Concepts for monofunctional accounting dictionaries

Abstract

Most scholars — and in this regard there is no big difference between specialised lexicographers or terminographers — do not subscribe to the thesis elaborated in this paper, namely that a dictionary is a tool, and that a good tool is a tool conceived for a specific function that satisfies the needs of a particular user group in a specific user situation. In the light of this thesis, it is not important to discuss whether it is better for a dictionary to have, for example, an alphabetic or a systematic macrostructure. The real question is: How can one tailor a tool to the specific information needs of a given user group in such a way that these users can gain quick access to the data they need? Like with any other tool, the best solution is a monofunctional tool. In the case of lexicography, that would be a monofunctional dictionary. Such a dictionary differs from most general and specialised language dictionaries, which are normally constructed as polyfunctional tools which attempt to help solve a range of cognitive and communicative problems. Taking one database as the point of departure, I will discuss the concept of this database and of 23 different Danish, English and Spanish accounting dictionaries.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.