![]() Obviously, guidelines should account for the peculiarities of lexicographic traditions of each individual language. They would enable cross-linguistic comparison of Slavic lexical data but, more than that, they would offer a platform for a consistent lexicographic treatment in all Slavic languages. The benefits of such standards or guidelines would be multifold. ![]() It would be incumbent on Slavic studies centers and professional organizations, most notably the International Committee of Slavists (see Committee, 2017), to carry out such work. To overcome problems of this kind, it would be most useful to develop monolingual and bilingual lexicographic standards, which would lead to normalized data in comparing Slavic languages. I have repeatedly discussed research limitations stemming from the differences in datasets, most notably those that are brought about by different strategies and lexicographic solutions that authors of various Slavic dictionaries deploy. ![]() One obvious issue to discuss at the very outset are datasets and possible ways of improving them. I will therefore devote my attention here to research possibilities that can lead toward more definite accounts of languages and phenomena. Neither do they represent an in-depth analysis of any discussed phenomena. They definitely do not build complete cultural-lexical profiles of any languages that were used and not all processes and features are characteristic for all Slavic languages. ![]() Examples provided throughout the present monograph are intended to exemplify the range of data to be included in the research of the lexical layers of cultural identity and the techniques of a consistent analysis of that data. In this chapter, I will outline the prospects of further research in this field. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |