertheless are a treasure house of information for the factorization of the semantic components of lexemes”. This is why we use the following dictionaries as the core of our research: • Greek sources: Abrams (2005), Μαρκαντωνάτος (Markantonatos) (1996, 2008), Γκίκας (Gikas) et al. (1997), Διαμάντης (Diamantis) (2003), Κυριακίδης (Kyriakidis) (2002), Ματακιάς (Matakias) (1999), Παρίσης & Παρίσης (Parisis & Parisis) (2000). • Spanish sources: Ayuso de Vicente (1990), Beristáin (1998), Bustos Tovar et al. (1985), Estébanez Calderón (2004), González de Gambier (2002), Platas Tasende (2004), Reyzábal (1998), Shipley (1962). • English sources: Cuddon (1998), Baldick (2008), Beckson & Ganz (1989), Wahba (1974), Ruse & Hopton (1992), Vickers (1998), Roberts (2005). • Other sources: Aritzeta i Abad (1996) DLT in Catalan; Van Gorp (2001) DTL in French; Gentili (1966) on Ancient Greek metrics in Italian. 6 • General dictionaries: Μαγκρίδης (Magridis) & Olalla (2006), Buzulaku et al. (2003), Azkoitia & Magkridhs (1993, 1999) in Greek and Spanish; Pantelodimos & Kaiteris (1995) and Lust & Pantelodimos (1995) in Greek and French; Stavropoulos (1996), Stavropoulos & Hornby (2005), Nathanail (1990) in Greek and English; Pabón S. de Urbina (1994) in Ancient Greek and Spanish; Μπαμπινιώτης (Babiniotis) (2002), Τριανταφυλλίδης (Triandaphyllidis) (1998), and other monolingual general dictionaries in Greek, Spanish, and English. Figure 2 shows how the information of these sources was processed: [SEE Figure 2] From this process we can obtain well-structured definitions, representative and recurrent examples, synonyms, usage markers, and illustrations. Logically, due to anisomorphism, the correspondences are not always perfect equivalents or even synonyms in the same language: The lack of equivalence is particularly acute, of course, when the two languages are used in cultures that differ greatly in cultural background, but it occurs with surprising frequency even in cultures with a similar heritage. (Landau, 1989, p. 9). However, as shown further down, a joint or homogenized system can be established. In case there is no final agreement on definitions or transcriptions among the resources available, renowned experts of the three linguistic backgrounds would have the last say. 2.3. Microstructure: Cross-checking Lexicographic Information As an example of how data was cross-checked between dictionaries and between the three languages, we chose at first a few representative monolingual dictionaries of literary terms, four per language. Secondly, we compared the Greek entries of the term ζεύγμα with its corresponding entries in Spanish and English (zeugma). The Functional Lexematic Model was used to identify the genus and the main differentiae of the lexicographic definitions. Examples, synonyms, sub-types, and related terms were also gathered in order to include the most relevant information for the final entry. Greek dictionaries: A. ΜΑΤΑΚΙΑΣ (MATAKIAS) (1999) B. ΓΚΙΚΑΣ (GIKAS) et al. (1997) C. MΑΡΚΑΝΤΩΝΑΤΟΣ (MARKANTONATOS) (2008) D. ΠΑΡΙΣΗΣ & ΠΑΡΙΣΗΣ (PARISIS & PARISIS) (2000) [SEE Table 1] Different definitions of the same concept often tend to express roughly the same idea but in different ways. Surprisingly, the three definitions have the same wording and syntax. This seems to indicate that there was an original definition which was copied by 7 the different Modern Greek DLTs, and also in other general monolingual dictionaries, such as Τριανταφυλλίδης’ (Triandaphyllidis) (1998). It is striking that the lemma ζεύγμα, which had its own entry in previous dictionaries (1984, 1997, 1999), is not included in Παρίσης & Παρίσης (Parisis & Parisis) (2000), a dictionary edited by the Ministry of Culture of Greece and used in primary and secondary schools (see table 1). We have not included examples in Ancient Greek (έδουσί τε πίονα μήλα οίνόν τ' έξαπον) because they are superfluous since Ancient Greek is obscure to both laymen and even semi-experts. Spanish dictionaries: I. ESTÉBANEZ CALDERÓN (2004) II. PLATAS TASENDE (2007) III. GONZÁLEZ DE GAMBIER (2002) IV. AYUSO DE VICENTE et al. (1997) [SEE Table 2] The