oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Diglossic past and present lexicographical practices: The case of two Greek dictionaries
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0295-4559
2002 (English)In: Language Problems and Language Planning, ISSN 0272-2690, E-ISSN 1569-9889, Vol. 26, no 3, p. 219-252Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The publication of a dictionary is a means to describe, codify and ultimately standardise a language. This process is complicated by the lexicographer’s own attitude towards the language and the public’s sensitivity on language matters. The recent publication of the two most authoritative dictionaries of Modern Greek and their respective lexical coverage reveals the continuing survival of the underlying ideologies of the two sponsoring institutions concerning the history of the Greek language, as well as their opposing standpoints on the language question over the past decades, some 25 years after the constitutional resolution of the Greek diglossia, affecting the way they describe the synchronic state of language. The two dictionaries proceed from opposing starting points in attempting to influence and set a pace for the standardisation of Modern Greek by presenting two different aspects of the synchronic state of Greek, one of which focuses on the long history of the language and thus takes the present state to be only a link in an uninterrupted chain dating from antiquity, and the other of which focuses on the present state of Greek and thus takes this fully developed autonomous code to be the outcome of past linguistic processes and socio-cultural changes in response to the linguistic community’s present needs. The absence of a sufficiently representative corpus has restrained the descriptive capacity of the two dictionaries and has given space for ideology to come into play, despite the fact that both dictionaries have made concessions in order to account for the present-day Greek language.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002. Vol. 26, no 3, p. 219-252
National Category
Other Humanities General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Rhetoric
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-70098DOI: 10.1075/lplp.26.3.02tseScopus ID: 2-s2.0-84989402667OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-70098DiVA, id: diva2:1262240
Available from: 2018-11-09 Created: 2018-11-09 Last updated: 2018-11-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Tseronis, Assimakis

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Tseronis, Assimakis
In the same journal
Language Problems and Language Planning
Other HumanitiesGeneral Language Studies and Linguistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 70 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf