EDITOR: Hartmann, R. R. K. TITLE: Lexicography SUBTITLE: Critical Concepts VOLUME: 2 SERIES: Critical Concepts in Linguistics PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis) YEAR: 2003
Niladri Sekhar Dash, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
[This is the second part of a three-part review. -- Eds.]
PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
The second volume contains 25 papers divided into three broad parts. Part 4 (Historical Perspectives) aims at making contributions to our knowledge of how lexicographic traditions have developed over the centuries (9 chapters). Part 5 (Regional Perspectives) gives an impression of global diversity, between Europe and Asia and other countries (8 chapters). Part 6 (Linguistic Perspectives) highlights a close interface between lexicographers and linguists that contributes towards the overall growth and development of both disciplines (8 chapters). Since the basic aim of dictionary developers is to provide linguistic information accurately to the users, they probably cannot ignore the relevance of linguists in their works.
CONTENT OF THE BOOK
Chapter 22 contains Thomas Dyche and William Pardons A New General English Dictionary (1735) written by DeWitt T Starnes and Gertrude E. Noyes. It was first published in Starnes, DeWitt T. and Noyes, Gertrude E. (1946) The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson 1604-1755. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. (2nd revised edition, Stein, G. (Ed.) (1991) Pp. 126-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter 23 contains Conclusion written by Tetsuro Hayashi. The paper was first published in Hayashi, Tetsuro (1978) The Theory of English Lexicography 1530-1791. Pp. 133-139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter 24 contains The Encylopedie relation to the nine predecessors written by Frank A. Kafker. The article was first published in Kafker, Frank, A. (Ed.) (1981) Notable Encyclopedias of the 17th Centuries: Nine Predecessors of the encyclopedie. Pp. 223-237. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation.
Chapter 25 contains The contribution of historical and comparative linguistics written by Robert L. Collison. The source of the paper is Collison, Robert L. (1982) A History of Foreign-Language Dictionaries. Pp. 125-140. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Chapter 26 contains The history of pronunciation in English-language dictionaries written by Arthur J. Bronstein. The paper was first published in Hartmann, R. R. K. (Ed.) (1986) The History of Lexicography. Pp. 23-33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter 27 contains Lexicographic archeology: comparing dictionaries of the same family written by Robert F. Ilson. The paper first appeared in Hartmann, R. R. K. (Ed.) (1986) The History of Lexicography. Pp. 127-136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter 28 contains The three-century recension in Spanish and English lexicography written by Roger J. Steiner. It first appeared in Hartmann, R. R. K. (Ed.) (1986) The History of Lexicography. Pp. 229-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Chapter 29 contains Gove and Webster's Third: The legacy written by Herbert C. Morton. The article first published in Morton, Herbert C. (1994) The Story of Websters Third. Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics. Pp. 267-280. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 30 contains Murray and his European counterparts written by Noel E. Osselton. The paper first appeared in Mugglestone, L. (Ed.) (2000) Lexicography and the OED. Pioneers in the Untrodden Forest. Pp. 59-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 31 contains The influence of Arabic lexicography written by John A. Haywood. The paper first appeared in Haywood, John A. (1959) Arabic Lexicography. Pp. 115-123. Leiden: E. J. Brill (2nd revised edition, 1965).
Chapter 32 contains Current trends in Indian lexicography written by Sumitra M. Katre. It was first published in Zgusta, L. (Ed.) (1980) Theory and Method in Lexicography: Western and non-western Perspective. Pp. 177- 189. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.
Chapter 33 contains Chinese lexicography past and present written by XUE Shiqi. This is an updated version of the paper first published in Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. 4:151- 169 (1982).
Chapter 34 contains Innovative practices in French monolingual learners dictionaries as compared with their English counterparts written by Marie- Noelle Lamy. It was first published in Ilson, R. F. (ed.) (1985) Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. Pp. 25-34. Oxford: Pergamon Press/British Council.
