| Review: |
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:02:48 +0530 (IST)
From: Niladri Sekhar Dash
Subject: Lexicography: Critical Concepts, Volume 1
EDITOR: Hartmann, R. R. K.
TITLE: Lexicography
SUBTITLE: Critical Concepts
VOLUME: 1
SERIES: Critical Concepts in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2003
Niladri Sekhar Dash, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
[Reviews of Volumes 2 and 3 in this set will be posted separately. -- Eds.]
PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
The first volume contains 21 papers divided into three broad divisions:
Part 1 refers to the Compiler Perspectives (8 papers). Part 2 highlights
Critical Perspectives (5 papers). Part 3 contains User Perspectives (8
papers). All these papers are produced here in the form of reprint, since
these articles written by the masters of the craft not only defined new
paths for dictionary making but also have contributed towards giving a
complete shape to the field lexicography for the generation to follow.
CONTENT OF THE BOOK
Chapter 1 contains The plan of a dictionary of the English language
written by Samuel Johnson. It was first published in 1747, London: J. and
P. Knapton et al. (1747), pp. 1-34.
Chapter 2 contains The evolution of English Lexicography written by James
A. H. Murray. The articled first appeared in 1990 and reprinted in 1993 in
International Journal of Lexicography. 6(2): 101-122.
Chapter 3 contains Planning and organization of lexicographic work written
by Ladislav Zgusta. It is a revised version of the paper published in
Zgusta, L. (Ed.) (1971) Manual of Lexicography. Pp. 345-357. The Hague:
Mouton.
Chapter 4 contains Dictionary making written by Sidney I. Landau. It is
collected from Landau, S.I. (2001) Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of
Lexicography. Pp. 343-357. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 5 contains Dictionary projects written by Bo Svensen. It was first
published in Svensen, B. (1993) Practical Lexicography. Principles and
Methods of Dictionary-making. Pp. 236-249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 6 contains Lexicographic problems and solutions in different types
of specialized dictionaries written by Sven Tarp. It was first published
in Bergenholtz, H. and S. Trap (Eds.) (1995) Manual of Specialized
Lexicography. Pp. 48-63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter 7 contains A survey of the teaching of lexicography, 1979-1995
written by J. Edward Gates. It first appeared in 1997 in Journal of the
Dictionary Society of North America. 18: 66-93.
Chapter 8 contains The revolution of English lexicography written by John
A. Simpson. It is a revised version of the paper first presented at the
13th Biennial Meeting of the Dictionary Society of North America at the
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) on 8th May 2001 (Dictionaries 23: 1-22,
2002).
Chapter 9 contains On some deficiencies in our English Dictionaries
written by Richard Chenevix Trench. It is obtained from Trench, Richard C.
(1860) Transaction of the Philological Society. Pp. 1-70. 2nd Edition.
London: Parker.
Chapter 10 contains Meaning discrimination in bilingual dictionaries
written by James E. Iannucci. This paper is taken from Householder, F. W.
and Saporta, S. (Eds.) (1962) Problems in Lexicography. Pp. 201-216.
Bloomington IN: Indiana University Research Center for Language and
Semiotic Studies.
Chapter 11 contains Conclusion written by Thomas J. Creswell. In is
obtained from Creswell, Thomas, J. (1975) Usage in Dictionaries and
Dictionaries of Usage. Pp. 122-140. University, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Chapter 12 contains Potential O.E.D. Antedatings written by Juergen
Schaefer. The paper is taken from Schaefer, Juergen (1980) Documentation
in the O.E.D. Shakespeare and Nashe as Text Cases. Pp 65-71. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Chapter 13 contains Evaluating Learner Dictionaries: What the reviews say
written by Alice Chan Yin Wa and Andrew J. Taylor. The paper was first
published in International Journal of Lexicography in 2001. 14(3): 163-180.
Chapter 14 contains Problems in editing commercial monolingual
dictionaries written by Clarence L. Barnhart. It was first published in
Householder, F. W. and Saporta, S. (Eds.) (1962) Problems in Lexicography.
Pp. 161-181. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Research Center for
Language and Semiotic Studies.
Chapter 15 contains Teaching dictionary use written by Nicholas Beattie.
The paper is taken from Modern Languages. 54(4): 161-168,1973.
Chapter 16 contains The social impact of dictionaries in UK written by
Randolph Quirk. The paper is taken from McDavid, R. I. and Duckert, A. R.
(Eds.) (1973) Lexicography in English. Pp. 76-88. New York: Academy of
Sciences.