first thing that we observe is that Platas Tasende’s (2004) definition, which is a recent DLT, is completely different from the rest. The other three definitions state that the concept is directly or indirectly related to the omission of words and syntax. For this reason, it was necessary to compare dictionary information with information found in corpora. For example, corpus information shows that González de Gambier’s (2002) definition is inaccurate. There is also a general lack of systematization and imbalance in dictionary entries. For instance, Platas Tasende gives many more examples of zeugma complejo, and only one of zeugma simple, as does Estébanez Calderón. The third entry gives only one example in spite of mentioning other subclasses of zeugma. English dictionaries: 1. CUDDON (1998) 2. BALDICK (2008) 3. BECKSON & GANZ (1989) 4. GRAY (1992) [SEE Table 3] In this case, each definition refers roughly to the same concept but with different nuances. Cuddon’s (1998) and Gray’s (1992) definitions refer explicitly to the various senses in which the verb is applied, whereas Baldick’s (2008) and Beckson & Ganz’s (1989) definitions do not mention senses or meanings, but focus on the correctness and grammaticality of a word or term with respect to others. Consequently, it is evident that primary sources need to be consulted in order to design the definitions for our dictionary. The goal would be to have one joint definition per term that is widely used by users and experts in that language. In this way, rare or vague definitions (such as González de Gambier’s number III in Spanish dictionaries) can be discarded and new elementary information added. The elaboration of these definitions would also be related to the SFC and the conceptual maps which, in turn, complement the information already included in the entries. 8 In fact, the mapping varies depending on the language and culture as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5: [SEE Figures 3, 4, 5] As shown in the conceptual maps, each culture/language/literary tradition structures similar information in different ways. For instance, the Greek figures of speech (σχήματα λόγου) are divided into rather vague categories, such as ‘grammatical cohesion’, ‘word position’, ‘meaning of words and sentences’, and ‘speech completeness’. These categories do not always apply to every Greek figure of speech found throughout the DLTs. However, according to this map, the concept of ζεύγμα is clearly placed into three (sub)categories: figures of speech > speech completeness > ellipsis. In contrast, the Spanish figures of speech (figuras de dicción) are firstly included in ‘rhetorical figures’, with three different branches: ‘figures of meaning/tropes’, ‘figures of speech’, and ‘figures of thought’. The concept of zeugma is thus placed in rhetorical figures > figures of speech > omission figures. In fact, it even has subtypes. Unlike in Greek, categories and definitions are fairly well-structured. Regarding the English figures of speech, these are divided into two main groups, i.e. ‘figures of thought/tropes’ and ‘rhetorical figures/devices or schemes’. The term zeugma or adjunctio is placed under figures of speech > figures of thought/tropes. Another subgroup could be included, such as ‘omission devices’, before including zeugma, which also has subtypes. These mappings were elaborated according to the definitions and classifications found in secondary sources. However, they still require a thorough cross-checking against primary sources because of internal inconsistencies, and lack of information. 