Tres siglos de reflexión sobre el significado léxico. La evolución de las definiciones zoonímicas en el diccionario académico
The comparative analysis of the twenty-five editions of the dictionary of the Real Academia Española allows us to reconstruct the evolution of three centuries of continuous and intense lexicographical activity. One aspect of particular relevance is the definitions, which constitute an enormous diach...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO) |
| Repositorio: | RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:rio.upo.es:10433/21807 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://hdl.handle.net/10433/21807 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Spanish lexicography Monolingual dictionary Definition Animal designations Taxon Apeech register |
| Resumo: | The comparative analysis of the twenty-five editions of the dictionary of the Real Academia Española allows us to reconstruct the evolution of three centuries of continuous and intense lexicographical activity. One aspect of particular relevance is the definitions, which constitute an enormous diachronic corpus that is still insufficiently researched. The present study focuses on the definitions dedicated to zoonyms, which, starting from those initially formulated in the Diccionario de autoridades (published between 1726 and 1739), have been repeatedly revised. The reforms have affected, on the one hand, the classificatory elements of the species, constituted in the earliest editions by an archilexeme available in the common language or a term of Greco-Roman origin in use in naturalist doctrine, which were replaced in the last edition of the 19th century by the taxa coined shortly before in the scientific technolect. On the other hand, the differentiating features that delimit each representative from others within the same category have been extended, reduced, clarified, corrected and perfected according to the predominant criteria of each period in terms of encyclopaedic content and lexicographical technique. Finally, the study of the evolution of the language used in the writing of the definitions reveals an indefatigable desire for linguistic updating and improvement in the search for stylistic adaptation to the specific discursive framework that constitutes a monolingual dictionary of the general language published by an institution with a normative vocation. |
|---|