Chapter 17 contains The role of dictionaries in English for specific
purposes: a case study of students nurses as the University of Jordan
written by Turki Diab. The paper was first published in James, G. (Ed.)
(1989) Lexicographers and Their Works. Pp. 74-82. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press.
Chapter 18 contains Translators and their use of dictionaries: User needs
and user habits written by Krista Varantola. The paper was first published
in Atkins, B. T. S. (Ed.) (1998) Using Dictionaries: Studies of Dictionary
Use by Language Learners and Translators. Pp. 179-192. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
Chapter 19 contains Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom written by
Amy Chi Man Lai. It is the updated version of the paper first published in
Fontenelle, T. et al. (Eds.) (1998) EURALEX98 Proceedings. Pp. 565-577.
Belgium: Liege University.
Chapter 20 contains The specification of dictionary reference skills in
higher education written by Hilary Nesi. It is the updated version of the
paper first appeared in Hartmann, R. R. K. (Ed.) (1999) Dictionaries in
Language Learning. Pp. 53-67. Berlin: Free University/FLC/TNP.
Chapter 21 contains Research on dictionary use: methodological
considerations written by Yukio Tono. It is the updated version of the
chapter of Tono, Yukio (2001) Research on Dictionary Use in the Context of
Foreign Language Learning. Pp. 59-72. Tuebingen: Niemyer.
CRITICAL SYNOPSIS
In chapter 1 (pp. 29-44) Samuel Johnson presented The Plan of dictionary
making which, was written in 1747 in the form of a letter addressed to the
Earl of Chesterfield to express how he saw the need for a new dictionary,
and how he would go about creating it with materials available at his
time. In the first paragraph Johnson refers to the task of dictionary
making as drudgery for the blind, as the proper toil of artless industry,
a task that requires neither the light of learning, nor the activity of
genius, but may be successfully performed without any higher quality than
that of bearing burdens with dull patience, and beating the track of the
alphabet with sluggish resolution (p. 29). But immediately he refers to
the potential uses of dictionary that delights the critics and instructs
the learners. In the next few sections he goes on in details reflecting on
the potential problems of dictionary making such as selection of word
lists and idiomatic expressions, use of spelling, pronunciation,
etymology, grammar, meaning, analogy, distribution and various other
aspects of words to be considered seriously for the compilation of a
standard dictionary that will have last impact on the language users for
ages. Finally he sums up with designing a set of principles that will
provide baseline guidance to his work as well as to the works of the
following ages.
In chapter 2 (pp. 45-69) James A. H. Murray, the first editor of the
Oxford English Dictionary, starts with a topical allusion to a
parliamentary debate around the notion of allotment of a word that has not
been treated in Johnson's Dictionary. He then turns his attention to
mention the fact that the lexicographers and their products stand on the
works of their predecessors, and that the enterprise of dictionary making
in English has a long history. Murray himself pursues the long trail of
dictionaries with close reference to Latin glossaries and English, French
and German dictionaries available to him. In the summing part of the
article he justifies the fact that the art of dictionary making has not
even reached to its half-way stage with the argument that original work,
patient induction of facts, minute verification of evidence, are slow
processes, and a work so characterized cannot be put together with
scissors and paste, or run off with the speed of the copyist (p. 66).
Murray finally concludes that great dictionaries of the modern languages
have taken a long time to make, and the New English Dictionary is not an
exception. Thus Murray presents a scholarly judgment in favor of the
historical dictionary, a spirit, which is often missing in the general
dictionaries produced and propagated by the commercial houses.
In chapter 3 (pp. 70-96) Ladislav Zgusta deals with the problems of
planning and organizing projects for dictionary making in any language.
The type of dictionary to be attempted depends on the cultural and
linguistic nature of the community in which and for whose benefit it is to
be developed. The issues of financial support and management of time are
also crucial factors that require prior settlement about the size of the
dictionary and the time allotted for smooth coordination among the members
involved in the project. Similar other problems related with the
compilation of a dictionary are addressed here with equal amount of zeal
and introspection for the benefit of future dictionary makers. The recent
phenomenon of using computer in the work of dictionary compilation is
addressed to highlight the advantages and limitations a dictionary maker
experiences with the deployment of modern technology in the work. Finally,
he leaves a worthy note of consolation for the dictionary makers referring
to the praise for the work made by James R. Hulbert in the introduction of
the Dictionaries British and American published in 1955.