2.4. Results: Design of a Preliminary Entry According to the FTL, the microstructure is “the arrangement of the information provided in the individual dictionary articles” (Bergenholtz y Tarp, 2005, p. 15). This means that depending on the nature of the articles, “a dictionary may have one microstructure or several different microstructures” (p.15). In this way, LEXILOGON will have several microstructures according to the characteristics of the lemma, whose number and specific forms are specified in a style guide. For instance, a complete, high-quality multilingual entry of LEXILOGON (e. g. Greek into Spanish and English) would ideally include the following items, avoiding the frequent information deficiencies in bilingual dictionaries: [SEE Figure 6] Basic information items can be better understood and accessed by potential users if written in English, so that the range of people interested can also be widened by using English as the lingua franca. All sorts of typographic elements are included so that different kinds of information can be easily found by users. The symbol (#) is used to determine whether the entry is: (1) an ad hoc neologism; (2) a non-standardized term; (3) a transcription/transliteration. The basic characteristics section is completed in case the entry requires historical, ideological, metrical, or information on authors. The symbol ≈ warns the reader that 9 there is a slight difference between languages, and the symbol ≠ means that the difference is very significant. The symbol * warns the reader that a term has its own entry. We assume that the pronunciation of lemmata is irrelevant to our users, who can perfectly read Greek; as well as the etymology, which they can find in monolingual dictionaries. Then, if we apply the previous structure and the conceptual maps to the information gathered throughout the different sources on the entry zeugma, it would result in the following preliminary entry: [SEE Figures 7, 8] 3. Conclusion The LEXILOGON project is a multilingual specialized dictionary whose structure and information retrieval process provide solutions for the problems mentioned in the introduction. Firstly, the significantly heterogeneous literary and even religious traditions are both respected and captured using two types of sources. The secondary sources (mainly monolingual and bilingual DLTs) allow us to gather and homogenize a great deal of information available to native users. The primary sources (corpora) provide us with a consistent way of cross-checking the information obtained from the secondary sources. Secondly, the FTL and the FLM provide us with a sound theoretical basis for dictionary making. The FTL focuses on lexicographic functions as well as on a potential user profile, which influences both the macro- and microstructure. The macrostructure of our dictionary includes cognitive maps (both mentally and linguistically motivated) which represent the lexical domain covered by the dictionary. These cognitive maps are conceived as pointers to the Subject Field Component of the FTL as well as to the annexes, which encode encyclopaedic knowledge that cannot be usefully included in dictionary entries. Regarding the microstructure of the entries and the structure of the definitions, based on the FLM, circularity is avoided, and the definitions have a high degree of coherence and cohesion. In fact, definitions and information pertaining to lemmas come in an almost ultimate and intralinguistically cross-checked, joint form. This is useful even for the same target culture because it avoids differences in quality and information. The information items of the microstructure also follow the same structure in three different languages and cultures; thus facilitating their contrast. This is also made explicit through meaningful observation and interlingustic example sections, which show how similar concepts differ from one language to another. Thus, misinformation or lack of information, typical of general bilingual dictionaries, is avoided. The same can be said of the traditional lack of systematicity in monolingual entries. Finally, these information items are linked to their own cognitive maps, which highlight anisomorphism, and encyclopedic information in the annexes. These conceptual maps are extremely useful for limiting our literary terminology and elaborating definitions. They also show how each culture structures the cultural knowledge in this specialized field. 