[Lexicog] designing a monolingual school dictionary

Tue Nov 2 17:08:44 UTC 2004

Second attempt to post this message ...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Hanks" <patrick_hanks at gmx.de>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Javier Lahuerta" <javierlahuerta at wanadoo.es>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] designing a monolingual dictionary

>
> Dear Duygu Aydin,
>
> In Spain, Javier Lahuerta is working on a similar thesis to yours and sent
a
> similar question to Sue Atkins and me. In addition to his academic
studies,
> he has experience of working in a Spanish dictionary publishing house.
You
> might like to contact him: javierlahuerta at wanadoo.es (I'll copy this
message
> to him, as it contains some suggestions in addition to repeating what I've
> already told him.)
>
> As far as I know there is not much useful literature on designing
children's
> dictionaries.  There are articles by Reinhard Hartmann on various aspects
of
> dictionary use which you might find useful, and you should browse the vast
> International Handbook of Lexicography edited by F. J. Hausmann and others
> (published by De Gruyter) and choose any articles from it that seem
> relevant.  Some of the articles are very good, but I don't remember what
if
> anything it has on children's dictionaries.
>
> I suggest that you should read a short article in Psychology  Today
November
> 1986, available on line at
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_v20/ai_4471944  and
> perhaps you would want to research the work of Miller and Gildea
> reported there.
>
> You ought to be familiar with Eve Clark's work on children's first
language
> acquisition.
>
> As far as the practicalities of dictionary design are concerned, when I
was
> chief editor of English dictionaries at Collins in the 1980s, among other
> things I supervised the design and editing of the Collins School
Dictionary,
> published in 1989. I moved from Collins to Oxford in 1990 and
unfortunately
> I did not publish any metalexicographical papers on the design of school
> dictionaries (inquries like yours and Javier's make me think that perhaps
I
> should have done!). I did not take my Collins papers with me, and they are
> probably no longer in existence.
>
> From memory:
>
> At Collins when designing the School Dictionary we got together "focus
> groups" consisting of school teachers and government educational advisers.
> We presented various alternative styles of dictionary pages to these
groups
> for reactions and discussion. They took them away and browsed them in the
> classroom with their students.  As far as I remember, the following points
> were among those that emerged from these discussions:
>
> 1.  Children hate to be "talked down to". Definitions must be clear and
> short, and avoid jargon, but not "babyish".
>
> 2. Should a dictionary for children offer help with correct "encoding" of
> words in use, for example, by using Cobuild style definitions or by giving
> extensive examples of correct usage? The focus groups split 50-50 between
> Yes and No answers to this question. The more teachers we asked, the more
> even the split!
> It was suggested that different kinds of students need different kinds of
> dictionaries.  It was thought that those who find grammar difficult or who
> are more literary and artsy would be more likely to benefit from a
> Cobuild-style treatment than those students with a more mathematical,
> analytical mind set, who would respond better to a more traditional
> treatment.
>
> 3. The pressures on space are great in anykind of printed paper dictionary
> (electronic publishing relieves the pressure, at the risk of too much
> unnecessary verbiage), but  in a school dictionary the space pressures are
> greater than in any other kind of dictionary.  On the one hand, children
> lose trust in a dictionary if it does not contain a word that they look
> up -- especially technical vocabulary ("cumulonimbus" was the example
> cited) -- so it must contain entries for all the important technical words
> in every subject (!), but on the other hand it needs to be small and light
> enough to be carried easily (!!). Maybe electronic publishing is the
answer
> now, but for some reason, even in dictionary publishing, books are still
> much more marketable than CD-ROMs.
>
> 4. Page layout -- visual appearance of the page -- is very important.  The
> page should be attractive and readable, with plenty of white space.
> Americans seems to think that illustrations (pictures) are important, but
> the British teachers we consulted disagreed: the majority thought that at
> least some of the illustrations in school dictionaries are a waste of
space.
> (The worst example was in a 1960s dictionary which shall remain nameless,
> with a picture of two children holding hands to illustrate the word
> "together".)   The authority on dictionary page design is Professor Paul
> Luna at the University of Reading.
>
> 5. Metalanguage matters. It should be communicative to the users
(children),
> not just a sop to the lexicographer's conscience. The dictionary should
say
> what it want to say in words, not rely on conventions of abbreviations and
> typography.  For example, if a word is a noun, say "noun" not "n."
"v.t."
> (for verb transitive) means nothing to most children.  The convention in
> English dictionaries of putting brackets round contextual preferences in
the
> definitions of transitive verbs and suchlike is merely confusing to most
> children (and to adults too, I would add).
>
> 6. Can a school dictionary afford to omit "words that everyone knows" such
> as 'come' and 'go' and 'up' and 'down'? Again, opinions were divided.
>
> There was much more, but those are the points that stick in my mind.
>
> A comparative analysis of selectged entries from English school
dictionaries
> (as published by Collins, Oxford, and in particular Heineman - the
excellent
> Heineman English Dictionary), and a similar comparative study of American
> school dictionaries, might be instructive.  What do these dictionaries
> actually do?  How do they differ?  Do they say anything in the
introduction
> that sheds any light on the problems?
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Patrick Hanks
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dgaydin" <dgaydin at yahoo.com>
> To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:01 AM
> Subject: [Lexicog] designing a monolingual dictionary
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm a graduate student trying to write her MA thesis.
> > My thesis is on designing a monolingual dictionary for children at
> > the ages of eight and nine years.
> > Unfortunately, I could not be able to find any kind of references
> > here in Turkey.
> > Would it be possible for you to advise me any references or websites
> > that may direct my thesis preparation so that I can buy them via the
> > internet?
> >
> > Thanks already for your help
> >
> > Duygu AYDIN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/