In chapter 4 (pp. 83-96) Sidney I. Landau summarizes the initial stages in
the process of dictionary preparation. Next, in a step-by-step process, he
discusses stages of planning, deployment of manpower, vocabulary
selection, writing of definitions, publishing a dictionary, and revising
the text to be at par with the changed time. He also draws our attention
towards important differences observed in dictionary making on both sides
of the Atlantic. He delves in the approaches used in the formation of ESL
(English as a Second Language) dictionaries and shows how language corpora
can contribute towards dictionary preparation in modern times. The
inherent distinctions underlying between commercial and scholarly
dictionary projects are also highlighted in his discussion. The main
stages referred to here are relevant to all the language of that aim to
develop dictionaries not only in the mainstream of linguistics but as in
other peripheral domains of language and linguistics.
In chapter 5 (pp. 97-108) Bo Svensen deals with both theoretical
innovation and linguistic scholarship related with dictionary making. The
author carefully designs the methods to overcome the theoretical
obstructions faced by the lexicographers and introduces some scientific
rigors to be followed into their practice. Since he himself is a classical
scholar, dictionary editor, terminologist, and Swedish Academy Official,
he rightly argues that the work of lexicography is a stressful teamwork
that requires efficient planning and administration. Some of these works
need to be specified in a detailed style-manual that will work as
principles for guiding the selection and treatment of the material to be
included in dictionaries. The most important part of this article lies in
the question whether or not we should consider lexicography as an applied
linguistic discipline. The author is also concerned with what users demand
from their dictionaries as well as what dictionaries demand from their
users - two important questions that need further exploration.
In chapter 6 (pp. 109-123) Sven Tarp deals with several important issues
related with typology of dictionary. In the first section he classifies
dictionaries into four broad types: monolingual, bilingual, bi-directional
and multidirectional. Next, he categorizes them into multi-field, single-
field and sub-field dictionaries with regard to such issues as compilation
principles, language status and culture-specificity. The author likes to
end his discussion with a note of optimism stating that lexicographical
processes will become more and more refined and sophisticated in terms of
processing of information for electronic media. Moreover, the presentation
of information in dictionaries will be more organized and systematic for
the human users both in electronic and printed forms. In fact, present
introduction of computer and corpus in dictionary making confirms the
predictions made by the author.
In chapter 7 (pp. 124-147) J. Edward Gates presents a summary on the state-
of-the-art of teaching dictionary making by in-house training, summer
schools, short-term courses, workshops and undergraduate and postgraduate
courses offered by various universities and academic organizations. He
also evaluates the significance of the courses and degrees and diplomas
awarded to the participants after the completion of the courses. Since the
filed of dictionary making is comparatively young and in formative stage,
it is rapidly changing from year to year with the introduction of new
queries, information, and language databases. Edward Gates also mentions
how dictionary research makes a substantial contribution to knowledge and
how such knowledge often leads to innovation and experimentation in the
field. However, the survey does not provide any insight into the trends
and issues related to the courses offered, types of textbooks used in
teaching about lexicography, and the usefulness of an academic
qualification in commercial world.
In chapter 8 (pp. 148-160) John A. Simpson attempts to present a survey on
the progress on this field until the present day and projects a few
glimpses into the future direction of the art of dictionary making. The
author starts with an explicit reference to Murray's lecture regarding the
methodology and the database utilized for the development of Oxford
English Dictionary. Then he describes the characteristic features of the
premier historical record of the vocabulary of English (p. 148) and its
onward match with a focus on the offshoot period dictionaries developed
over the centuries. Simpson ends with an optimistic note to predict that
possible intervention of information technology within the field will help
it grow in various dimensions. With availability of wider varieties of
corpus of materials lexicographers are now in a position to draw on for
evidence and attestation. Perhaps, this technical development will
contribute towards establishing on-line links between different historical
dictionaries of English and those of other languages.
In chapter 9 (pp. 171-216) Richard Chenevix Trench is interested in all
aspects of language, literature and philosophy. He is interested to
fabricate a close interface between language and history so that both the
fields can benefit form their mutual interaction and co-operation.
However, his main aim is to direct us towards earlier periods to show how
the vocabulary of a language changed over time the phenomenon which
lexicographers cannot ignore while building up a dictionary of a language.