10 4. References Abrams, M. H. (2005). Λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων: θεωρία, ιστορία, κριτική λογοτεχνίας. Μετάφραση: Γ. Δελιβοριά & Σ. Χατζηιωαννίδου, Αθήνα: Πατάκη. Aritzeta i Abad, M. (1996). Diccionari de Termes Literaris. Barcelona: Edicions 62. Ayuso de Vicente, M. V., García Gallarín, C., & Solano Santos, S. (1990). Diccionario de Términos Literarios. Madrid: Akal. Azkoitia, A. V., & A. Magkridhs (1993). Ισπανο-ελληνικό λεξικό / Diccionario Español-Griego. Aθήνα: Μέδουσα/Σέλας. Azkoitia, A. V., & A. Μαγκρίδης (1999). Eλληνo-ισπανικό λεξικό / Diccionario Griego- Español. Atenas: Μέδουσα/Σέλας. Bergenholtz, H., & S. Nielsen (2006). ‘Subject-field components as integrated parts of LSP dictionaries.’ Terminology 12(2): 281-303. Bergenholtz, H., & S. Tarp (2003). ‘Two opposing theories: On H.E. Wiegand’s recent discovery of lexicographic functions.’ Hermes: Journal of Linguistics 31: 171-196. Bergenholtz, H., & S. Tarp (eds.) (1995). Manual of Specialised Lexicography: The Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Beristáin, H. (1998). Diccionario de Retórica y Poética. México: Porrúa. Bustos Tovar, J. (coord.). (1985), Diccionario de literatura universal. Madrid: Anaya. Buzulaku, P. et al. (2003). Diccionario griego-español / ελληνο-ισπανικό λεξικό. Barcelona: Gram. Čermák, F. (2003). ‘Source materials for dictionaries.’ In: Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.). A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Coseriu, E. (1977). Principios de semántica estructural. Madrid: Gredos. Cuddon, J. A. (1993). A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Dik, S. C. (1978). Stepwise lexical descomposition. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Estébanez Calderón, D. (2004). Diccionario de términos literarios. Madrid: Alianza. Faber, P., & R. Mairal (1994a). “Methodological Underpinnings for the Construction of a Functional Lexicological Model”, Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies. Vol. 15, 193-217. Faber, P., & R. Mairal (1994b). “The Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Structure of the Lexical Field of Existence in the Elaboration of a Semantic Macronet", lecture at the 6th 11 International Congress of Functional Grammar, University College of Ripon and York St. J., York. Faber, P., & R. Mairal (1997). ‘Definitional analysis in the functional-lexematic lexicographic model.’ Alfinge: Revista de filología 9: 219-232. Faber, P., & R. Mairal (1999). Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gentili, B. (1966). La metrica dei greci. Messina-Firenze: G. D’Anna. González de Gambier, E. (2002). Diccionario de terminología literaria. Madrid: Síntesis. Landau, S. I. (1989). Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lust, C., & D.s Pantelodimos (1995). Γαλλο-Ελληνικό Λεξικό Κάουφμαν. Aθήνα: Kauffmann. Martín Mingorance, L. (1984). “Lexical Field and Stepwise Lexical Decomposition in a Contrastive English-Spanish Verb Valency Dictionary”, R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.) Proceedings from the I International Conference on Lexicography, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 225-236. Martín Mingorance, L. (1985). “Bases Metodológicas para un Estudio Contrastivo del Léxico Derivado”, Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, Vol. I. Madrid: SGEL-Educación, 37-54. Martín Mingorance, L. (1987). “Classematics in a Functional-Lexematic Grammar of English”, Actas del X Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, Zaragoza, Publicaciones de la Universidad, 377-382. Martín Mingorance, L. (1990). "Functional Grammar and Lexematics", J. Tomaszczyk & B. Lewandowska (eds.). Meaning and Lexicography. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Martín Mingorance, L. (1993). “La Lexicografía Onomasiológica”, H. Hernández (ed.) Aspectos de Lexicografía Contemporánea. Barcelona: Biblograf. Martín Mingorance, L. (1995). “Lexical Logic and Structural Semantics”, Panorama der Lexikalischen Semantik. Thematische Festschrift aus Anlaß des 60. Geburtstags von Horst Geckeler, 461-474. Martín Mingorance, L. (1998). El modelo lexemáticofuncional. A. Marín Rubiales (ed.). Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Nathanail, P. (1990). NTC’s New College Greek and English Dictionary. Lincolnwood, Illinois, EE.UU.: National Textbook Company. 