Rakenteiset sanakirjat

Sanakirjat ovat rakenteisia tekstejä. Sana-artikkeleissa on nähtävissä selvästi erotettavissa olevia rakenneosia. Painetun sanakirjan muuntaminen rakenteiseen muotoon ei kuitenkaan ole aivan suoraviivaista. Tässä tutkielmassa kerrotaan sanakirjan rakennekuvauksen määrittelyn ja painetun sanakirjan rakenteistuksen ongelmista. Esimerkkinä käytetään Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksessa (Kotus) kirjoitettavan Suomen murteiden sanakirjan (SMS) rakenteistusprojektia ja sen yhteydessä määriteltyä rakennekuvausta. SMS:n rakennekuvausta verrataan kielitieteellisten aineistojen koodaamisessa yleisesti käytetyn Text Encoding Initiative -suosituksen sekä uuden ISO 1951:2007 -sanakirjastandardin määrittelemiin rakennekuvauksiin. Muuntamista testataan käytännössä kirjoittamalla XSL-muunnosskripti, joka muuntaa SMS:n aineiston ISOstandardimuotoon. Muunnosprosessin voi todeta olleen hyödyllinen, koska sen aikana paljastui ongelmia sekä SMS:n rakennekuvauksessa että itse standardin määrittelyssä. Tulosten avulla SMS:n koodausta voidaan kehittää edelleen. Lopuksi tarkastellaan standardien käytöstä yleisesti saatavia hyötyjä ja mahdollisuuksia soveltaa niitä Kotuksen sanakirjatyöhön.

Lexicon forestale.

592 s.

Dokumentation och beskrivning som språkplanering : perspektiv från arbete med tre tecknade minoritetsspråk

Language Documentation and Description as Language Planning Working with Three Signed Minority Languages Sign languages are minority languages that typically have a low status in society. Language planning has traditionally been controlled from outside the sign-language community. Even though signed languages lack a written form, dictionaries have played an important role in language description and as tools in foreign language learning. The background to the present study on sign language documentation and description as language planning is empirical research in three dictionary projects in Finland-Swedish Sign Language, Albanian Sign Language, and Kosovar Sign Language. The study consists of an introductory article and five detailed studies which address language planning from different perspectives. The theoretical basis of the study is sociocultural linguistics. The research methods used were participant observation, interviews, focus group discussions, and document analysis. The primary research questions are the following: (1) What is the role of dictionary and lexicographic work in language planning, in research on undocumented signed language, and in relation to the language community as such? (2) What factors are particular challenges in the documentation of a sign language and should therefore be given special attention during lexicographic work? (3) Is a conventional dictionary a valid tool for describing an undocumented sign language? The results indicate that lexicographic work has a central part to play in language documentation, both as part of basic research on undocumented sign languages and for status planning. Existing dictionary work has contributed new knowledge about the languages and the language communities. The lexicographic work adds to the linguistic advocacy work done by the community itself with the aim of vitalizing the language, empowering the community, receiving governmental recognition for the language, and improving the linguistic (human) rights of the language users. The history of signed languages as low status languages has consequences for language planning and lexicography. One challenge that the study discusses is the relationship between the sign-language community and the hearing sign linguist. In order to make it possible for the community itself to take the lead in a language planning process, raising linguistic awareness within the community is crucial. The results give rise to questions of whether lexicographic work is of more importance for status planning than for corpus planning. A conventional dictionary as a tool for describing an undocumented sign language is criticised. The study discusses differences between signed and spoken/written languages that are challenging for lexicographic presentations. Alternative electronic lexicographic approaches including both lexicon and grammar are also discussed. Keywords: sign language, Finland-Swedish Sign Language, Albanian Sign Language, Kosovar Sign Language, language documentation and description, language planning, lexicography