With this mission he lists up seven ways in which the dictionaries
starting from the publication of Johnson's Dictionary (1757) have been
less than perfect. The drawbacks include registration of obsolete words,
coverage of word families, dating and marking of vocabulary, treatment of
word meanings, distinction of synonyms, use of quotations from suitable
sources, and criteria for including or excluding words in dictionary. To
overcome these shortcomings, new dictionaries should be compiled as
inventory of all words of the general language. However, when the Oxford
English Dictionary was produced under the editorship of James Murray, it
had moved away substantially from Trenchs original guidelines.
In chapter 10 (pp. 217-229) James E. Iannucci proposes to draw a kind of
semantic discrimination most frequently sought and most frequently found
in bilingual dictionaries. These are mostly related to the discrimination
of meanings of polysemous entry words. According to author, various kinds
of semantic particularization, refinement or discrimination are needed for
developing bilingual dictionaries, since each distinct sense of a
polysemous entry word yields different translational equivalents in the
other language. To substantiate his proposition the author critically
examines the treatment of sense discrimination and translation of 75
specimen entries in 32 bilingual dictionaries for the language pair
Spanish and English. This study shows that present dictionaries usually
fall short to the ideal aspired by the author. However, he suggests that
the efficiency of present bilingual dictionaries will be increased if
meaning discrimination is made in the source language instead of in the
target language (p. 221).
In chapter 11 (pp. 230-247) Thomas J. Creswell argues that one of the
basic issues related with the improving of standard of general-purpose
monolingual dictionary and related reference texts involves the treatment
of those words and phrases that cause of linguistic insecurity among
native speakers, teachers, writers, and others. Although these people
often consider themselves authorities on usage, correctness, and
appropriateness of words in language, they usually fall short when their
skill is measured against the actual use of words in language. Creswell
initiated a pilot research project that involves 318 locutions where he
attempts to show how these are treated in various dictionaries and usage
books. He summarizes the result of the study to show that neither
dictionaries nor usage guides are reliable in this regard since each one
is inconsistent and in disagreement with other. The study has a clear
implication: we need more database evidence from both written and spoken
corpora to make necessary validation.
In chapter 12 (pp. 248-253) Juergen Schaefer makes a specific plea for
better antedatings in the Oxford English Dictionary by way of more
systematic approach to documentation in the excerption of source texts. On
the basis of the corpus of texts written by Shakespeare, Nash, Malory and
Wyatt, he tries to derive statistical measures for testing and predicting
changes in the dates of first citations of the entry words. Interestingly,
the reliability rates vary from one author to another, and the
distribution of antedatings varies by chronological periods and stretches
of the alphabet. Finally, the author makes some concrete proposals for
improving them.
In Chapter 13 (pp. 254- 273) Alice Chan Yin Wa and Andrew J. Taylor
present and discuss the findings of a survey in which they examine thirty
six reviews of English learner dictionaries. The focus of the survey was
on various aspects, such as the identity of reviewers and intended
readers, the stated purpose, the evaluation process, the different kinds
of lexicographical and linguistic information discussed, the conclusions
drawn, and the tone adopted. The findings of the survey suggest that most
dictionary reviews are factual and descriptive rather than evaluative.
Only in some cases, evaluations are based on principled study of any kind.
The reviews to be useful to intended readers, they argue, should be based
on a study of the use of the dictionary by target users. This analytical
study makes valuable contribution towards the debate on meta-critical
principles (i.e. reviewers concern themselves with matters external to the
heart and soul of the dictionary (Steiner 1994)) in dictionary review.
In chapter 14 (pp. 285- 301) Clarence L. Barnhart starts with a often-
quoted statement that says: It is the function of a popular dictionary to
answer the questions that the user of the dictionary asks, and
dictionaries on the commercial market will be successful in proportion to
the extent to which they answer these questions to the buyer (p. 285).
However, to address the issue raised here he puts before us a
questionnaire, which was used to survey among American college teachers of
English, and reports the results that fit well into the topic of the
paper. The implications of the survey are far-reaching. According to the
teachers, college students rank information categories in their
dictionaries in the following: meaning, spelling, pronunciation, synonyms,
usage, and etymology. Obviously, the result of the survey can inspire
lexicographers to reassess their plan-of-work before they plunge in the
work of dictionary compilation. However, we do not know whether the result
of the survey makes any impact on the whole generation of compilers of
college dictionaries for native speakers and learners dictionaries for
foreign students.
In chapter 15 (pp. 302-311) Nicholas Beattie argues to enhance skills for
consulting dictionaries and other reference works of the students in the
course of learning a foreign language. Since the scope for foreign
language learning is being widened over the years, learners need to be
shown how dictionaries and other reference materials help them acquire,
support, and improve their linguistic skills. Although there are
controversies, the author supports that view that use of reference
materials needs to be a part of the general syllabuses and examinations.