12 Nord, C. (1991). “Scopos, Loyalty and Translation Conventions”. Target no. 3(1), pp. 91-109. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Pabón S. de Urbina, J. M. (1994). Diccionario Manual Griego-Español Vox. Barcelona: Biblograf. Pantelodimos, D., & K. Kaiteris (1995). Ελληνο-Γαλλικό Λεξικό Κάουφμαν. Aθήνα: Kauffmann. Platas Tasende, A. M. (2004). Diccionario de términos literarios. Un diccionario que facilita la lectura y el análisis de la literatura. Madrid: Espasa. Reiss, K. (1989). “Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment”. A. Chesterman (ed.), Readings in Translation, Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura. Reiss, K., & H. Vermeer (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Reyzábal, M. V. (1998). Diccionario de términos literarios, I y II. Madrid: Acento. Ruse, C., & M. Hopton (1992). Dictionary of Literary and Language Terms. London: Cassell. Roberts, J. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shipley, J. T. (1962). Diccionario de la Literatura Mundial: Crítica, formas, técnica. Barcelona: Destino. Stavropoulos, D. N., & A. S. Hornby (2005). Oxford English-Greek Learner’s Dictionary. Atenas: Oxford University Press. Stavropoulos, D. N. (1996). Oxford Greek-English Learner’s Dictionary. Athens: Oxford University Press. Strazny, P. (ed.) (2005). Encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn. Tarp, S. (2005). ‘The pedagogical dimension of the well-conceived specialized dictionary.’ Ibérica 10: 7-21. Van Gorp, H. et al. (2001). Dictionnaire des Termes Littéraires [traducción francesa adaptada de Lexicon van literaire termen, 1998]. Paris: Champion Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For and Against). Heidelberg: Text Context. 13 Vickers, B. (1998). In defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Claredon Press, Ofxord University Press. Wahba, M. (1974). A Dictionary of Literary Terms, English-French-Arabic. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Γκίκας, Σ. et al. (1997). Λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων. Αθήνα: Σαββάλα. Διαμαντίδης, Α. (2003). Λεξικό των -ισμών. Από τον αβανγκαρντισμό στον ωφελιμισμό. Aθήνα: Γνώση. Κυριακίδης, Β. (2002). Λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων. Αθήνα: Β. Κυριακίδης. Μαγκρίδης, Α., & P. Olalla (2006). Το νέο ελληνο-ισπανικό λεξικό. El nuevo diccionario griego-español. Atenas: Texto. Μαρκαντωνάτος, Γ. Α. (1996). Βασικό λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων. Αθήνα: Gutenberg, ΑρχείοΘεωρητικήςΠαιδείας 4. Μαρκαντωνάτος, Γ. Α. (2008). Βασικό λεξικό λογοτεχνικών και φιλολογικών όρων. Λογοτεχνική και φιλολογική ορολογία. Αθήνα: Gutenberg, Αρχείο Θεωρητικής Παιδείας 4. Ματακιάς, Α. (1999). Λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων. Γνωστικό υλικό για την κατανόηση των λογοτεχνικών κειμένων. Αθήνα: Πελεκάνος. Μπαμπινιώτης, Γ. Δ. (2002). Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας: με σχόλια για τη σωστή χρήση των λέξεων. Aθήνα: Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας Ε.Π.Ε. Παρίσης, Ι., & Ν. Παρίσης (2000). Λεξικό λογοτεχνικών όρων. Αθήνα: Πατάκη; Υ. Ε. Π. Θ.; Ο. Ε. Δ. Β. Τριανταφυλλίδης, Μ. (1998). Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής. Ινστιτούτο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, Ίδρυμα Μ. Τριανταφυλλίδη, Θεσσαλονίκη: Α.Π.Θ. 14 Figure 1 Data elaboration from primary sources (Modern Greek vs. Spanish corpora) 15 Figure 2 Data elaboration from secondary sources (Modern Greek vs. Spanish corpora) 16 Table 1 Data cross-checking of ζεύγμα from four Greek DLTs 17 Table 2 Data cross-checking of zeugma from four Spanish DLTs 18 Table 3 Data cross-checking of zeugma from four English DLTs Figure 3 SFC: Greek CM of ζεύγμα (based on Greek secondary sources) 20 Figure 4 SFC: Spanish CM of zeugma (based on Spanish secondary sources) 21 Figure 5 SFC: English CM of zeugma (based on English secondary sources) Figure 6 Information structure in a complete entry of LEXILOGON 23 Figure 7 Preliminary entry for the lemma ζεύγμα 24 Figure 8 Preliminary examples of ζεύγμα, zeugma and zeugma
© LexiCon Research Group