16.2154, Review: Lexicography: Hartmann (2003), vol. 1

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2154. Wed Jul 13 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2154, Review: Lexicography: Hartmann (2003), vol. 1

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 13-Jul-2005
From: Niladri Dash < niladri at isical.ac.in >
Subject: Lexicography: Critical Concepts in Linguistics 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:19:35
From: Niladri Dash < niladri at isical.ac.in >
Subject: Lexicography: Critical Concepts in Linguistics 
 

EDITOR: Hartmann, R. R. K. 
TITLE: Lexicography
SUBTITLE: Critical Concepts
VOLUME: 1
SERIES: Critical Concepts in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2003
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-1189.html


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

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.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2154