TY - JOUR
AU1 - Chen,, Wenge
AB - Abstract Ideology and power, the vital concerns of critical lexicography, are aspects of a dictionary that a lexicographer and a discerning dictionary user have to encounter in any serious lexicographical enterprise (Kachru 1995); however, critical lexicography as a theme did not receive much attention until Kachru and Kahane (1995). This term later appeared in Hornscheidt (2011) and Moon (2014). However, to date there has not been any systematic theoretical exemplification of what critical lexicography is and how critical lexicographical research is done. Additionally, the scope and function of critical lexicography is relatively limited when we consider the global context, since it fails to take into account theoretical and methodological inspirations from other disciplines such as Critical Discourse Studies and/or Postcolonial Studies, which would make it more theoretically robust and analytically explanatory. With this gap in mind, this paper proposes a discourse approach to Critical Lexicography, termed Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies (CLDS), as a response to the call for lexicographers’ ‘social accountability’. Specifically, the article puts forward a definition of CLDS and its key concepts, denotes its ontological, epistemological and methodological orientations, delineates its principles, proposes a tentative analytic framework and demonstrates a simplified case study. The article argues that a discourse approach to critical lexicography opens up space to understand different meaning-making practices and contestation in lexicography. In doing so, this article contributes to the development of international (English) lexicography and the language(s) it represents. 1. Introduction: The ‘Why’ of a discourse approach to critical lexicography Lexicography and its products, dictionaries, are never value-free, apolitical or asocial. Instead, they are subject to ideology, power and politics. In 2016, The Oxford Dictionary of English was accused of being sexist for its use of ‘a rabid feminist’ as example phrase for ‘rabid’. At first, the publisher responded ‘flippantly’ to the criticism, saying that ‘Our example sentences come from real-world use’, but it later apologized and agreed to review this example and others1. As far back as 1924, the Jewish Chronicle objected to the publication of unlabelled senses for the word ‘Jew’ in Oxford University Press (OUP) dictionaries: ‘unscrupulous usurer or bargainer’ and ‘to cheat, overreach’. OUP dictionary publisher R.W. Chapman is said to have replied that ‘it is no part of the duty of a lexicographer to pass judgement on the justice or the propriety of current usage’ and that ‘the real question is not whether a phrase is rude, but whether it is current’ (Benson 2002: 50). However, OUP finally yielded to the request that these senses should be labelled as derogatory and in modern dictionaries definitions of this kind are normally accompanied by warning labels indicating that the usage is offensive or potentially offensive (Benson 2002). In 2008, the publication in South Korea of The Chinese-Korean Dictionary compiled by a Korean university, which claimed it to be the most comprehensive Chinese dictionary, brought not a sense of glory to many Chinese but anguish, shame, and indignity over the potential loss of discursive power in the field of Chinese lexicography. These lexicographical incidents point to the fact that lexicography does not take place in a vacuum. Lexicography is never a disembodied activity. As Chen and Zhao (2014) have argued, modern lexicography must become more critical. A further reason in support of this position relates to the fact that the courts have come to use the dictionary meanings of words in their decisions, for the dictionary offers ‘an authority seen as objective and general’ (Hutton 2009: 101). However, from a critical perspective, this assumption needs to be questioned, especially since we are witnessing increasing cases of legal and political disputes concerning the definition of certain words and terms like ‘unborn’. Obviously, there is an ideological interest vested in dictionary definitions. Ideology and power, the vital concerns of critical lexicography, are aspects of a dictionary that a lexicographer and a discerning dictionary user have to encounter in any serious lexicographical enterprise (Kachru 1995: Introduction). For example, when Samuel Johnson stated in his Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language that ‘barbarous or impure words and expressions, may be branded with some note of infamy, as they are carefully to be eradicated wherever they are found’ (Johnson 1747:29), he already had his prescriptivist ideology manifested. Studies on the ideological practices in dictionary making have extensively covered issues such as gender (Gershuny 1974; Whitcut 1984; Hennessy 1994; Cowie 1995; Hoey 1996; Moon 2014), racism and religion (Burchfield 1991; Willinsky 1994; Benson 2002; Hornscheidt 2008; Ogilvie 2013), politics and class (Moon 1989; Desmet et al. 1990; Ezquerra 1995; Farina 1995; Kim 1995; Wierzbicka 1995; Seokju 2001; Baider 2006). However, critical lexicography as a theme has not truly been granted the full attention of scholars. Kachru and Kahane (1995) is perhaps the first publication to do so. Though the term has appeared in passing in Hornscheidt (2011) and Moon (2014), to date there has not been any systematic theoretical clarification of what critical lexicography is (or should be) and how critical lexicographical research is done. In general, existing studies on lexicographical ideology have fallen short in two major aspects. First, they tend to stop at describing the linguistic manifestations of ideology in the lexicographical text, without going further to interpret the relationship between the lexicographical text and the social processes of the interaction, let alone to explain the relationship between the social processes and the social context. That is, an analysis of the relationship between lexicographical texts, processes, and their social conditions (both the immediate situational context and the broader institutional and social conditions) is in general missing from research on lexicographical ideology. Second, they tend to focus on monolingual dictionaries in the once colonizer nations such as the United Kingdom and Demark, giving little attention to those in the once colonized nations. The cross-cultural and social power and resistance between them is largely neglected. Such inadequacy is increasingly prominent in the global context. Kachru’s (1995: 422) alert in the afterword of Cultures, Ideologies and the Dictionary still applies to the present day: This age-old pastime (lexicography) is gradually becoming essentially an enterprise of the multinational publishing industry, with immense technological power to support it. One wonders, what are the implications of this overwhelming technological resource, particularly when controlled by multinational publishing houses? One might ask: In what ways will this increasing concentration of resources further widen the North vs. South divide? What will be its ideological and cultural implications? Benson (2002) raises the same question of why, in the post-imperial age, a dictionary designed for the age of imperialism (Oxford English Dictionary) should remain not only the model, but also the leading site, for the lexicography of English as an international language, and calls for attention to the discursive construction of the English language as an object. A discourse approach to critical lexicography, which is emancipatory in nature, is rather necessary in the context of post-colonial (English) lexicography. While many people in postcolonial Peripheral English communities like New Zealand or countries like Australia and Canada are pleased to see the emergence of post-colonial dictionaries of regional Englishes and may feel relieved that their regional English has gained acceptance and freed themselves from their colonial pasts and therefore find it a victory in constructing their own English dictionaries, they still feel their English is under threat from perceived prestige forms of English (especially British English), or from a culturally dominant form of English (American English). Regional English dictionaries continue to be denigrated because they are judged to be inferior in terms of an external prestige model. The denigration may come from many levels, ranging from the speakers of Centre English to the lexicographers from the Centre. For example, in a review of Macquarie Dictionary, an Australian regional English dictionary, Robert Burchfield, the editor of A Supplement to The Oxford English Dictionary documented a catalogue of its lexicographical infelicities and referred to ‘its occasional charming unawareness of the standard professional requirements of reputable lexicography outside Australia’ (Burchfield 1982, quoted in Benson 2002). Up to now, English lexicography is Anglo/America-centred, and the practice is culturally imperialistic. Yet, the paradigmatic discussions so far still revolve around the view of the dictionary as a material product, with little attention given to the importance of discourse in constructing authority and emancipation in relation to lexicography. In the context of postcolonial lexicography and World Englishes when (English) dictionaries are considered to constitute (linguistic) independence (Huddart 2014), and when lexicographers are called upon to address the culture-specific dimension of knowledge sharing in today’s global village and broaden their cultural viewpoint’ (Kermas 2012: 75), research into the dictionary’s role in reproducing and transforming global/social inequality is still scarce. A discourse approach to critical lexicography is thus needed to unmask the power relations behind, and the ways in which language serves to sustain or disrupt the relation in the global context, before a change in the status quo is possible, as such an approach — with emphasis on social context — enables a practitioner to look at the lexicographical event as a social event and the dictionary as discourse with its own rules and principles. A discourse approach to critical lexicography may also contribute to the growing research in meta-lexicography, which, some might suggest, falls within the field of Applied Linguistics, and one demerit of which is that it tends to operate in a decontextualized context. As Cameron (2005) points out, the general tenet of linguistics and sociolinguistics that it is involved in description rather than prescription is problematic since ‘both prescriptivism and anti-prescriptivism invoke certain norms and circulate particular notions about how language ought to work’ (Cameron 2005: 8). To claim that linguistic or sociolinguistic descriptions of language are objective or value-neutral goes against any more complex understanding of the politics of knowledge and would lead to a problematic emphasis on ‘appropriacy’ (Fairclough 1995: 218). By contrast, a critical view of language would emphasize the fact that prestigious social groups have established these conventions: they are not ‘natural’ or necessarily the way they are (Pennycook 2001). Fairclough (1992a) proposes critical language awareness, arguing that models of language variation based upon the concept of appropriateness project a misleading and unsustainable image of sociolinguistic practice and how sociolinguistic orders are structured. He goes on to suggest that the appropriateness version of language variation, with its presuppositions that the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate is clear-cut, that such appropriacy is the same for all members of a community, and that there is a clear match between language variants and contexts of use, simply does not hold up under critical scrutiny, and that the notion of appropriacy needs to be understood ideologically (Fairclough 1992a: 48). This critical view of language has been much emphasized in critical pedagogy, critical applied linguistics and feminist pedagogy to empower the learners, but less so in lexicography. A critical dimension of lexicography involves constant scepticism and questioning of the normative assumptions, would help improve critical language awareness, whose aim is to empower learners as well as professionals (lexicographers in the present case) by providing them with a critical analytical framework. It would also help them reflect on their own language experiences and practices and on the language practices of others in the institutions to which they belong, and in the wider society within which they live (Clark and Ivanič 1997), as well as to engage in the struggle to contest and change such practices. Such a critical turn requires scholars to engage with what is going on ‘beyond the text’, i.e., to relate the text to specific social contexts. Furthermore, an important rationale for a discourse approach to critical lexicography is to further develop the existing theories of dictionary criticism. Traditional practices of dictionary criticism tend to be asocial. Traditional dictionary critics are committed to the identification of what is bad or good about a dictionary from a user perspective, but without taking into account the social context and power relations surrounding the production of a dictionary. They tend to see the dictionary as a product rather than a process. A criticism of a dictionary without considering the relevant social context arguably will not be fair or objective enough (Chen 2015) as it fails to understand the contingent relationships between the dictionary as discourse and the society and other discourses. 2. The possibility of CLDS: The critical paradigmatic shifts of lexicography paving the way for CLDS Though the view of the dictionary as a reference tool has been dominant for thousands of years, various alternative views of the dictionary have emerged to challenge this dominant view. These alternative views, with their strengths and weaknesses, have contributed to the development of a discourse approach to critical lexicography (termed here Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies and hereinafter CLDS). 2.1 Dictionary as text Frawley (1989) formulates the dictionary as text from seven criteria of textuality, i.e. cohesion, coherence, acceptability, informativity, intentionality, situationality and intertextuality. He argues that the dictionary as text can be approached from four positions, that is, from the position of text as an autonomous object, from the position of the writer or the producer, from the position of the reader or the receiver and from the totality of the three positions. The four positions call attention to both the inner text structure of the dictionary and the external forces of the production of a dictionary. Informed by Frawley, Yong and Peng (2007) observe that the dictionary bears striking resemblance to text from a structural point of view: on a megastructural level, a dictionary begins with the front matter, which serves as an introduction. This is then followed by the body part of the dictionary (i.e. dictionary text), which tells the main story (typically, meanings and usage of words). What comes after the body text is the back matter, which concludes the dictionary with supplementary material to the main story. The view of the dictionary as text provides an important foundation for CLDS because it is at the textual level that ideology in a (lexicographical) discourse is triggered. However, Frawley’s conceptualization of the dictionary as text focuses mainly on the information structure of the lexicographical text and neglects the external social factors. 2.2 Dictionary as communication Inspired by modern communication theory and systemic functional linguistics, Yong and Peng (2007) propose seeing the dictionary as communication, in that dictionary making is in essence a process of information dissemination and sharing. In their model, the dictionary compiler and dictionary user communicate in the context of the dictionary. Context is represented by ‘dictionary’ and is realized through selecting various options under ‘field’ (e.g. lexicographical message), ‘mode’ (e.g. ways of presenting lexicographical message) and ‘tenor’ (e.g. interpersonal relations between the dictionary compiler and the user). Dictionary-making is realized by making a series of choices of field, mode and tenor, and putting them into operation. Yong and Peng’s dynamic communicative model of lexicography rectifies the traditional lexicographer’s neglect of the dictionary as a social cultural act. It offers an inspirational insight to CLDS as it innovatively integrates text and context, and the relationship between text and context is the vital concern of CLDS, which seeks to relate the socio-linguistic features of a lexicographic text to status, control and power relations between participants in a dictionary. Its weakness is that it shies away from power structures and ideological struggle in the lexicographical process. 2.3 Dictionary as intertext Frawley (1985) draws inspiration from post-structural, deconstructionist literary criticism for a theory of text and accounts for lexicography as a form of writing, like history: just as there is only historicizing, the activity of writing historical texts, there is only lexicographizing, the activity of writing lexicographical texts (Frawley 1985). Hence, lexicography, like history, does not exist proper, but exists simply as there are dictionaries written. This view of the dictionary as writing accounts for two things: dictionaries are selective, deconstructive and incomplete, and that any attempts to strip the dictionary of ideology and bias are themselves ideological acts. According to Frawley (1985), the dictionary emerges in a culture as a text that mediates the opacity in the written representation system to allow its user access to new signifiers and hence access to other texts. In other words, dictionaries are texts for other texts. From the deconstructionist point of view, the dictionary as text is endless and self-deconstructing; it deconstructs itself in active production and reception. In Frawley’s words, a dictionary is self-deconstructing because while a written definition includes a meaning of a word, it also excludes another. The dictionary as a text is made by the reading of it, so it is subject to plurality. The user reads signifiers explicating other signifiers instead of locating the semantic answer. By exploring the intertextual nature of the dictionary, Frawley dismisses the idea of seeing the dictionary as fixed answers or something that has a beginning or an end. The view of the dictionary as intertext and as writing is deconstructive, a view which is important for CLDS as it allows us to explain the plurality in defining words and the emergence of different dictionaries with different ideological interests. 2.4 Dictionary as discourse Benson (2002) proposes the dictionary as discourse, using ideas from Foucault (1979) that social practice is conditioned by historically specific rules for the production and distribution of knowledge. He seeks to reveal the ethnocentric representation in the English dictionaries published in Britain/USA and to show how knowledge in the English dictionaries is filtered through Anglo-American perspectives on English in the world (Benson 2002, Preface). Benson argues that the structures of monolingual (English in his study) dictionaries represent a particular way of producing and distributing knowledge of language that is bound up with broader issues of social power and control, and that the dictionary as discourse on language cannot be considered independently of other discourses that contribute to our knowledge of the world, and the social practices contingent upon it. He showcases that the Oxford English Dictionary was more or less explicitly a project of British imperialism concerned with the consolidation of English as the dominant language of the world. Hornscheidt (2008) sees dictionaries as discourse formation in their own right. Focusing on colonialism and racism in Danish monolingual dictionaries, he seeks to answer how ideological factors can be localized in dictionaries and what consequences they bring about. Hornscheidt’s study, though claiming the use of Critical Discourse Studies (hereinafter CDS) as the framework, does not follow the CDS methodological approach. For example, he doesn’t explain how the construction of meaning came about in the Danish dictionary. I conceptualize lexicography as recontextualization and examine how the dictionary as discourse covaries with society (Chen 2015), how the lexicographers construct the lexicographer-user relations (Chen 2017a), how power and resistance play out in the recontextualization of lexicographic discourse across languages and cultures to result in the transformation of meaning (Chen 2017b), and how discursive and language resources are appropriated by bilingual lexicographers to establish solidarity with the powerful linguistic community and to create affiliation with members of their community (Chen 2018). Though I (Chen 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018) have exemplified how critical discourse studies of the dictionary could be done, owing to constraints of space and research focus, I have not yet put forward a systematic explanation of what CLDS is. However, these several case studies on the dictionary as discourse (Chen 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018) will be drawn on here as examples of CLDS. 3. The ‘What’ of a discourse approach to critical lexicography 3.1 Key concepts of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is devoted to the informed critiques of lexicography, which is grounded in a synergy perspective from Critical (social) Theory, Critical Discourse Studies and Postcolonial Studies. The key tenet of CLDS is to expose and seek remedies against social/cultural inequalities and injustices. It rests on the assumption that lexicography is a recontextualizing practice and that the dictionary, as a recontextualized discourse, is closely associated with other social/discursive practices and a site where ideological and social struggles take place. As a recontextualized discourse, the dictionary does not simply replicate its source or just ‘transport’ meaning; rather, it creates meaning; it rewrites and represents things in new ways (Chen 2015). CLDS highlights sociolinguistic/sociopolitical agency in the transformation of one discourse/text to another (or even in the transfer of one word from one context to another). By relocating meaning in a new context, the dictionary as a recontextualized discourse not only erodes the polyvalence of the source but may also serve to deliberately maintain or disrupt existing power relations as the recontextualization follows social rules but not logical facts (See Bernstein 2003: 184). The following definitions of the key concepts of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies provide insights into its nature. Critical Critique is ‘essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things’ (Fairclough 1995: 36). ‘Critical’ does not mean ‘negative’ as in common-sense usage. Instead of being taken for granted, any social phenomenon subjects itself to critical investigation and challenge. Critique is ‘a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest’ (Foucault 1998: 155). It ‘is the mechanism for both explaining social phenomena and for changing them’ (Fairclough et al. 2011: 358). To be critical means to link ‘social and political engagement’ with ‘a sociologically informed construction of society’ (Titscher and Jenner 2000: 88). A researcher in critical lexicographical discourse analysis should embed the lexicographical data in the social context, taking a political stance explicitly and focus on self-reflection as a scholar. Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies seeks to produce and convey critical knowledge that enables both lexicographers and dictionary users as well as to ‘emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self-reflection’ (Wodak and Meyer 2015). It seeks to root out a particular kind of delusion about lexicography. Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is oriented to critiquing and improving society (e.g. contributing to social equality) by looking into and revealing the hidden power relations in lexicographical practice. Power Analysing and critiquing the relationship of discourse and power is a central task for CLDS researchers. CLDS follows Wodak and Meyer’s perception of power as being about relations of difference, and particularly about the effect of difference in social structures (Wodak and Meyer 2015: 34). Power ‘comes from the privileged access to social resources such as education, knowledge and wealth’, which eventually enables dominant groups to exert ‘domination, coercion and control of subordinate groups’ (Simpson and Mayr 2010: 2). Embedded in the dictionary are both discoursal and institutional power. Fairclough (2015: 27) goes on to distinguish between power in discourse and power behind discourse. Power in discourse refers to the exercise of power in ‘unequal encounters’, where one participant controls the contribution of others as in job interviews. Fairclough also refers to hidden power in situations where people who are unequal in power are not co-present. For example, there is inequality of power between the lexicographers and the dictionary users (Chen 2017a). Power behind discourse, also hidden power, refers to the power to shape and constitute orders of discourse, or what discourses and genres are available as examples to those who have access to them. In lexicography, power behind discourse may refer to those cases where those powerful groups within the (English) lexicography use their power to establish norms and to impose changes which eventually transform the order of discourse. That the dictionary is a tool of language standardization and that the dictionary differentiates between standard and non-standard varieties are good cases in point for power behind discourse. People with economic power shape opinions, attitudes and actions in social life, including lexicographical practices. Who (the national government or an international publisher, a national or a local publisher) funds a regional (English) dictionary2 may result in different lexicographical texts and will be revealing of the role of power in lexicography. Power in (English) lexicography to some extent corresponds to hegemony in lexicography, which can be reflected in Benson’s worry that ‘many English-using regions lack both the financial and academic resources and a sufficient local market to support a general dictionary of English compiled from their own perspective’ (Benson 2002:111). Power shapes lexicographic knowledge in more or less explicit ways. These include situations in which political interest openly censors or alters dictionaries, as in the former Soviet Union when the reigning political ideology affected every dictionary published (Jones 2001). In a less explicit but still highly muscular fashion, dictionaries give social meanings to a certain dialect/usage, highlighting the ‘standard’ variety, emphasizing elite discourse and cancelling undesirable language use or social facts. Even the supposedly objective and neutral historical Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a locus of power/knowledge production: the rule of ethnocentricity has brought the lexicographers of the OED to use Britain as the centre of the dictionary (cf. Benson 2002). However, power is not in itself bad (Fairclough 2015: 27), and where there is power, there is resistance. Take English lexicography as an example. Although Anglo-American lexicography has been dominant, lexicography as a science has been conducive to the formation of nations. As Seargeant (2011: 6) points out, ‘it is only when a world variety of English is supported by codification chiefly through national dictionaries that one can make a strong claim that such a variety is institutionalized’. One notable improvement in this regard is seen in post-colonial New Zealand and Australian lexicography, where the impulse to mirror the natural and social environment of the regions has been particularly strong (Deverson 2001: 29). Regional English lexicography, by creating a new way of thinking about the language and the world, has led to the collapse of the lexicographical wall. Dictionaries of other ‘regional’ English varieties, the most representative of them being the Australian National Dictionary, have emerged to disrupt the existing lexicographical order, and have produced a new perspective on the language of English, offering an example of recursive relationship between power, lexicography, and knowledge. This resistance by regional Englishes should not be viewed as counter-productive; rather, resistance is a positive force that can stimulate power to reorganize, adapt and multiply (Knights and Vurdubakis 1994). Resistance in the bilingualized dictionary in peripheral countries is conducive to dialogues between Central and Peripheral English lexicography, thus contributing to the development of English and English lexicography (Chen 2017b). By initiating such a ‘dialogical struggle’ (Hardy and Phillips 2004: 304), Peripheral English lexicographers may develop their own lexicographical discourse (Chen 2017b). However, it is worth noting that regional dictionaries are just as liable to reproduce injustices and inequalities at the regional levels as Centre dictionaries are at their level. Text Halliday and Hasan (1976: 1) emphasize that ‘a text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It may be anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-day discussion on a committee’. Therefore, the length of text is no decisive factor in deciding a stretch of language as text. ‘Any passage, spoken or written, of any length, that does form a unified whole’ is text (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 1). Therefore, the whole dictionary, with its stable structure, can be seen as text or supertext to be distinguished from other smaller units in a dictionary. Dictionary texts are unlike ‘mainstream texts’ whose adjacent components normally form continuous prose. They are, in Hoey’s term, colony texts3 (Hoey 1986; Hoey 1996), whose adjacent components, the entries, do not enjoy clear semantic relationships. However, while there are normally no relations such as cause-consequence or contrast holding between adjacent components of a colony, there may be strong relations holding between non-adjacent components (Hoey 1986). Hoey (1996) and I (Chen 2015) show that colony texts such as a dictionary can be equally revealing of ideology. In Chen (2015), I also acknowledge Fairclough’s (2003) highlight of context in the definition of texts as linguistic/semiotic elements of social events. Ideology Texts project meaning; therefore, they evoke ideologies (Tabbert 2015). Ideology is a central concept in CLDS, but its definition is rather elusive. Wodak and Meyer define ideology as a collectively shared ‘coherent and relatively stable set of beliefs or values’ (Wodak and Meyer 2015: 30) while van Dijk (1988) conceptualizes ideologies as the ‘worldviews’ that constitute ‘social cognition’, as ‘schematically organized complexes of representations and attitudes with regard to certain aspects of the social world’ (van Dijk 2003: 258). That is, socially, ideologies sustain the interests of groups; cognitively, they serve to organize the social representations (attitudes, knowledge) of the group, and thus indirectly monitor the group-related social practices, and hence also the text and talk of its members. Ideology is transmitted, enacted and reproduced primarily through language (Teo 2000), which is itself not neutral, but ‘a highly constructed mediator’ (Simpson 1993: 7). To uncover ideology in the dictionary, we examine the language it uses. To cover the broad research scope of lexicographical ideology, CLDS adopts Fowler and Hodge’s (1979: 6) definition of ideology as ‘a systematic body of ideas, organized from a particular point of view’, as this definition is relatively broadly inclusive. Dictionaries, both as representation of languages and of society and the world, are carriers of ideologies. Lexicographers and their products are part of the ideological reproduction system. Ideologies help structure (lexicographical) action, and therefore inform the discursive production and content of lexicographical texts and the associated behaviours of lexicographers. This links ideologies to discourses. Discourse The term discourse can be defined as ‘an institutionalized way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby exerts power’ (Jäger and Maier 2001: 192). Discourse exercises power in society by institutionalizing and regulating ways of talking, thinking and acting. Discourse in CLDS follows the Foucauldian approach: lexicographical discourse is bound up with knowledge and power. Each discourse is defined by a set of rules or principles, which are produced within social practice so that issues of knowledge are intimately tied up with issues of power and control. To describe a discourse involves asking questions such as ‘what rules permit certain statements to be made; what rules order these statements; what rules permit us to identify some statements as true and others as false; what rules govern the construction of a map, model or classificatory system?’ (Philp 1985: 69). In the case of lexicography, we need to ask what rules govern the construction of the (English) dictionary. To understand how the dictionary as discourse operates, Berti’s (2017) comparison of discourse to a map, to organizing and to a mask is rather helpful. First, dictionaries as discourses on languages, like maps, are representational practices that instead of reproducing reality are selecting differences that matter. Just as ‘the map is not the territory’ (Korzybski 1958: 247), the dictionary is not the language at all. ‘Maps are not a faithful representation of a territory, but an edited record of impressions based on other representations (e.g. sets of geographical coordinates and other selected information on the examined territory), which in turn represent but one particular way of making sense of a perceived space. They play a central role in the social production of space (Berti 2017: 75). Likewise, the dictionary cannot faithfully represent the language reality. What can be included in a dictionary is subject to the lexicographer’s particular way of seeing the word in relation to the social context he/she is in. They form what Frawley (1985) calls a lexicographical space. In the computerized age, lexicographers now tend to rely less on their intuition and more on corpus evidence. However, no corpus is value-neutral (Hoey 1996). The corpus chosen for a dictionary tended to prioritize written and published texts of those male writers. Consequently, what the corpus reflects—not exclusively but nevertheless strongly—is the value-system, as enshrined in their language, of the male-oriented establishment. The corpus is in large part a collection of instances of language being used as an instrument of power and control (Hoey 1996). In describing the usage of words based on such a corpus, lexicographers have to compromise with that ideology. Second, lexicographical discourses, like maps, create a shared Grand Illusion that allows us to give coherent meanings to an ever-transforming and infinitely textured world (cf. Berti 2017): by doing so they emphasize or hide features of the language/society. Like a map that cannot include every region, every geographical feature of the terrain, a dictionary represents and highlights (thus legitimatizing) or ignoring (thus negating) the existence of a dialect/language, and a word’s usage. On other occasions, lexicographers explicitly choose to ignore certain dimensions completely to serve the purpose of the dictionary: for example, a bilingual dictionary may alter the sense order of the equivalents in the target language of the words in the source language. By examining what is included or excluded in a lexicographical discourse, we can infer its implicit assumptions and ideologies. Third, while cartographers create a ‘spatial panopticon’ (Harley 1988: 3) where the map serves as the window through which the objective reality of the terrain is made visible as an object of social knowledge and is used to normalize and discipline subjects, influencing their perception of the world, the lexicographers of the dictionary (the Oxford English Dictionary) create a ‘lexical panopticon’ within which the historical depth and geographical breadth of the language and the world as it had been made known through the language can be exposed (cf. Benson 2002). For example, Encarta World English Dictionary (Rooney and Soukhanov 1999) defines ‘durian’ as ‘a tree found in the tropical rain forests of Southeast Asia that has foul-smelling but deliciously flavoured fruits’. The word ‘found’ indicates that it is the Anglo-American perspective but not an Asian one. The use of evaluative words ‘foul-smelling but deliciously flavoured’ exoticizes the durian and represents the construction of knowledge of the periphery countries. Obviously, the lexicographical reality is socially constructed and is confined to the ‘panopticon’ the dictionary creates. CLDS follows Fairclough’s (1992b: 4) definition of discourse: discourse is a three-tiered concept consisting of ‘a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice and an instance of social practice’. The definition gives credit to the structural and the social aspects of language use, which are mutually inclusive. As for the relationship between text and discourse, Bartlett (2012: 9) states that ‘placing text within its historical and social context is what makes it discourse’. Therefore, text can be viewed as the concretization of discourse. The relationship between language, text, ideology and discourse can be set as follows: discourse is the carrier of ideology, which is in turn triggered at the level of language or textual level (Tabbert 2015: 30). 