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.
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.
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.
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.