Dictionary means that the created source will only describe lexicographic units, not the objective meaning of words. Piotr Żmigrodzki1 warns against the claim that dictionaries give the real meaning of words – they only collect their lexicographic descriptions.Therefore, the dictionary only shows the lexicographic view (the proprietary definitions made by the author of the dictionary only convey the lexicographer’s findings/adjudications of the reality that can never be completely objective, as they are done through the prism of the lexicographer’s mind, which – even despite his sincerest efforts – is condemned to subjectivity), and not linguistic reality (only collocations show the real meaning of the word). We need to come to terms with this if we want to make our task manageable – otherwise the work will become impossible due to the lack of human and time resources (as it has already happened in many lexicographical ventures). Another simplification (stemming from the same reasons) is the resignation from making the dictionary into a documentary thesaurus. A documentary thesaurus is, simplistically speaking, a dictionary in which the ordering of the lexicographic matter is based not on the physical form of words, but on their meaning (with regard to the semantic relations between words). Although the preparation of a complete thesaurus of types of documents, along with a complete classification showing the relationships between them, would be a dream come true for many of us, we have admitted that at the moment it is beyond our possibilities. This kind of source have to be preceded by an international consensus about the terms every type of document exists in the universe of documents with description of every form of this existence. This obstacle was the reason, why earlier initiatives about developing the so-called universal typology of documents failed (more on this in part 3). Of course, this does not mean that in work on our dictionary we will not consider the relationships between individual types of documents, however, it will not be done meticulously and comprehensively (or rather: not at all costs) so the term ‘thesaurus’ cannot be used here. It should be remembered that the full disclosure of semantic relations (including associations) is a very laborious and difficult task, but indispensable if we want to make a proper thesaurus. Also: presence of non-descriptors in the thesaurus need the decisions about which terms are considered correct and which are not. It is already difficult in monolingual thesauruses, so how hard it will be in multilingual ones2? Giving up these undoubtedly valuable assets will, however, mean that work on our dictionary can be closed in a reasonably conceived future.
1 Piotr Żmigrodzki, Leksykografia jako przedmiot uniwersyteckiej edukacji polonistycznej, “Poradnik Językowy”, 2001, iss. 9, p. 42 (point 3.).
2 Kazimierz Leski points the problems of the suitability of descriptors in multilingual thesauruses, stating at least 10 different cases of it: from full compatibility till total lack thereof. A description of these cases and the general description of the inconvenience of creating multilingual thesauruses is given in: Kazimierz Leski, Zasady budowy tezaurusów, Warszawa 1978, p. 165–176.
Dictionary of types of documents 