3.2 What in the dictionary is subject to critique in CLDS? After defining the key concepts of CLDS, we need to be aware of what is in the dictionary that becomes the target of critique in CLDS. The answer is evident if we look at the three fundamental assumptions about language that dictionary-making is generally based on. The three assumptions, according to Seargeant (2011), are: 1) languages consist of words, which are meaningful; 2) words have basic fixed meanings; and 3) words are part of a ‘language’. The three assumptions are the good starting point of a CLDS. First, the dictionary’s prioritizing written language over spoken language is ideological in nature, for to bias ‘langue’ against ‘parole’ is a ‘rhetoric of standardization’ which serves the ‘transmutation of standard languages into mythical national languages’ (Fairclough 1989: 22). Dictionaries therefore serve as a tool of codification for such standardization. Second, as sociolinguistics and linguistic theorists have long demonstrated, meanings are context-dependent. The sign is impure, and the signifier is multi-valued and multi-accentual. As Volosinov put it: ‘The meaning of a word is determined entirely by its context. In fact, there are as many meanings of a word as there are contexts of its usage’ (Volosinov 1973: 21). The fixing of meaning in a dictionary is the result of an ideological reduction of ‘muti-accentuality’ and therefore is a matter of power. It is of limited value to think of a language as having a vocabulary that can be documented in a dictionary, because there are a great many overlapping and competing vocabularies corresponding to different domains, institutions, practices, values and perspectives (Fairclough 1992b: 76). Therefore, practices such as the dictionary’s privileging of context-independent referential meaning over connotational and collocational meanings, its suppression of the multiplicity of the sign of a language and its prioritizing of the language of print and literature are ideological and largely a matter of power. In other words, it is power that decides which words are to be included in a dictionary, how those words should be defined and which meaning of a word is central. Power restricts the plenitude of potential meanings of a word. Therefore, to do CLDS, we may examine what words are included/excluded and how words are defined and commented on, among others, to infer the ideological features of the dictionary and relate them to the context of production. 4. The ‘How’ of a discourse approach to critical lexicography: Principles, methods, a framework 4.1 Fundamental principles of critical lexicographical discourse studies Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is understood as a critical orientation, an endeavour to challenge the received wisdom and knowledge in dictionary making. It seeks to expose the ways in which discourse constitutes and reconstitutes social arrangement in a lexicographical setting. It emphasizes how discourse is used to produce, maintain or resist power, control and inequality through ideology and hegemony (Mumby and Clair 1997). CLDS sees lexicography as sites of struggle in which different groups compete to shape the social reality in ways that serve their own interests and in ways that enable them to exercise or resist social control and any lexicographical text (the dictionary proper) is a social act, a product of the socio-political and historical context in which it exists. Ontologically, CLDS sees the objectivity and authority of the dictionary as a discursive construct, a social fact rather than a natural fact. It tends to reject universalism, essentialism, and exceptionalism in defining meaning, and — instead — aims to prioritize specificity, context, and history. However, it does not follow that CLDS denies that there is meaning shared by people. Rather, it is suggested that the dictionary does not start out ‘possessing’ meaning, and that there is a discursive, political, and cultural process by which meaning has come to be ‘fixed’, an idea that is obscured in the dictionary as a product. Meanings are created and contested through negotiation, and are liable to change. Epistemologically, CLDS sees knowledge as a social process and highlights the subjectivity of the lexicographers and meta-lexicographers, and the links between knowledge and power. In other words, a critical approach to lexicographical studies starts with the acceptance that wholly objective or neutral knowledge — ‘truth’ — about the language and the world is impossible and there is always an ideological, ethical-political dimension to the lexicographical process. This does not mean that all knowledge about the language and the world is hopelessly insecure; instead, it is suggested that besides a commitment to the highest standards of scholarship in lexicography, lexicographic research and practice should also be characterized by a continuous and critical reflexivity regarding its epistemology and praxis. Such reflexivity will get a researcher thinking: who is dictionary and dictionary research for, and how does lexicographical knowledge support their interests? The ontological and epistemological positions adopted by CLDS entail embedding lexicographical research and practice in broader social and cultural contexts. Another mission of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is to question some of the linguistic and lexicographical categorizations and norms introduced by European linguistics which have tended to be taken as universal and received no further critique or challenge (Hornscheidt 2011), which is also part of postcolonial linguistics. Methodologically, CLDS does not privilege a certain method; it adheres to the research ethics that consider human emancipation, and which address social inequality. It adopts an anti-hegemonic, and critical standpoint which requires a certain amount of intellectual and moral wisdom because it invariably engenders vigorous opposition from interests vested in the status quo. The adjective ‘critical’ in Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies emphasizes the continued need to critically reflect on the lexicographical practices and norms in the research. The critical perspective means that the researchers need to make clear their political stance as ‘critique’ is naturally subjective. The notion of criticism is taken from Critical Discourse Studies and the tenet of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is identical to that of Critical Discourse Studies. Therefore, the principles of Critical Discourse Studies are adopted and revised for and made relevant to Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies: 1) CLDS addresses social problems As with CDS, a central claim of CLDS is that major social and political processes and movements have a partly linguistic-discursive character and that social and political changes in contemporary society generally include a substantive element of cultural and ideological change. CLDS highlights linguistic and semiotic analysis and links such analysis to problems of social processes and struggles of dominated groups. That is, the focus of the CLDS analysis is not on language per se or the use of language, but on the partially linguistic character of social and cultural processes and structures. CLDS may be used to address how hegemony has come into being in English lexicography and how such hegemony manifests linguistically. For example, we may investigate, as Benson (2002) did, how the lexicographers of the OED create a ‘lexical panopticon’, within which the historical depth and geographical breadth of the language and the world could be exposed for examination from the perspective of the linguistic centre. To take an example, the OED (OED 1989) defines ‘Opium War’ as: a war waged by Britain against China (1839–1842) following China’s attempt to prohibit the importation of opium into China; also, a later war (1856–1860) against China by Britain and France. The OED’s definition attributes the opium war to China’s act of ‘prohibiting’ the importation of opium, which contradicts China’s official view which attributes it to the European imperialist aggressors. CLDS may also be used to examine how the dictionary as discourse influences social understanding of what a language actually is and what the world is like. For example, in Chen (2015), I showcase how A New English-Chinese Dictionary, the most popular bilingual dictionary in China, appropriated the dominant ‘classism’ discourse and ‘revolutionary’ (source) language in their text, and constructed the so-called ‘revolutionary English’ and ‘othered’ the western imperialist nations. A CLDS researcher will set out to explicate the social, political, and historical conditions that shape the dictionary as it is/was, and should seek to address social problems to be socially accountable. 2) Power relations in the lexicographical practice are discursive CLDS highlights the substantively linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies. It examines how power relations are exercised and negotiated in discourse. It not only pays attention to power in discourse, i.e. the capacity to control participants in the discourse but also to power over discourse, i.e. the capacity to control and change the ground rules of discursive practices and the structure of the order of discourse. For example, we can focus on discursive aspects of power struggle and of the transformation of power relations through the examination of the development and change of relevant lexicographical discourse. The tension between regional English lexicography and central English lexicography can be partly seen as ongoing hegemonic struggle in discourse and over discourse. As an example, we may explore how the rise of American lexicography and later Australian and South African lexicography have led to a collapse in the lexicographical wall and disrupted the existing order and how these once ‘regional’ English dictionaries have produced a new perspective on the (heterogeneous) language that is English. Or as Benson (2002) inspires, we can go on to unveil the discursive construction of the English dictionaries as an object and the authority of the Centre English lexicography through scrutiny of dictionary reviews written by lexicographers. My (Chen 2017) examination of how Chinese lexicographers and their British counterparts negotiated with each other over the definitions of and examples for some words and terms in a bilingualized dictionary is representative of studies on the discursive struggle in the lexicographical practice. 