<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
/* start of attachment style */
.ygrp-photo-title{
clear: both;
font-size: smaller;
height: 15px;
overflow: hidden;
text-align: center;
width: 75px;
}
div.ygrp-photo{
background-position: center;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-color: white;
border: 1px solid black;
height: 62px;
width: 62px;
}
div.photo-title
a,
div.photo-title a:active,
div.photo-title a:hover,
div.photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.attach-table div.attach-row {
clear: both;
}
div.attach-table div.attach-row div {
float: left;
/* margin: 2px;*/
}
p {
clear: both;
padding: 15px 0 3px 0;
overflow: hidden;
}
div.ygrp-file {
width: 30px;
valign: middle;
}
div.attach-table div.attach-row div div a {
text-decoration: none;
}
div.attach-table div.attach-row div div span {
font-weight: normal;
}
div.ygrp-file-title {
font-weight: bold;
}
/* end of attachment style */
-->
</style>
</head>
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br><br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>[ Apologies for cross-postings. ]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Friends and Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Macmillan’s announcement to stop the presses and move to the non-printed dictionary went viral on the Internet. Of course, there was always going to be some polarisation. We expected to see a spread between cynics and enthusiasts in the general media, but some of us were surprised at the emotions displayed in the professional discussion groups. Our discipline doesn’t often make it into the news of the general media in any meaningful way, so that was good. Michael Rundell’s blog post (<a href="http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/bye-print-dictionary">here</a>) had already been viewed over 5,000 times before the end of the week, liked close to 400 times and tweeted over 100 times. The You Tube version of the news (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4o9_SKOYc">here</a>) was seen about 3,700 times, liked 41 times and disliked twice. A general news search reveals literally hundreds of comments . The seven-odd professional discussion groups each had their own dynamics in dealing with the news, and the comments also travelled from one list to the next. Allow me to repost two messages to the Euralex list now (the initial threads went from the DSNA list, to the Afrilex list, on to the Lexicography list, with copies to a few others). I wish to repost them as they offer glimpses of what Simon Krek coined the non-printable dictionary (as opposed to the mere non-printed). The posts are by none other than Robert A. Amsler and Ken Litkowski. Mention is also made of various networks (WordNet, FrameNet, etc.), as well as the work by such giants as Igor Mel’čuk and Patrick Hanks. While on the topic, I would like to pre-announce the December special issue of the <i>International Journal of Lexicography</i> (under embargo for another three weeks). In it, Thierry Fontenelle masterfully revisits these and other semantic networks dear to lexicographers. (Also in the December issue, Patrick Hanks revisits the corpus revolution, and Rufus Gouws looks into metalexicography. There are four further papers in the special issue; more on those later.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So, then, here goes, Bob Amsler’s reaction:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>-----Original Message-----<br>From: amsler@cs.utexas.edu [mailto:amsler@cs.utexas.edu] <br>Sent: vrijdag 9 november 2012 16:55<br>To: lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com; Gilles-Maurice de Schryver<br>Cc: slandau1755@verizon.net; DSNA@yahoogroups.com; afrilex@freelists.org; asialex@freelists.org; lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com; ishll@lists.le.ac.uk; lexicografie@googlegroups.com<br>Subject: Re: [Lexicog] RE: [afrilex] Re: [DSNA] FW: Macmillan's recent announcement</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I feel I should add something to this discussion...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I'm a computational lexicologist. My interest has been in the use of computers to study the contents of 'machine-readable dictionaries', a term I coined in 1980 in my dissertation on The Structure of the Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary. (That work, in turn, led to George Miller producing WordNet).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Electronic dictionaries have only partially achieved their potential because they have only expanded their access capabilities in fairly minor ways despite an avalanche of new computational capabilities. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Fundamentally, electronic dictionaries "think" of themselves as print dictionaries being offered via electronic access. This is a very limiting vision.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The work I did on the analysis of dictionary definitions demonstrated that there was an imperfect, yet intriguing, taxonomy of definition texts and showed that the alphabetic organization of dictionary entries was outmoded except under special circumstances. I.e., for example, you had to know how to spell a word to look it up; you had to know a word existed that dealt with the meaning you were trying to express to know to how to look it up; and when you did look a word up you were given a tiny view of the dictionary's contents that didn't show you the other words whose definitions were related to the entry you were examining in terms of taxonomic relatives. Sure, some dictionaries did an excellent job of including information on synonyms (Merriam-Webster's "synonym paragraphs" come to mind, for their inclusion of defining differences in text explanations; but NONE gave taxonomic or part/whole related headwords).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Electronic dictionaries offer new capabilities in terms of now providing one-at-a-time retrieval of entries based on words within definitions; provide for word game options such as finding anagrams of words. Algorithmic techniques such as the SOUNDEX system allow finding words based on their sounds instead of their spellings (something that Google seems better at than electronic dictionaries).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>But fundamentally, dictionaries as isolated islands of knowledge, are dying.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Wikipedia offers "disambiguation pages" that extend beyond what is in any dictionary, print or electronic. They engage in post-modern lexicography in which proper nouns ('named entities' in the computational linguistic community's jargon) share the likelihood of being what a user is interested in looking up instead of just lexical headwords. I remember my shock at discovering that in the Brown Corpus the word "TIME" most often referred to the name of a magazine and not any of the senses in a dictionary....<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Web search engines have implemented "definition" as a search box keyword that retrieves multiple web site hits giving the definition of terms. Some (duckduckgo.com) have even taken to assuming that a definition is the fundamental information to retrieve for any isolated keyword entered into a search box. The dictionary as a specifically evoked search is intuitively determined from the query string.