In course of the discussion, Beattie identifies four main factors (i.e.
the learner, the teacher, the work, and the dictionary) and three main
phases (i.e. preliminary phase, phase of controlled use, and phase of free
use) that are integrated with the process of language teaching. Finally,
Beattie raises some practical questions related to (a) bilingual
dictionaries in textbooks, (b) lower reaches of the ability ranges, and
(c) the availability of dictionaries to the target learners.
In chapter 16 (pp. 312-326) Randolph Quirk reports the results of an
empirical survey conducted to measure the habits of dictionary use by the
students of London University. The survey is probably motivated by the
article of Barnhart published in the proceedings (Householder and Saporta
1962). Barnhart's paper (also included in this volume: pp 285-301) reports
on the questionnaire survey conducted among American college students as
well the responses obtained from the informants. By contrast, Quirks study
elicits evidence by questioning undergraduates directly rather than
through their teachers, and controls more of the variables than Barnhart
had attempted. The study analyzes and presents the findings in a more open
and detailed manner, which may allow subsequent scholars to replicate the
research and compare the figures with those for other groups of subjects.
In chapter 17 (pp. 327-335) Turki Diab advocates for using eclectic range
of complementary methods to observation the nature of dictionary use by
the target people. In his detailed study conducted among the Arab nurses
as dictionary users, Diab starts with two premises: (a) dictionaries have
a role to play in vocabulary learning of the people, and (b) we have not
enough knowledge about how real users can maximize the potential benefit
of dictionary. This leads to a number of specific research questions to
which he seeks answers by means of a range of investigations that include
questionnaires, interviews and tests. The study culminates in the
conclusion that in case of learning English for Special Purpose (ESP),
dictionaries and other reference should be designed specially to serve the
purpose of particular group of subjects. If such materials are available
they will meet the needs of potential users.
In chapter 18 (pp. 336-354) Krista Varantola reports on a small-scale in-
depth study about the way the students use their dictionaries while
translating texts. An analysis is made of the reference needs of Finnish
translators who are working on an L1-L2 translation. Here the subject
matter, while within a special field, is familiar to the layman. The data
and analysis support the observation of the investigator that more lexical
reference resources than monolingual and bilingual dictionaries are
required if such translations are to be performed efficiently. In essence,
this study confirms the argument of the author that alternative
information resources such as parallel corpora are essential for providing
extra support for the translators. In essence these resources are utilized
for three basic purposes: (a) improving existing dictionaries, (b)
improving users reference skills, and (c) providing new reference tools to
meet the needs of the translators.
In chapter 19 (pp. 355-369) Amy Chi Man Lai reports on an on-going
research project that focuses on teaching dictionary use to the learners
by way of integrating the material into an English syllabus. The study
narrows its focus on the project involving questionnaire survey,
interviews and tests. The combination three parts produces detailed data
on the dictionary skills of the students. It also leads to an experimental
syllabus and specially designed teaching material for part of an English
course. The conclusion of the study refers to the observation: The most
efficient way to educate dictionary users is no doubt through the
educational system, in class, as part of the normal curriculum. This is
not much practiced in educational establishments, but some experimental
results indicate that it works (Bejoint 1994: 168).
In chapter 20 (pp. 370-393) Hilary Nesi presents a report that constitutes
three main observations: (a) dictionary skills might be taught at
university level, (b) skills are actually being taught by informants at a
range of universities in the UK and overseas, and (c) the attitudes and
beliefs of the informants relating to the teaching of dictionary skills.
The author starts with the need to collect information on how various
dictionary reference skills are defined at university level. On the basis
of an email survey, she finds out six sets of such knowledge and practical
abilities (related to stages of the consultation process), identifies the
problems and discusses these in some details. Finally, she concludes with
some prevalent attitudes to the teaching of dictionary skills. Her
reservations reflected on the constructive views expressed by her
informants may not be universally shared.
In chapter 21 (pp. 394-412) Yukio Tono examines methodological issues in
dictionary user research. At present a growing body of research are
available to investigate users reference needs/skills and the effect of
dictionary use on language learning. However, the author argues that in
many cases there are some fundamental methodological problems, which make
it difficult to interpret the results correctly. It is crucial, in his
opinion, to evaluate current methodologies in dictionary user research in
order to produce more faithful results. In the first section, the author
reviews two important papers on methodological considerations (Hartmann
1989, Hulstijn and Atkins 1998) in order to locate research areas in the
study of dictionary use. In the second section, he provides a rationale
for employing more scientific methods in this field. In the final section,
he elaborates on different research methodologies and possible research
questions relevant to each method.