3) Lexicographical discourse constitutes society and culture It is a key claim of CLDS that discourse is constituted by society and culture but also more importantly it constitutes them. That is, there exists a dialectical relation between discourse and society. The power of discourse lies in the fact that every instance of language use contributes to reproducing and/or transforming society and culture. It simultaneously constitutes a representation of the world, relations and identities. The implication of this principle is that we can examine how the dominant central English dictionaries are shaped as a result of the Centre-Periphery power relations or how lexicographical discourse at different times may represent the language and the world and construct the lexicographer’s identities. For example, in Chen (2018), I exemplify how discursive and language resources were appropriated by bilingual lexicographers to establish solidarity with the powerful linguistic community, and to create affiliation with members of their community, and thus to avoid political consequences. One example is that when a word is defined, its political meaning would be prioritized. Also, in Chen (2018), I show how the bilingual dictionary as the most-widely circulated bilingual dictionary in China helped to shape Chinese society and culture and vice versa, which is why Fishman calls to ‘interpret dictionaries in context and see them as both resultant of and constructive of their contexts’ (Fishman 1995: 34). 4) Lexicographical discourse does ideological work Dictionary-making involves using language to represent the language, or — as Benson (2002) argues — a dictionary is a meta-language about the language and a representation of the world/society seen through the lexicographer’s perspective, which may also be subject to editorial and national censorship. Lexicographers have to constantly make choices among available (meta) language(s), choices that are often tacit, but are never unimportant or inconsequential. They are not immune from ideology. Ideologies as ways of representing and constructing society reproduce unequal relations of power, relations of domination and exploitation. The language used by the lexicographers is seen as a social practice, ‘both reflecting and producing ideologies in society’ (Tabbert 2015: 35). To determine whether a discursive event does ideological work, Fairclough (1992b) and van Dijk (2003) insist that besides the analysis of texts, how texts are interpreted and received, and what social effects they have should be considered. In the case of lexicography, we can examine how ‘our’ and ‘their’ languages and people are constructed in the dictionary (Benson 2002), how sexism, colonialism, gender, ageism are constructed in the lexicographical discourse (Tenorio 2000; Moon 2014), and relate them to social, economic and historical power relations between dominant and subordinate groups. It is also important to embrace variable, idiosyncratic uptake of lexicographical text and discourse by dictionary users (cf. Bartlett 2012). 5) Lexicographical discourse is historical Discourse is not produced without context and cannot be understood without taking the context into consideration. It is always related to the past and connected to other discourse produced earlier, as well as those discourses produced synchronically and subsequently. That is why the concept of intertextuality is rather useful in CLDS. For example, we need to examine how the lexicographical discourse relates to other mainstream discourse, political or institutional. A dictionary definition is always only a (small) part of the social and cognitive factors being brought to bear on the process of understanding a lexical item: there is also a mixture of fore-knowledge, of use, and of experimentation. It therefore follows that it is a misapprehension or myth that a dictionary definition is ever entirely self-sufficient in its explicatory power (Seargeant 2011). It is intertextual. For example, by tracing the process of hybridization of lexicographical discourse and adding a historical dimension to the linguistic analysis of a lexicographic text, I (Chen 2015) show how and why democratization and commodification of lexicographic discourse in China take place. 6) The link between lexicographical text and society is mediated The relation between text and society is not direct but indirect or mediated. It is mediated by ‘orders of discourse’ (Fairclough 1992b), the practice of social actors (Smith 1990), and by social cognition (van Dijk 1985). For a Critical Discourse Studies approach to lexicography, we can show what changes have taken place in Chinese (English) lexicography, in the relationship between lexicography and politics, and how in Chinese society and culture at a more general level these are partly realized in changes in the lexicographical order of discourse, and in how lexicographical texts draw upon and articulate together discourses and genres, which had traditionally been kept apart. Such new articulations of discourses and genres are in turn realized in features of language, making an indirect, mediated link between sociocultural processes and linguistic properties of texts. ‘Lexicographic discourse is deeply embedded in certain ideological and social structures, reflecting the lexicographers’ understandings of the society at that time. They are stored in the minds of lexicographers in the form of mental models and will ultimately determine the form and content of the dictionary’s discursive behaviour. In turn, the lexicographers’ discursive practice influences the public cognition, and consequently their act, which finally leads to the change in the social structure’ (Chen 2015). 7) Lexicographical discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory The way discourse is interpreted varies according to the volume of contextual information included, as well as the intended audience. The readers/listeners, with their varied emotional, formal and cognitive schemata, may arrive at different interpretations of the same text (Fairclough and Wodak 1997). Historically, the dictionary has been regarded as objective and authoritative, which is minimally subject to ideological critique by ordinary dictionary users. Knowledge of how a dictionary is made and the power relations in English lexicography would make it easier to identify manifest and latent meanings, and to find out more about the lexicographical polices and language polices involved in a dictionary project. To conduct a critical reading of a lexicographical text, a systematic methodology and a thorough investigation of the context is needed. Therefore, the text is deconstructed and embedded in its social conditions and is linked to ideologies and power relationships. A critical audience may come to different readings from those of a non-critical audience. It is where CDS as well as CLDS differ from pure hermeneutics. CLDS also distinguishes between interpretation and explanation: interpretation is concerned with text and interaction while explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context (Fairclough 1989: 26). One’s analysis of the text is shaped and coloured by one’s interpretation of its relationship to discourse processes and wider social processes. Furthermore, it is stated that interpretations and explanations are never finished and authoritative, but that they are dynamic and open to new contexts and new information. 8) Lexicographical discourse is a form of social action CLDS is socially committed, or — as Kachru (1995) states — it emphasizes the social accountability of the lexicographer’s enterprise, particularly in the areas of gender, race, religion, and ideology. It is seen as a social movement. Its principal aims are to uncover opaqueness and power relationships in lexicographical discourse and help to address social inequality and injustice. The CLDS work can be used in schools to raise the ‘critical language awareness’ (Fairclough 1992a) and improve the critical literacy. A central task of CLDS is to reveal the hegemonic struggle between the Centre and Periphery English lexicography and to help the lexicographers in the Periphery Circle to reclaim their agency and negotiate a favourable position, and to reveal the disjuncture of the lexicographical discourses, so as to tap their emancipatory potential. One such example is seen in Hornscheidt (2011), who through the investigation of post-colonial continuities in Danish monolingual dictionaries with regard to the wording of colonialism, finds that instead of being perceived and denoted as ideology, colonialism is solely conceptualized as a historical phase. Hornscheidt (2011) argues that such a conceptualization makes a critical attitude towards colonialism in a subtle way impossible, and contributes powerfully to a wider ignorance of dictionary users towards the ideological site of colonialism, as well as having an impact, up to the present day, on the perception of racism. The proposal of discourse lexicography, which reconstructs semantics out of a certain historical, societal and communicative context (Kämper and Klosa 2010), can also be seen as a response to the call for the lexicographer’s social accountability in that a precise description of a lexeme in a certain discourse will help the users learn about the history of the word. In sum, CLDS explores how and why some lexicographical meanings become privileged, taken for granted and reified. They explain why power relations that appear fixed within organizations result from ongoing discursive struggles via a process of negotiation. CLDS also highlights the dialectic relationship between power and resistance, especially the transformative nature of lexicographical discourse. In this regard, CLDS take an intertextual approach that is sensitive to historical and social context. It focuses on how lexicographical discourse appropriates other discourse and social practices, i.e. the intertextual and interdiscursive aspects of the lexicographical discourse. Such a critical approach contributes to unpacking the implied ‘patterns and commonalities of knowledge and structures’ in (lexicographical) discourse (Wodak 2008: 6) and helps address social and linguistic inequities. 4.2 A proposed analytical framework for and methods of CLDS The focus of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies is on the dialectic relationship between the lexicographical discourse and social change. To explore the dialectic relationship, a three-tiered analytical framework (see Figure 1) based on Fairclough (1992b) is proposed as follows: Describing the text (the product of discourse, and in lexicography, the dictionary as text); Interpreting the relationship between the text and interaction (the process of production, i.e. the process by means of which the dictionary is produced and received); Explaining the relationship between interaction and social context (i.e. socio-historical conditions governing the process of production and of interpretation). The analytical framework in Figure 1 consists of three tiers of analysis: text analysis, process analysis, and social analysis. The core is textual analysis, that is, a CLDS analyst will first conduct an analysis of the dictionary as text, examining for example the choice of vocabulary in explaining the meaning of a word, the choice of illustrative examples, and the order of senses. Then, how the dictionary is produced, distributed and consumed will be explored followed by an explanation of the social context in which the dictionary is produced and consumed. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide A three-tiered analytical framework of CLDS Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide A three-tiered analytical framework of CLDS 4.3 Some central questions for critical lexicographical discourse studies Within the theoretical framework outlined above, I put forward some tentative questions for Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies. They consist of macro-level questions and micro-level questions, the latter based on Hornscheidt (2008). Macro-level questions for critical lexicographical discourse studies may include: What roles does power play in the compiling, publication and distribution of dictionaries? What is the relationship between the dictionary and the construction of national identities? How do power and resistance interplay in the construction of a dictionary? How are the norms of dictionary compilation and evaluation established and contested? How are the authority and objectivity of the dictionary constructed, and how can they be deconstructed? How is the unequal relationship between the lexicographers and the dictionary user made manifest? What is the nature of such relationship, and what are the effects of such a relationship? How does the dictionary as discourse constitute an identity for the lexicographers and the dictionary user? How does the dictionary do ideological work; for example, how are sexism, racism, ageism and colonialism constructed? What are the effects of such construction? How does the dictionary represent the world and languages? How does power play out in the definition of words in the dictionary? How are ‘us’ and ‘other’ constructed by the dictionary? How does the dictionary relate to history? How does the dictionary evolve? How does the dictionary create intertextuality with other discursive and social practices? How does the dictionary as a genre relate to other genres? How does the dictionary as discourse constitute society and culture, and how do society and culture in turn shape the dictionary? How is culture at a more general level partly realized in changes in the lexicographical order of discourse? And how does the dictionary as discourse/genre draw up and articulate together other discourses and genres? How can the lexicographical practice as a form of social action bring about social changes, and what are the emancipatory potentials of the dictionary as discourse? How can the dictionary as discourse help to achieve social equality and human progress? How does socially constructed, politically motivated, and historically determined lexicographical discourse impact on learning, and teaching, and how can we study and understand the impact? Micro-level questions of critical lexicographical discourse studies, which are based on Hornscheidt (2008), may include: General information in the preface What is said in the dictionary regarding the sources used? What kind of language usage is represented by the sources? Which sources are not considered? What norms are established? What do the dictionary entries say about the norms established? Is there any explicit reflection on the semantic and/or pragmatic theories underlying the dictionary project? Word entries Which words count as word entries in a dictionary? How can the absence of certain word entries reveal attitudes towards the assumed centrality of certain concepts and a neglect of others? Whose perspective is represented in the word entries? Meaning explanations What perspective is taken in the meaning explanations and how are they thus generalized, neutralized, or normalized? Are there any explicit or implicit evaluations concerning the meaning evaluations? Concrete usage examples What are the sources for the examples provided? Are the examples authentic or made-up? What are the concrete functions of the usage example in a dictionary entry? What is depicted as the (proto)typical usage context of a certain term by the usage examples? Metalinguistic comments How are certain usages neutralized and evaluated in metalinguistic comments? What is represented as not-normal or deviant usage by metalinguistic comments? Which groups of people are explicitly named in the context of metalinguistic comments? (See Hornscheidt 2008 for more details.) Interdiscursive features of the dictionary What are the generic features of the dictionary as a genre? With what other discourses does the dictionary have interdiscursive links? 4.4 Methods of critical lexicographical discourse studies In the previous section, I compared the dictionary as discourse to a map. A map is not the territory but in practice it produces our understanding of geography and the act of mapping shapes our territorial thinking and behaviour (Berti 2017). Likewise, the dictionary as discourse is not the language and the world it represents, but its form shapes our knowledge of the language and our understanding of the world and the language. Such a comparison emphasizes the role of differences and contrapositions. Therefore, comparison and contrast is the ideal method in conducting CLDS. Researchers can compare alternate lexicographical discourses and thus identify areas of tension. Differences break down the hegemonic sense of normality and standardization and can serve as a critical point of departure in CLDS. Detecting the meaningful contrast or transformation holding between two relevant dictionaries is a sine qua non of the effectiveness of CLDS (Chen 2015). 5. A sample case To exemplify how to conduct critical lexicographical studies from a critical discourse perspective, I present a simplified version of such a study (see Chen 2018 for a complete one). In Chen (2018), I aim to explore how Chinese bilingual lexicographers in the 1970s appropriated discursive and language resources to establish solidarity with the powerful linguistic community and to create affiliation with members of their revolutionary community to avoid political consequences. The perspective I adopt in the study (Chen 2018) is that dictionaries are not only reference tools but are also discourses in their own right, which, like other kinds of discourse, are culturally determined and culturally determining. This study applies a research method of comparison and contrast, focusing on the differences between one English-Chinese bilingual dictionary in the 1970s, A New English-Chinese Dictionary (NECD 1975) (hereinafter NECD-75) and its updated version in the 21st century and American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) (Morris 1976), a US-made monolingual English dictionary of the same period. The study can be divided into three stages: it first provides some background on the central topic of the text, i.e. Cultural Revolution in China in the 1960s-1970s (social analysis). The analysis then moves on to discuss the conditions of text production, distribution and reception that lexicographers operated under at the time the dictionary was being compiled (discourse analysis). Finally, the analysis addresses meaning shift, social actor representation and intertextuality/interdiscursivity in the lexicographical text (text analysis). Social analysis It should be noted first that the social analysis is not a neutral backdrop to a critical analysis of a text, but is itself an ideologically informed construction. The Cultural Revolution was launched in China in 1966 on the allegation that bourgeois elements had infiltrated the government and society at large, aiming to restore capitalism. The revolution was to eradicate the so-called ‘poisonous remnants of feudalism, capitalism and revisionism’ from the Chinese society. Red Guard Groups, mainly consisting of youth, were formed to carry out the revolution, which caused widespread class struggles in all walks of life. As the main tool of the class struggle, language served as an identification tool to bond and to separate one group from another. To participate in the revolution meant to use the approved language to say things which were based on the Red Books and participation in the revolutionary discourse would bring rewards while non-participation incurred punishment or trouble. As during the Cultural Revolution, English was considered to be the language of ‘the imperialists’ and of ‘the class enemies’, its linguistic value was drastically reduced. English scholars were easily suspected of ‘worshiping things foreign and fawning on foreign countries’ (崇洋媚外) or ‘fraternizing with foreign countries’ (里通国外). Those who failed to convince the Red Guards of their loyalty to revolution were either ‘transformed through labour’ or locked in the cowshed and suffered heavy criticism and both verbal and bodily attacks. Many were forced to leave the teaching jobs and thus were deprived of the right to use the language of the Revolution. Against such a socio-political background, to save themselves from political consequences and to keep their teaching jobs, the English practitioners had to actively project themselves as ‘revolutionaries’ by making clear their political stands and attitudes in revolution. Discourse analysis The dictionary under scrutiny, A New English-Chinese Dictionary (NECD-75) edited by Lu Gusun et al. was first published in 1975, but the project started much earlier, in 1970, when the Cultural Revolution was at its peak. Like works in other fields, the project of A New English-Chinese Dictionary was under the control of ‘workers-peasants-soldiers propaganda teams’ (hereinafter Propaganda Team), whose job was to ensure that foreign language dictionaries were, like all other works, vehicles of revolutionary discourse and tools of linguistic engineering. Though Lu and other compilers were summoned from different institutions to work on the English dictionary (Foreign languages were considered to be important weapons of struggle), they felt like ‘treading as if on thin ice’, afraid of saying ‘politically incorrect words’. The Propaganda Team ordered that the lexicographic project should follow the principle of ‘me-centred’, that is, everything concerning the project should reflect the best interests of the revolution underway and that all possible timely words and expressions related to the new things and events about the Cultural Revolution should be registered in the dictionary. The dictionary compilers were asked to think hard to incorporate as many as possible of dominant political and revolutionary sayings into the dictionary and to promulgate so-called ‘model opera’, ‘Five-Seven Cadres’ Schools’ and ideas of ‘going and working in the countryside and mountainous areas’, etc., things that they considered to be the products of civilization. On the contrary, those words and expressions that were thought to be praising capitalism had to be discarded. To ensure the practicality of the dictionary, Lu Gusun, the editor, even managed to ‘smuggle’ some fresh English expressions from the English dictionary and mingle them with the ‘red quotations’ into their own dictionary. Such appropriation results in hybridization of the dictionary as a text and signals the lexicographers’ identity in the 1970s (See Chen 2018 for more details about ‘social analysis’ and ‘discourse analysis’). Text analysis In the text analysis section of Chen (2018), I describe the differences between the three lexicographical texts concerning the preface, wordlist, definition, illustrative examples, metalinguistic comments, etc., and relates the dictionary’s intertextual and interdiscursive features to context. Constrained by space, some aspects of the differences revealed in Chen (2018) are only mentioned briefly here. At the level of sense order, Chen (2018) finds that NECD-75 tends to prioritize the political sense of a word over its everyday sense. For example, it highlights the political and social senses of ‘class’, by placing in the first order ‘阶级’, which corresponds to the third sense of ‘class’ in AHD. The prioritization of political senses also applies to words such as ‘revolution’, ‘party’, ‘comrade’, ‘people’, ‘landlord’, among many others. At the definition level, Chen (2018) finds that NECD-75 ameliorates words that have a negative meaning in AHD. For example, in NECD-75, ‘dictatorship’ is given the Chinese equivalent ‘专政’ and is illustrated with examples of ‘Long live the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat!’. It also derogates words that convey no affective meaning in AHD, as in giving the Chinese equivalents ‘法西斯匪徒’ for ‘fascist’. The Chinese phrase ‘匪徒’ (lit. gangster or bandit) signals the lexicographers’ negative emotional attitude to fascism. The political orientation can also be observed at other levels, such as metalinguistic comments. For example, in NECD-Y75, ‘militant’ was defined as ‘斗士 (特指美国)’ (particularly referring to the USA). The comment in the bracket explicitly suggests that militant was specific to the USA. At level of illustrative examples, I extracted all the illustrative examples (which were all invented) in the dictionary, which comprise the data for a statistical analysis. Then, using the corpus tool, AntConc (Anthony 2014) and setting the p value as p＜0.05 (its default value), Chen (2018) compared the corpus of NECD-Y75’s illustrative examples (as an observed corpus) to the Brown Corpus (as a reference corpus), thus obtaining the keyword list of the lexicographic discourse. The results show that the top keywords are politics-oriented words such as ‘enemy’, ‘revolution’, ‘worker’, ‘comrade’ and ‘imperial’. In Chen (2018), I also analysed the representation of social actors in the lexicographical text and found that those social actors in ‘US’ group were constructed as positive while those in ‘Them’ group were negative, as in ‘Dig out a class enemy as one would a time bomb’ and ‘The Chinese people will never be intimidated by wars threats, including nuclear war.’ Then, Chen (2018) goes on to analyse the intertextual and interdiscursive features of the dictionary and conclude that the dictionary as a genre strikes very obvious intertextual links with the dominant revolutionary and classism discourses in that it cites many popular political quotes and slogans and renders them into English as illustrative examples, like ‘We firmly support the Asian, African and Latin American peoples in their struggle for liberation!’ and ‘Dig tunnels deep, store grain everywhere, and never seek hegemony’. Thus, in Chen (2018), I not only describe what relevant affiliative identities the lexicographers communicate in the lexicographical texts in China in the 1970s, and interpret how those identities are communicated in concrete texts, but also explain why affiliative identities are conceptualized and communicated in the way they are. Such a three-tiered analytical framework, which takes into account the social context, overcomes the limitations of the traditional sociolinguistic approach to critical lexicography. Therefore, instead of viewing lexicography as a disembodied activity taking place in a vacuum, I (Chen 2018) propose interpreting dictionaries in context and exploring how dictionaries are culturally determined and culturally determining. To sum up, in doing a CLDS, a researcher starts with an analysis of order of discourse to reveal the latent social rules that govern the production of discourse (in this case, how the revolutionary discourse dominated and governed the public discourses and their ways of saying). Then, the researcher goes on to conduct interactional analysis, which consists of interdiscursive analysis and linguistic and semiotic analysis (in this sample case, an analysis of how the lexicographic discourse was interdiscursively linked with other discourse and genres and analysis of lexis and clauses). Such an integrated analysis of textual and social structures helps reveal the internal relationship between them. It should be noted, however, that the framework proposed is not necessarily an ideal one. It may need to be modified when applied to different types of dictionaries. For example, when examining synchronic dictionaries that deal with the language and its word-stock at a certain point in time, a CLDS researcher may relate them to their situated contexts as in Chen (2015). In contrast, for diachronic dictionaries, a research project may seek to uncover whether certain meanings/constructions have shifted at different historical stages, and what may account for such a shift (cf. Benson 2002). 6. Conclusion To date, there has been no serious attempt to challenge the definition in the dictionary. Many of the complaints mentioned above about dictionaries, lexicographers or publishers are only limited to a small circle. Challenging sexism, racism, androcentrism, ethnocentrism and colonialism in the dictionary is difficult because it is so deeply embedded in many other mainstream discourses, from news, textbooks to advertising discourses, which all form intertextual links with lexicographical discourse. A discourse approach to critical lexicography motivates a critical look at the discourses and counter-discourses that shape and reshape practices in the field of lexicography and points to the fact that languages cannot be described but only represented. The representational nature of the dictionary implies that the authority of the dictionary as a source of meaning and the objectivity of the dictionary in describing the language and the world have to be seriously questioned. In an era where dictionary information is increasingly sourced online and when the dictionary power base is shifting away from traditional publisher brand, we need to reflect on who is controlling, providing, or mediating the dictionary text (Google, the Wikipedia enterprise and its backers, the electronics manufacturers or software providers?)4. By recognizing the representational and discursive nature of the dictionary and power play therein, lexicographers can open themselves to alternative meanings and alternative possibilities. Problem-oriented CLDS, with its potential to create critical reflexivity and critical language awareness, has important implications not only for the ways lexicographical professionals analyse and interpret lexicographical events/acts, but also for the strategies of dictionary-making. It has long been pointed out that the dictionary does not exist in a socio-political vacuum (Frawley 1985); postcolonial lexicography, especially in Australia, has shown that focusing on socio-political themes not only wins them national pride but an international market and has proven that the centre–periphery model does not have to be the only model available to lexicographers (cf. Benson 2002), and that such socio-politically oriented lexicography does not necessarily come at the expense of the acquisition of the English language. Instead, as in the educational contexts, it is conducive to promoting critical reflexivity, conscious agency, and critical subject positions, to helping orientate and re-orientate lexicographical action in a contingent world where change is continuous and thus contributes to the healthy development of lexicography and the languages it represents. It is worth noting that the dominant Anglo-American dictionaries have kept producing regionally adapted dictionaries to respond to overseas markets, which is beneficial both for World English lexicography and World Englishes, and for dictionary users. On the practical side, discourse lexicography, which represents the vocabulary of a language in relationship to the item, to the speakers, to a certain period, and to a special corpus (Kämper and Klosa 2010), is further proof of the necessity and possibility of such a trend. Additionally, in the contemporary ‘de-centralization’ era when crowd-sourced and web-based dictionaries are gaining more prominence and attention, as are ‘minority dictionaries’5 (cf. feminist dictionaries: see Russell 2012; regional English dictionaries: see Huddart 2014), CLDS is especially helpful as it may help reveal how lexicographers not in the Centre could empower themselves and how their potential alternative view of a language and the world could be different to the mainstream establishment texts and contribute to linguistic diversity and thus social equality. The conceptual and analytical framework proposed here, with its limitations, provides a starting point for questioning what lexicographers do and why they do it. It contributes to unmasking and denaturalizing the hidden power relationship between the lexicographical act and the wider sociocultural and socio-political structures that impact upon the act. Lexicographical ‘discourses are never completely cohesive and devoid of internal tensions and hence are always contested to some degree’ (Hardy and Phillips 2004: 304). A discourse approach to critical lexicography opens a space to understand different meaning-making practices and disputes in English lexicography. Maintaining a keen interest in the workings of power together with concern for issues of inequitable access to language and knowledge and their effects, CLDS will shed light on the opportunities for change and emancipation. Footnotes 1 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/25/oxford-dictionary-review-sexist-language-rabid-feminist-gender, last accessed 09/08/2018. 2 This is a point made by an anonymous reviewer. 3 I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for the sharing about his/her understanding of ‘colony text’. 4 My thanks go to an anonymous reviewer for contributing this idea. 5 This is a point made by an anonymous reviewer. Acknowledgements This work is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (18FYY031), Fujian New-Century Excellent Talents Program (2017), China Scholarship Council (2017), Xiamen University of Technology Talent Project (YSK17001R), and XMUT Scientific Research Promotion Program (XPDST18010). I am grateful to Tom Bartlett, Lise Fontaine, Derek Irwin, Robert Lew, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical but insightful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. My thanks also go to Robert Lew, Zhu Yumin, Xie Jun, Wu Jianping, and Anna Lewis for proofreading and editing this paper. All remaining faults, however, are my own. References Morris W. 1976 . The American Heritage Dictionary . (Second College Edition.) Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC NECD. 1975 . Xin Yinghan Cidian [A New English-Chinese Dictionary]. Shanghai : Shanghai People's Press . WorldCat COPAC OED. 1989 . Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford : Oxford University Press . WorldCat COPAC Rooney K. , Soukhanov A. . 1999 . Encarta World English Dictionary . London : Bloomsbury . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Anthony L. 2014 . AntConc (Version 3.4.4m) [Computer Software] . Tokyo : Waseda University . Available at: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Baider F. H. 2006 . ‘ The Death of the Author, the Birth of the Lexicographer: How French Historical Dictionaries Construct History.’ International Journal of Lexicography 20 . 1 : 67 – 83 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bartlett T. 2012 . Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualizing Positive Discourse Analysis . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Benson P. 2002 . Ethnocentrism and the English Dictionary . London & New York : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bernstein B. 2003 . Class, Codes, and Control: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Berti M. 2017 . Elgar Introduction to Organizational Discourse Analysis . Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Burchfield R. 1982 . ‘Opening Words.’ The Age: Monthly Review , 1 March 1982. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Burchfield R. 1991 . Unlocking the English Language . New York : Hill and Wang . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cameron D. 2005 . Verbal Hygiene . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chen W. G. 2015 . ‘ Bilingual Lexicography as Recontextualization: A Case Study of Illustrative Examples in a New English–Chinese Dictionary.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 35 . 4 : 311 – 333 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chen W. G. 2017a . ‘The Construction of the Lexicographer’s Identity in a Learner’s Dictionary: A Systemic Functional Perspective.’ International Journal of Lexicography 30 . 3 : 322 – 349 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chen W. G. 2017b . ‘Lexicography, Discourse and Power: Uncovering Ideology in the Bilingualization of Monolingual English Dictionaries in China.’ Pragmatics and Society 8 . 4 : 600 – 628 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chen W. G. 2018 . ‘ Identity and Affiliation: Exploring Chinese Lexicographers’ Communal Identification in the 1970s.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 38 . 4 : 484 – 518 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Chen W , Zhao Y. . 2014 . ‘Modern Lexicography: A Critical Perspective.’ Modern Foreign Languages 37 . 2 : 189 – 198 . WorldCat Clark R. , Ivanič R. . 1997 . The Politics of Writing . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cowie A. P. 1995 . ‘The Learner’s Dictionary in a Changing Cultural Perspective’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 283 – 295 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Desmet P. , Rooryck J. , Swiggers P. . 1990 . ‘What Are Words Worth? Language and Ideology in French Dictionaries of the Revolutionary Period’ In Joseph J. E. , Taylor T. G. (eds), Ideologies of Language . London : Routledge , 162 – 188 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Deverson T. 2001 . ‘New Zealand, New Zealand English and the Dictionaries’ In Moore B. (ed.), Who's Centric Now? The Present State of Post-Colonial Englishes . Victoria : Oxford University Press , 23 – 45 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ezquerra M. A. 1995 . ‘Political Considerations on Spanish Dictionaries’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 143 – 152 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. 