Chapter 35 contains Lexicography in Australia written by Arthur Delbridge. The paper was first published in Lexikos. 2: 64-72 (1992).
Chapter 36 contains A survey of contemporary Italian lexicography Luca Serianni. It is the updated and translated version of the paper first published in Longo, Pessina H. (Ed.) (1994) Atti del Seminario Internazionale di Study sul Lessico. Pp. 29-43. Bologna: CLUEB.
Chapter 37 contains Lexicography of the Persian language, with special reference to lexicomputing written by Ahmad Taherian. It is an updated version of the paper included in McArthur, T. and Kernerman, I. (Eds.) (1998) Lexicography in Asia. Pp. 143-148. Tel Aviv: Password.
Chapter 38 contains Towards the formulation of a metalexicographically motivated model for the national lexicography units in South Africa written by Rufus H. Gouws. It is an updated and revised version of the paper included in Weigand, H. E. (ed.) (2000) Woerterbuecher in der Diskussion IV. Pp. 109-133. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
Chapter 39 contains The Dictionary: Study of the vocabulary written by Henry Sweet. It was first published in Sweet, Henry (1899) The Practical Study of Language: A Guide for Teachers and Learners. London: J. M. Dent. (Reprinted 1964, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 139-153).
Chapter 40 contains Special grammatical dictionaries for indigenous languages written by Doris A. Bartholomew and Louise C. Schoenhals. The paper is taken from Bartholomew, Doris A. and Schoenhals, Louise C. (1983) Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous Languages. Pp. 161-177. Mexico: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Chapter 41 contains Australian Aboriginal lexicography written by Peter K. Austin. It was the revised and updated version of the introduction of Austin, Peter K. (ed.) (1983) Australian Aboriginal Lexicography. Pp. v- ix. Canberra: Australian National University, Pacific Linguistics Series A66.
Chapter 42 contains Lexicographical treatment of idioms and proverbs written by HENG Xiao-jun. The paper is taken from General Introduction in Chinese-English Dictionary of Idioms and Proverbs compiled by HENG Xiao- jun and ZHANG Xue-zhi. Pp. iii-xxvii. 1988. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
Chapter 43 contains Lexicographical treatment of affixational morphology: A case study of four Swahili dictionaries written by Charles M.T. Bwenge. The paper first appeared in James, G. (ed.) (1989) Lexicographers and Their Works. Pp. 5-17. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Chapter 44 contains The bilingual dictionary: Definition, history, bidirectionality written by Carla Marello. It is a revised, updated and translated version of the work published in Marello, C. (1989) Dizionari bilingui con schede sui di: ionari italiani per francese, inglese, spagnolo, tedesco. Pp. 5-32. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Chapter 45 contains Dictionaries of Spanish in their historical context written by Manuel Alvar Ezquerra. It is a revised and updated of the paper published in International Journal of Lexicography. 8(3): 173-201 (1995).
Chapter 46 contains A multifunctional software application for electronic dictionaries written by Hiroaki Sato. It is the updated version of the paper first included in Heid, U. et al. (Eds.) (2000) Proceedings of the 9th EURALEX Congress. Pp. 863-870. Stuttgart: Universitaet IMS.
In chapter 22 (pp. 15-28) DeWitt T Starnes and Gertrude E. Noyes deal with the New English Dictionary developed by Thomas Dyche and William Pardon, and first published nearly twenty years before Johnson's dictionary. The increasingly literate public of that time repeatedly reissued this particular work, since time was ripe for advice on linguistic usage and encyclopedic information for them. Although there a good demand for such works as recognized by the scholars like Nathaniel Bailey, most of the lexicographers were amateurs who struggled for a set of principles that world work fine for their enterprise. However, due to lack of well-defined principles, the then lexicographers started copying from each other and/or reinventing same set of guidelines for every new dictionary project. The authors show how Dyches background as a schoolmaster and author of a grammar book and a spelling dictionary had contributed towards the task of compiling a general dictionary with special attention to stress marking, parts-of-speech and place-names. However, the authors are skeptical about the consistency and effectiveness of the definitions, and the value and provenance of the encyclopedic information provided in the dictionary.