DISCUSSION
The present volume is highly specific in its goal and treatment. It
focuses on three important issues related with dictionary making and use:
(a) methods and techniques to be considered for compiling a dictionary,
(b) evaluation of merits and demits of dictionaries available to us, and
(c) assessment of the referential role of dictionaries to the end users.
Since each paper is composed by a master of the craft each one glitters
with many insightful observations enriched with wide experience and
practical knowledge. The volume can have a lasting impact on the scholars
of new generations who are preparing themselves for opting lexicography
has their future profession. Also, those who are teaching lexicography in
various academic courses may benefit from regular reference to the
articles included in the volume. The volume should be considered an
essential guidebook to the people who are working on dictionaries or
teaching the course of dictionary making in academic organizations.
The editor of the volume deserves our special acknowledgement and thanks
for taking much trouble for collecting so many seminal works together and
putting them within a single volume. We would be more grateful to the
editor, if in future, he takes an initiative to provide us a chronological
history of different types of dictionary produced in English and other
languages. We are also curious to know the total number of dictionary
(including all types and subtypes) produced so far in English on both
sides of the Atlantic.
REFERENCES
Atkins, B.T.S. (Ed.) (1998) Using Dictionaries: Studies of Dictionary Use
by Language Learners and Translators. Tuebingen: Niemyer.
Bejoint, Henri (1994) Tradition and Innovation in Modern English
Dictionaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergenholtz, H. and Trap, S. (Eds.) (1995) Manual of Specialized
Lexicography. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Creswell, Thomas, J. (1975) Usage in Dictionaries and Dictionaries of
Usage. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Fontenelle, T. et al. (Eds.) (1998) EURALEX98 Proceedings. Belgium: Liege
University.
Hartmann, R.R.K (Ed.) (1999) Dictionaries in Language Learning. Berlin:
Free University/FLC/TNP.
Hartmann, R.R.K. (1989) Sociology of the dictionary user: hypotheses and
empirical studies, in Franz Josef Hausmann et al. (eds.) Dictionaries: An
International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Vol. 1: 102-111. Berlin: W. de
Gruyter.
Householder, F. W. and Saporta, S. (Eds.) (1962) Problems in Lexicography.
Bloomington IN: Indiana University Research Center for Language and
Semiotic Studies.
Hulstijn, Jan and Atkins, Sue B.T. (1998) Empirical research on dictionary
use in foreign-language learning: survey and discussion, in Atkins, S.B.T.
(ed.) Using Dictionaries: Studies of Dictionary Use by Language Learners
and Translators. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
James, G. (Ed.) (1989) Lexicographers and Their Works. Exeter: University
of Exeter Press.
Landau, S.I. (2001) Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. 2nd
Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McDavid, R.I. and Duckert, A.R. (Eds.) (1973) Lexicography in English. New
York: Academy of Sciences.
Schaefer, J. (1980) Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as
Text Cases. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Steiner, Rojer, J. (1994) Reviews of dictionaries in learned journals in
the United States. Lexicographica International Annual. 9/1994: 158-173.
Svensen, B. (1993) Practical Lexicography. Principles and Methods of
Dictionary-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tono, Y. (2001) Research on Dictionary Use in the Context of Foreign
Language Learning. Tuebingen: Niemyer.
Trench, R. C. (1860) Transaction of the Philological Society. 2nd Edition.
London: Parker.
Zgusta, L. (Ed.) (1971) Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
|
| |
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Dr. Niladri Sekhar Dash works in the area of corpus linguistics and corpus-
based language research and application at Indian Statistical Institute,
Kolkata, India. His research interest includes corpus linguistics,
lexicography, lexicology, and lexical semantics. His recent book (Corpus
Linguistics and Language Technology, New Delhi, Mittal Publications, 2005)
has addressed, besides other things of corpus linguistics, the issue of
corpus use in lexicographic works in Indian languages. Presently he is
working on corpus-based dictionary making, lexical polysemy, and corpus-
based machine translation in Indian languages.
|
|
| Versions: |
| Format: |
Hardback |
| ISBN: |
0415253659 |
| ISBN-13: |
N/A
|
| Pages: |
1336 |
| Prices: |
U.K. £
660
|
|
| |
|
|