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I doubt users will for long want to go to one publisher's web site and then learn their specific interface all just to look up one unknown word to get one publisher's take on its meaning... unless they are interested in a very specialized type of knowledge such as definitive etymological knowledge or a very specialized form of display. The pace of new vocabulary has made most print dictionary publisher's web sites antiquated.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>So, where does the future of lexicography lie. I believe it lies in the development of new lexical knowledge resources, new ways to display existing dictionary information and in connecting dictionary information to other knowledge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>For example. What would the dictionary look like if Google search handled dictionary lookup? You'd have best match for strings of keywords to a dictionary entry. You'd have sponsored links displayed atop the free search hits. Sponsored links aren't all bad; it depends on their relevance. If, for example, sponsored links went to the titles of books related to the word or meaning being looked up, this could be a good thing. I have often wondered how many of the headwords in a dictionary have books with that title or books whose content is about one of their sense definitions. If entries linked to government publications or public service information or news stories for words currently in the news it could be a good thing as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Of course, the problem here is that Wikipedia and Google and Amazon already exist and they are all too eager to take the leap toward incorporating dictionary information into their search results.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>What isn't yet done may well be done by web-based companies. However, in some ways dictionaries excel in what they do.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(1) Compaction of information. The dictionary entry may be the most complex bit of typography ever devised. It involved more fonts and formatting clues than any other type of text I've encountered. This hasn't been well exploited by dictionaries in their electronic interfaces. For example, if one could do arbitrary string search through a dictionary's entries one could find similar entries to an existing entry just based on the syntax of highly compact strings. No need to detail what one is looking for, find me more entries that<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>contain: "n 1 cap:" (headwords whose 1st sense is a capitalized word) or "<professor ~" (words that appear in example sentences following 'professor' as 'emeritus') or "`path-thik\" (the last part of the pronunciation of "homeopathic" used as a query for find words that end in similar pronounciations).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Note that in all these cases these are very incomplete strings taken from actual definition entries being used as queries in a very simple string search algorithm and not a highly structured search query that required weeks and months of programming of an interface to allow users to ask such questions about dictionary content. It's a "find me more entries that contain this" query. And it works because of the rigorous highly complex syntax print dictionaries have developed over decades of evolutionary advances.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(2) defining formulae. Dictionaries employ similar defining styles across entries with related content. Yet, they don't allow the user convenient access to those defining formulae so they could retrieve definitions based on their use. In part, I suspect this resulted from handing separate lexicographers the task of defining all the entries of certain groups of words such as animals, occupations, vehicles, etc. It might be useful to be able to see the definitions that were written for a given defining formula. Defining formulae are more complex than can be retrieved by string searches since they employ natural language that allows arbitrary numbers of adjectives and and/or combinations to use the same formula. The underlying formula would have to be identified to link together all definition texts that used it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>(3) beyond one-at-a-time retrieval of dictionary entries. The information science community has long used techniques such as keyword-in-context to display search results as a concordance. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Electronic dictionaries have a very annoying habit of assuming that readers want to read entries retrieved as one-at-a-time formatted entries shown as they would appear in the printed book. NO, not all of us do and many of us can read a KWIC listing more efficiently to see what is going on across all entries that will match a query's results displayed together, one result per line, formatted for horizontal alignment of their shared text.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>So... what to do. Either get busy dying or get busy living as the saying goes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dictionary publishers need to start figuring out how to live on the web as a participant of their environment or figure out how to offer their polished content in ways that don't currently exist. It isn't quite a matter of whether it's a book, an online interface, or a wireless interface, it's what it displays that is useful. It's a matter of either having lexical knowlege that nobody else has or displaying lexical knowledge in ways that are so convenient that other means of access are less attractive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>There... now I've managed to offend as many people as possible...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dr. Robert A. Amsler<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Computational Lexicologist<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Vienna, Virginia<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NL-BE><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div width="1" style="color: white; clear: both;"/>__._,_.___</div>
<!-- Start Recommendations -->
<!-- End Recommendations -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<img src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97476590/grpId=11682781/grpspId=1709195911/msgId=5441/stime=1352645272" width="1" height="1"> <br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<div style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 77%; border-top: 1px solid #666; padding: 5px 0;" >
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional <br>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnN2x2Y2JlBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzExNjgyNzgxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwOTE5NTkxMQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMzUyNjQ1Mjcy">Change settings via the Web</a> (Yahoo! ID required) <br>
Change settings via email: <a href="mailto:lexicographylist-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest">Switch delivery to Daily Digest</a> | <a href = "mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Fully Featured">Switch to Fully Featured</a> <br>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcGRhdmRzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzExNjgyNzgxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwOTE5NTkxMQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjY0NTI3Mg--">
Visit Your Group
</a> |
<a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
</a> |
<a href="mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">
Unsubscribe
</a>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<div style="color: white; clear: both;"/>__,_._,___</div>
</body></html>