In chapter 23 (pp.29-38) Tetsuro Hayashi asks the question about the relevance and validity of the principles that were adopted by the early English lexicographers to frame their works. With a new approach Hayashi skims carefully through the statements of the lexicographers provided in the prefaces of their dictionaries that reveal many interesting things about the spiraling process of discovering, fine-tuning and copying of the tricks of the trade. The author summarizes five sets of 47 principles the origin of which can be said to derive from 250-year period: (a) coverage, (b) data-gathering and structure, (c) interpreting meaning, (d) establishing authority and (e) representing pronunciation. It also includes a chronologically arranged bibliography of cited dictionaries. Although we are doubtful whether the lexicographers of present day will agree to stick to these principles, the textbooks in lexicography available today certainly reflect many on them as generally valid and codified guidelines.
In chapter 24 (pp. 39-51) Frank A. Kafker sums up the salient features of nine of the most important predecessors of the French Encyclopedie. These features include factors such as compilation complexity, censorship and persecution, copy-editing and plagiarism, coverage of factual knowledge from varying range of subject and disciplines rather than pure lexical information about linguistic usage, social engagement and relative independence, recruitment policy and innovation. However, in his opinion, the Encyclopedie is the best referential product of the mid-eighteenth century France, since the leading intellectuals of that time valued universal learning, empirical knowledge, practical skills, and the use of reason, all at the service of innovation and reform (p. 48). However, he is disappointed because the Encyclopedie provides no coverage of information, vulgar, slang, or colloquial language, which Dyches Dictionary treats so extensively. Nonetheless, Kafker concludes with an acknowledgment: the Encyclopedie became repository of literature, original scholarship, and advanced thought, a landmark of the Enlightenment and also a landmark in the history of encyclopedia-making (p. 48).
In chapter 25 (pp. 52-64) Robert L. Collison evaluates the contribution of historical and comparative linguistics to lexicography. He starts with a reference to the Deutsche Worterbuch made by Grimm brothers as the prototypical application of the linguistic notions of interlingual change and interlingual relationship. From the linguistic point of view, it is interesting to trace the stages of development of one language by means of etymological, historical or period dictionaries. It is also interesting to to explore how a language shares some linguistic commonalities with the other members of the same language family (e.g. German within Germanic and Germanic within Indo-European). However, this issue is not elaborated here. Scholars have argued that while comparative bilingual or multilingual dictionaries codify interlingual relationships between the genealogically related languages, contact dictionaries aim at documenting the borrowing and/or copying of lexical items from one language to another. Finally, the author presents some examples to show how the comparative-historical approach inspired the creation of etymological studies and historical dictionaries for Germanic, Celtic, Romance, and Slavonic languages as well as the classical European languages like Latin and Greek and non-European languages such as Sanskrit, Tibetan, Burmese and Arabic.
In chapter 26 (pp. 65-75) Arthur J. Bronstein presents a chronological description on the formation and use of pronunciation dictionaries in England and America over the centuries. He starts from the early part of the 17th century and gradually proceeds to show how pronunciation dictionaries are developed in these countries and how these dictionaries contributed towards representing the variation of pronunciation of words in the standard forms over the years. Initially, in the 16th and 17th century, dictionary makers made no effort to identify correct or other forms of pronunciation of words (e.g. Cawdrey 1604, Kersey 1708). Pronunciation was first included in the Supplement II of Nathan Baileys Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1727). From that day on wards, pronunciation is included in almost all standard and dialect dictionaries in English although the mode of presentation of the information was different in England and America. Finally, Bronstein makes a plea for an entirely new pronouncing dictionary of North American English, since finer aspects of pronunciation of sounds are identified due to the result of acoustic-phonetic research plus research on the physiology and perception of speech with the use of sophistical instruments.
In chapter 27 (pp. 76-84) Robert F. Ilson makes a kind of detective work (Lexicographic Archeology) to illustrate with concrete evidence the genetic relationship underlying several sets of dictionaries. In principle, it involves investigation of features common to different editions of the same dictionary, of different dictionaries based on the common source, of different dictionaries from the same publisher. Systematic investigation can reveal interesting aspects about the language itself, and the ways the information is presented. Thus, it helps lexicographers, critics and users to appreciate the intricacies involved in dictionary making. His interesting study starts from the American College Dictionary (which derives from earlier dictionaries based on Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language) and explores through the British Encyclopedic World Dictionary and the Australian Macquarie Dictionary. Thus, the author establishes that Lexicographic Archeology is an important field of investigation that helps to understand past dictionaries to improve the future ones.
In Chapter 28 (pp. 85-95) Roger J. Steiner, following the line of research on the development of bilingual dictionary in history, examines how the bilingual dictionary between English and Spanish has contributed towards the growth and maturity of this particular type of reference work. In course of his investigation he demonstrates that only once in the period of continuous recension, Thomas Connelly and Thomas Higgins made a completely new beginning. In essence, they merged the two monolingual dictionaries of Samuel Johnson and the Spanish Academy into the Diccionario Nuevo (1797-98), which is considered to have three dictionaries in one: a monolingual English dictionary, a monolingual Spanish dictionary, and a bilingual Spanish dictionary (p. 91). This dictionary presented valuable lexicosemantic information in various novel manners (e.g. treatment of headwords in both source and target languages), which were never possible to achieve before.
In chapter 29 (pp. 96-108) Herbert C. Morton deals with the biographical history of Philip Gove, who was the editor for the Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961). The history of Gove's attachment with the Webster's Third New International Dictionary ends with a discussion on the legacy of the dictionary and its descriptive and anti-encyclopedic editor- in-chief. After his retirement, Gove carried on as a consultant for a while, and although the bruises from the battles of the early 1960s were still painful, he remained proud of the achievements and loyal to the company. However, even after his death, the issue of usage and how (not) to mark it lived on in the press, in the linguistic literature, in the follow-up work of Merriam-Webster's, and in its competition with other dictionary publishers. In fact, many of the dictionary publishing houses still practice Govian lexicography (p.107) except for minor details. They still do single-phrase defining and reading and marking along the same lines laid down by Gove in his instructions. Towards the end of the paper there is a hint that non-commercial academic attention to the theory of lexicography might benefit the future of practical dictionary making.
In chapter 30 (pp. 109-127) Noel E. Osselton clearly claims that, most (but not all) historical dictionaries are hybrids (p. 109). In practice, such dictionaries combine two functions: (a) they provide full description of the vocabulary of their own day (i.e. words in use, theirs meanings, their status, pronunciation, etc.), (and (b) at the same time, they order and present all kinds of information about its part. To substantiate his argument, Osselton, takes into account the scholarly historical dictionaries of three major European languages (i.e. German, French, and Dutch) and their makers in relation to James Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary. In a sequential order, keeping the form, structure, and content of the OED at background, he discusses the Deutsches Woerterbuch (1852-1960) by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, the Dictionnaire de la language française (1863-1873) by Emile Littre and the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (1864-1998) of Matthias de Vries, in terms of composition time, dating and historical coverage of vocabulary, linguistic commentary, nomenclature, pronunciation, sense variation and development, definitions and usage, readership, archaism and neologism, load of synonyms, use of quotations, treatment of words and compounds, consideration of spelling of words, collocational and idiomatic usage of words, and other problems.
