Lexicography: Journal of ASIALEX http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi <p><em>Lexicography</em> aims to serve as a leading-edge forum and powerhouse for all global issues of lexicographic interest, with an emphasis on Asian perspectives and concerns. The journal is open for researchers, lexicographers, students, teachers, translators, and all language lovers from around the globe, who are invited to discuss lexicography and dictionary issues referring to history, typology, use, criticism, structure, IT, components, compilation, application, media, phraseology, corpus linguistics, translation, education, etc. <a href="https://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/about">Read more about the journal.</a>.</p> Equinox Publishing Ltd. en-US Lexicography: Journal of ASIALEX 2197-4292 Editorial http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/17959 Yongwei Gao Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 105–106 105–106 10.1558/lexi.17959 Whither Chinese–English lexicography? – From a historical perspective http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/20869 <p>2020 marked the 200th anniversary of the publication of the second part of Robert Morrison’s A Dictionary of the Chinese Language which has been widely recognized as the first Chinese–English (hereinafter abbreviated to C–E) dictionary and signaled the beginning of C–E lexicography. From the late Qing Dynasty to the present, literally several hundred C–E dictionaries, small or large, have been compiled, though the number of noteworthy ones is rather limited. Nevertheless, research into C–E lexicography has gradually developed into a distinct field of study as witnessed by thousands of academic papers and over a dozen books devoted to its research. A search of (Chinese–English dictionary) as the keyword in CNKI, a database of journal articles, theses, and dissertations written in the Chinese language, came up with 8,365 results. Most of the discussions center round topics such as dictionary criticism, history of dictionary-making, theoretical construction, and case studies. The history of bilingual lexicography in China, for instance, was under-researched in the past as a result of the lack of original copies of early dictionaries, which, however, has been improved thanks to the reprinting and wide availability of such dictionaries since the beginning of the 21st century. Chinese Lexicography: A History from 1046 BC to AD 1911 (Heming Yong et al., 2008), for instance, devoted only a few pages to the earliest history of C–E lexicography which spans more than 70 years. But now dozens of academic papers and even several books (e.g. Yang, 2012; Gao, 2014) have been written about the early bilingual dictionary-makers and their lexicographical works, presenting a clear picture of the evolution of C–E lexicography. Today more than two decades into the 21st century, the C–E lexicography scene is not as crowded as its English–Chinese counterpart as there are only a few major players. The paper aims to present a brief history of C–E lexicography with a focus on lexicographical tradition and creativity, elaborate on the deficiencies or problems found within the major C–E dictionaries, and finally discuss the future directions of C–E lexicography.</p> Yongwei Gao Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 107 129 10.1558/lexi.20869 From culture to (un)shared concept http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/21368 <p>Two theoretical constructs (the bilingual mental lexicon and the depth of processing framework) and the Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic determinism plus related concepts (differentiation, codability, and Zift’s law) are incorporated into a framework in this paper to account for the representation of (cross-)cultural information in bilingual lexicography. After briefly introducing the theoretical framework, the paper goes on to discuss the representation of literal, conceptual, and cross-cultural aspects in the Chinese–English Dictionary (Unabridged) (henceforth the CEDU) in three sections: making explicit the implicit literal or etymological information to account for senses in use; acculturating expressions, definitions, and illustrative examples; and cultural immersion in exemplification appealing to both refined and popular tastes. Each section encompasses multilevel factors in the treatment of bilingual entries with a focus on (cross-) cultural representations.</p> Cuilian Zhao Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 130–148 130–148 10.1558/lexi.21368 On CEDU’s treatment of culture-bound lexical items under the beyond-equivalence principle http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/20992 <p>The Chinese–English Dictionary Unabridged (hereinafter abbreviated as CEDU) pursues a guiding principle of reserved descriptivism and includes far more culture-bound entries than other Chinese–English dictionaries, which has greatly increased the difficulty in dictionary-making. Accordingly, how CEDU has planned to treat culture-bound lexical items in principle and how it has tackled the difficulties in applying the principle deserves our attention. This study probes into the essence of the beyond-equivalence principle proposed by its editor-in-chief Lu Gusun and his ideas of acculturation and cultural over-flow. This study explores three major compensation operations in treating culture-bound lexical items: 1) to use lexicographical metalanguage to compensate for lacunae beyond equivalence, 2) to compensate for the treatment of an entry word through examples, 3) to use both foreignization and domestication to compensate one another in rendering equivalents.</p> Jiangbo Wan Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 149 165 10.1558/lexi.20992 Sinicization as glocalization in The Chinese–English Dictionary http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/20870 <p>This study explores the Chineseness on different levels as displayed in the lexicographic text of The Chinese–English Dictionary (unabridged, 1st volume, 2015) (CED) and interprets it as Sinicization informed by the spirit of glocalization. Adopting the discourse approach proposed by Chen (2019) as CLDS (Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies), it views CED as discourse and aims to examine and reveal how the dominant ideological powers within Chinese society may have borne on the dictionary’s distinct Sinicizing efforts. It proposes that CED has effectively challenged the established norms of bilingual lexicography involving English in mainland China in its negotiating Chinese into sharing the status of target language with English and infusing the dictionary text with rich traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, CED also demonstrates strong glocalizing tendencies in its consistent “de-ideologizing” efforts in the treatment of historic-political and cultural terms, as well as its unusual emphasis on acculturation as a translation guideline which serves well to universalize the local and vice versa.</p> Jun Ding Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 166 187 10.1558/lexi.20870 The treatment of phraseology in Chinese–English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries for learners http://journal.equinoxpub.com/lexi/article/view/20889 <p>There is little doubt that phraseology is at the heart of all language use. This paper examines the treatment of phraseology in two influential Chinese–English dictionaries and four Chinese dictionaries for learners. Two high-frequency characters, namely eat and hit, were selected due to their highly polysemous and phraseological nature, and their phraseological behaviors examined in the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. The entries in the Chinese–English dictionaries and Chinese dictionaries for learners for eat and hit were examined and their dictionary records compared with the results of the previous corpus-based study. The corpus-based identification and categorization of the phraseological behaviors of eat and hit revealed that some multi-character expressions could not be covered by the terms offered by the existing taxonomy (Sag et al., 2002). Accordingly, the taxonomy was revised for the appropriate categorization of Chinese phraseology. Comparisons between corpus-based findings and entry records in Chinese–English dictionaries showed a convergence in the overall treatment of phraseology in Chinese–English dictionaries. By contrast, inconsistencies in the learners’ dictionaries were observed. It was also found that the two Chinese–English dictionaries agree with each other on the overall inclusion and exclusion of phrases. Again, we also observed many differences in the way phrases are treated between Chinese–English dictionaries and learners’ dictionaries and also among the four learners’ dictionaries. It is worth noting that hardly any of the verb-particle constructions observed in the corpus are included in the dictionaries under observation. We propose that these constructions should also be treated as phrases and the dictionaries would be more user-friendly if these phrases were not hidden in the other longer phrases, and were given the same status as the headwords. A larger corpus and sampling in the future would better characterize the taxonomy of Chinese phraseology and provide more conclusive findings.</p> Xuhua Zhang Anna Jia Gander Copyright (c) 2021 Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2021-12-17 2021-12-17 8 2 188 204 10.1558/lexi.20889