1989 . Language and Power . London : Longman . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. 1992a . ‘The Appropriacy of ‘Appropriateness’’ In Fairclough N. (ed.), Critical Language Awareness . London : Longman , 33 – 56 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. 1992b . Discourse and Social Change . Cambridge : Polity press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. 1995 . Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language . London Longman . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. 2015 . Language and Power (3rd. edition.). London : Longman . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. , Mulderrig J. , Wodak R. . 2011 . ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ In Van Dijk T. (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction . London : Sage , 357 – 378 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fairclough N. , Wodak R. . 1997 . ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ In van Dijk T. A. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction). London : Sage , 258 – 284 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Farina D. 1995 . ‘Marrism and Soviet Lexicography’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 153 – 170 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fishman J. A. 1995 . ‘Dictionaries as Culturally Constructed and as Culture-Constructing Artifacts: The Reciprocity View as Seen from Yiddish Sources’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 29 – 34 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Foucault M. 1979 . Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison . London : Penguin . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Foucault M. 1998 . The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge . London : Penguin . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fowler R. , Hodge R. . 1979 . ‘Critical Linguistics’ In Fowler R. , Hodge R. , Kress G. , Trew T. (eds), Language and Control . London : Routledge & Kegan Paul . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Frawley W. 1985 . ‘ Intertextuality and the Dictionary: Towards a Deconstructionist Account of Lexicography.’ Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 7 . 1 : 1 – 20 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Frawley W. 1989 . ‘ The Dictionary as Text.’ International Journal of Lexicography 2 . 3 : 231 – 248 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gershuny H. L. 1974 . ‘Sexist Semantics in the Dictionary.’ ETC: A Review of General Semantics : 159 – 169 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Halliday M. A. K. , Hasan R. . 1976 . Cohesion in English . London : Longman . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hardy C. , Phillips N. . 2004 . ‘Discourse and Power’ In Grant D. , Hardy C. , Oswick C. , Putnam L. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse . London : Sage , 237 – 258 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Harley J. B. 1988 . ‘Maps, Knowledge and Power’ In Cosgrove D. , Daniels S. (eds), The Iconography of Landscape . Cambridge : University of Cambridge Press , 277 – 312 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hennessy M. 1994 . ‘Propagating Half a Species: Gender in Learners’ Dictionaries’’ In Sunderland J. (ed.), Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education . Hemel Hempstead : Prentice Hall , 104 – 111 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hoey M. 1986 . ‘The Discourse Colony: A Preliminary Study of a Neglected Discourse Type’ In Coulthard M. (ed.) Talking about Text, Discourse Analysis Monographs 13, English Language Research . Birmingham : University of Birmingham , 1 – 26 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hoey M. 1996 . ‘A Clause-Relational Analysis of Selected Dictionary Entries: Contrast and Compatibility in the Definitions of ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’’ In Caldas-Coulthard C. R. , Coulthard M. (eds), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis . London : Routledge , 150 – 165 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hornscheidt A. 2008 . ‘ A Concrete Research Agenda for Critical Lexicographic Research within Critical Discourse Studies: An Investigation into Racism/Colonialism in Monolingual Danish, German, and Swedish Dictionaries.’ Critical Discourse Studies 5 . 2 : 107 – 132 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hornscheidt A. 2011 . ‘An Analysis of Post-Colonial Continuities in Danish Monolingual Dictionaries: Toward a Critical Postcolonial Linguistics’ In Anchimbe E. A. , Mforteh S. A. (eds), Postcolonial Linguistic Voices: Identity Choices and Representations . Berlin : De Gruyter Mouton , 265 – 298 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Huddart D. 2014 . Involuntary Associations: Postcolonial Studies and World Englishes . Liverpool : Liverpool University Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hutton C. 2009 . Language, Meaning and the Law . Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jäger S. , Maier F. . 2001 . ‘Discourse and Knowledge: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of a Critical Discourse and Dispositive Analysis’ In Wodak R. , Meyer M. (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis . London : Sage , 32 – 63 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Johnson S. 1747 . The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language . London : Cambridge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jones D. 2001 . Censorship: A World Encyclopedia . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kämper H. , Klosa A. . 2010 . ‘Elexiko and Discourse Dictionary: Two Types of Online-Lexicography.’https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:bb87b23c-e9da-4706-bec9-8987add10b74 (Last accessed 24 May, 2018). Kachru B. B. 1995 . ‘Afterword: Directions and Challenges’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 417 – 424 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. . 1995 . Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Vol. 64 . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kermas S. 2012 . ‘Culture-specific Lexis and Knowledge Sharing in the Global Village’. In Facchinetti R. (ed), English Dictionaries as Cultural Mines . Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars , 73 – 94 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kim C. W. 1995 . ‘One Language, Two Ideologies, and Two Dictionaries: The Case of Korean’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies and the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 213 – 222 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Knights D. , Vurdubakis T. . 1994 . ‘Foucault, Power, Resistance and All That’ In Jermier J. , Knights D. , Nordin W. (eds), Resistance and Power in Organizations . London : Routledge , 167 – 198 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Korzybski A. 1958 . Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics . Lakeville : Institute of General Semantics . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Moon R. 1989 . ‘Objective or Objectionable:Ideological Aspects of Dictionaries, or the Subversive Dictionary.’ English Language Research 3 : 58 – 94 . WorldCat Moon R. 2014 . ‘Meaning, Ideologies and Learners' Dictionary’ In Abel A. , Vettori C. , Ralli N. (eds), Proceedings of the Xvi Euralex International Congress: The User in Focus . Bolzano/Bozen : Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mumby D. K. , Clair R. P. . 1997 . ‘Organizational Discourse’ In van Dijk T. A. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction . London : Sage , 181 – 205 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ogilvie S. 2013 . Words of the World : A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Pennycook A. 2001 . Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah , N.J .: Lawrence Erlbaum . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Philp M. 1985 . ‘Michel Foucault’ In Skinner Q. (ed.), The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 65 – 82 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Russell L. R. 2012 . ‘ This is What a dictionary Looks Like: The Lexicographical Contributions of Feminist Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography 25 . 1 : 1 – 29 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Seargeant P. 2011 . ‘ Lexicography as a Philosophy of Language.’ Language Sciences 33 : 1 – 10 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Seokju K. 2001 . ‘Taking Issue with the American Heritage Dictionary: A Critique on Its Entries on Korea’ In Huang J. H. , Zhang Y. H. (eds), Proceedings of the First Asialex Regional Symposium . Guang Zhou . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Simpson P. 1993 . Language, Ideology and Point of View . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Simpson P. , Mayr A. . 2010 . Language and Power: A Resource Book for Students . London : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Smith D. 1990 . Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling . New York : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Tabbert U. 2015 . Crime and Corpus: The Linguistic Representation of Crime in the Press . Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Tenorio E. H. 2000 . ‘ Gender, Sex and Stereotyping in the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 20 . 2 : 211 – 230 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Teo P. 2000 . ‘ Racism in the News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reporting in Two Australian Newspapers.’ Discourse & Society 11 . 1 : 7 – 49 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Titscher S. , Jenner B. . 2000 . Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis: In Search of Meaning . London : Sage . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC van Dijk T. A. 1985 . Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation . Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC van Dijk T. A. 2003 . ‘The Discourse-Knowledge Interface’ In G W. , Wodak R. (eds), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity . London : Palgrave Macmillan , 85 – 109 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Volosinov V. N. 1973 . Marxism and the Philosophy of Language . New York : Seminar Press Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Whitcut J. 1984 . ‘Sexism in Dictionaries’ In Hartmann R. R. K. (ed.), Lexeter'83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 141 – 144 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wierzbicka A. 1995 . ‘Dictionaries and Ideologies: Three Examples from Eastern Europe’ In Kachru B. B. , Kahane H. (eds), Cultures, Ideologies and the Dictionary. Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta . Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag , 181 – 195 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Willinsky J. 1994 . Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED . Princeton, N.J .: Princeton University Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wodak R. 2008 . ‘ Introduction: Discourse Studies: Important Concepts and Terms’ In Wodak R. , Krzyżanowski M. (eds), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences . Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan , 1 – 29 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wodak R. , Meyer M. . 2015 . ‘Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology’ In Wodak R. , Meyer M. (eds), Methods of Critical Discours Studies . London : Sage , 18 – 50 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Yong H. , Peng J. . 2007 . Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective . Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC © 2019 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Towards a Discourse Approach to Critical Lexicography
JF - International Journal of Lexicography
DO - 10.1093/ijl/ecz003
DA - 2019-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/towards-a-discourse-approach-to-critical-lexicography-D3qwvcEXwc
SP - 362
VL - 32
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -