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.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Bergenholtz2012
%A Bergenholtz, Henning
%D 2012
%J Terminology
%K Dan{\'{e}}s Diccionarios Espa{\~{n}}ol Ingl{\'{e}}s Terminolog{\'{\i}}a
%P 243--264
%T Concepts for monofunctional accounting dictionaries
%U http://www.swetswise.com/link/access\_db?issn=0929-9971&vol=18&iss=2&year=2012&page=243&ft=1
%V 18
%X 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.
@article{Bergenholtz2012,
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.},
added-at = {2015-12-01T11:35:13.000+0100},
author = {Bergenholtz, Henning},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/240490fd7abafe4b2a1f225ce8227ae9b/sofiagruiz92},
interhash = {1fdc19fbec1039f0564a4ecd77b1032c},
intrahash = {40490fd7abafe4b2a1f225ce8227ae9b},
issn = {0929-9971 1569-9994},
journal = {Terminology},
keywords = {Dan{\'{e}}s Diccionarios Espa{\~{n}}ol Ingl{\'{e}}s Terminolog{\'{\i}}a},
pages = {243--264},
timestamp = {2015-12-01T11:35:13.000+0100},
title = {{Concepts for monofunctional accounting dictionaries}},
url = {http://www.swetswise.com/link/access{\_}db?issn=0929-9971{\&}vol=18{\&}iss=2{\&}year=2012{\&}page=243{\&}ft=1},
volume = 18,
year = 2012
}