<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W91-0211">
  <Title>IN SO MANY WORDS KNOWLEDGE AS A LEXICAL PHENOMENON</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="122" end_page="124" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Different objectives of lexical and expert-domain knowledge
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The view on general lexical knowledge developed above makes it to a certain degree different from other types of knowledge. Expert knowledge, and to some extent also part of the layman knowledge deals with knowledge about the object, whereas in case of general lexical knowledge not knowledge about the object but knowing that a particular word stands for a particular conceptualization (that can be used to refer to a corresponding objec0 is the goal. This perfectly fits in with the lexicographer's tradition of describing the semantic properties of words, in which the 'use of words' has always prevailed and not the knowledge about the object. A word as such is no more than a vehicle of information within a particular context. This does not necessarily imply that the 'meaning of a word' (the information it carries over) equals all the knowledge people have on the object or class of objects that is designated by that word, as is obvious (at least since Galileo) from the following examples:</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="122" end_page="124" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Entry Word Dictionary Definition
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> sunrise sunset the time when the sun is seen to appear after the night the time when the sun is seen to disappear as night begins (Examples from LDOCE, 1978) sunrise sunset the apparent rising of the sun above the horizon the apparent descent of the sun below the horizon (Examples from Webster, 1974) zonsopgang (sunrise) zonsondergang (sunset) opgaan van de zon (rising-above of the sun) bet ondergaan van de zon (the descending-below of the sun) (Examples from Van Dale, 1984.) The words &amp;quot;sunrise&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sunset&amp;quot; will probably be used in collocations that trigger the conceptualization associated with the words and not the knowledge we have about &amp;quot;stars&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;planets&amp;quot; and their &amp;quot;orbits&amp;quot;. Exactly these collocations form the material for lexicographers to extract the lexical meanings of words.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Furthermore, words not only give different conceptualizations of the same object but can  also function as a vehicle of attitudinal and social information, as in the following synonymous variants found in LDOCE on the basis of similar definitions:  infml BrE a policeman sl, esp. AmE a policeman infml a policeman sl a policeman BrE oM sl a policeman sl policeman infml policeman (Examples from LDOCE, 1978) All these words designate the same set of potential referents, but they all carry a different attitudinal or social signal along expressed by the labels &amp;quot;infml&amp;quot; (=informal), &amp;quot;sl&amp;quot; (=slang), &amp;quot;AmE&amp;quot; (=American English), &amp;quot;BrE&amp;quot; ( Bfittish English), &amp;quot;old&amp;quot; (=obselete), which tell us in what kind of context the words can be found (or used) but which has little to do with the 'knowledge we have of policemen'.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> As a consequence of these different objectives of lexical and expert-domain knowledge, the connection between the different layers of knowledge, as represented in figure 1, is not allways that smooth. For some domains in which the process of lexicalizafion has clearly been triggered by the straightforward acquisition of knowledge through science and education, such as animal and plant names, there may be a rather regular connection between lexical, layman and expert knowledge in which more and more detailed information is added. As such part of the expert knowledge has become general lexical knowledge as well over time (perhaps a process in parallel to that of &amp;quot;Gesunkenes Kulturgut&amp;quot;). However in many domains, and even in animal and plant names (e.g. compare the functional &amp;quot;watchdog&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;sheepdog&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;pet&amp;quot; with the different species of animal in terms of their constitution), other conceptual~tions of objects cross-classify with e.g. expert knowledge. Lexical knowledge thus gives you a wider range of views than expert knowledge. Something in the external world can be looked upon from all kinds of perspectives correlating with different words. For instance, while in Dutch we can use either &amp;quot;theewater&amp;quot; (literally &amp;quot;tea water&amp;quot;) or &amp;quot;koffiewater&amp;quot; (literally &amp;quot;coffee water&amp;quot;) to refer to the water that we are putting on to boil depending on its intended use, it would still be H20 to the expert. Although the expert's knowledge of &amp;quot;water&amp;quot; is more specific, the linguistic equipment to refer to &amp;quot;water&amp;quot; illustrates a greater variation in possible perspectives. In this sense, expert knowledge can be seen as more demilled and systematic subtype of lexical knowledge from a more resu'icted perspective. Where we expect that expert knowledge is exhaustive and defining, lexical knowledge thus is typical and associative but hardly ever exhaustive. Only those properties are described which typically mark the conceptualization that is associated with it.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>