In chapter 31 (pp. 139-146) John A. Haywood starts his discussion with reference to the status of Arabic lexicography within the realm of medieval scholarship. In that era, dictionaries such as the fourteenth- century Qamus and its translations into other languages had lasting impact of the growth and improvement of scholarship of the mediaeval people. Haywood also explores how the work has continued to influence the work of dictionary making in subsequent ages, not only in the Islamic countries from the Middle East to North West Africa, but also in other regions (from Spain to Indonesia), which had remained in contact with the Arabic language and culture. Thus, in Persia the local literary language took some time to get established vis-à-vis Arabic; in Turkey dictionary making was dominated by Arabic conventions even for longer period; for Hebrew and Syriac languages the influence was mutual. To overcome the limitations of traditional dictionary Haywood wants an Arabic lexicon on historical principles that will combine Arabic literature to reflect on how words changed or modified their meanings over a long period (p. 145).
In chapter 32 (pp. 147-157) Sumitra M. Katre traces some current trends against the long history of non-alphabetic (e.g. metrical) dictionary making in the Indian sub-continent. The Indian tradition in lexicography is older than that of Arabic and many investigations are made on this particular area over the centuries. However, due to linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversities there has been no concerted attempt for initiating combined studies across Indian languages. Under the influence of nineteenth century European philology, some modern bilingual and monolingual dictionaries as well as historical, pedagogical and technical dictionaries are produced for some of the Indian language. Also, some projects are running on lexicographic works of various types, but due to budgetary and technical limitations these projects have made limited progress. These rude facts of life are acknowledged in the proceedings of the first national conference on dictionary making in Indian languages, held at Mysore in 1970 (Mishra 1970) as well as in the textbook of Ram Adhar Singh (1982).
In chapter 33 (pp. 158-173) XUE Shiqi presents an overview on the varieties of the Chinese dictionary produced over the years. The discussion includes almost all types staring from word dictionaries, character dictionaries, rhyme dictionaries and dialect dictionaries and running through several types of encyclopedic, one-volume and pocket dictionaries. Also, the article refers to some ongoing contemporary lexicographic projects in China. A postscript brings the paper up to date by reporting on recent developments since 1982. From the study we get a picture of vibrant activities in both the academic and the commercial sectors. Chinese lexicography can easily take pride for preserving the longest tradition of dictionary making. Also, a large amount literature related to this empirical field of study is available. However, only a small proportion of it is available in English and other Western languages. In fact, the time has probably come for translating these works in English so that they become accessible to them who do not know Chinese.
In chapter 34 (pp. 174-185) Marie-Noelle Lamy explores into the problem of identifying monolingual learners dictionaries as a new genre. Most often it is noted that the title of such a dictionary does not always indicate the intended target audience in general. After this, Lamy makes a survey on the available dictionary families and their linguistic and presentational features. This includes non-alphabetic formats as well as the principles that guide the choice of their word-lists and their definition styles furnished with the entry words. The first dictionary specifically aimed at foreign learners of English was Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary edited by Hornby. Originally conceived and published in Japan, it brought many innovations and imitations for the generations to come. However, there are several alternatives to this monolingual learners dictionary, the most recent one is credited to Humblé (2001). The chapter ends with a contrastive discussion on the French and English approaches.
In chapter 35 (pp. 186-194) Arthur Delbridge provides and overview of the practice and theory of lexicography in Australia since 1788. In course of his discussion Delbridge pays special attention to English, Aboriginal languages and community languages used in the country. As an important lingua franca in Australia, English has always been on edge, conscious of its European origin and heritage. Also, it is always aware of its contacts with the aboriginal languages and the languages of several generations of migrants settled in the continent. The discussion has been impartial in dealing with this linguistic scholarship with equal emphasis on all language varieties in the continent. The paper concludes with a report on the establishment of a regional association and research centers for lexicographic works at two universities.
In chapter 36 (pp. 195-210) Luca Serianni starts with a reference to the features of a historical Italian dictionary Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca first published in 1612. Then she makes a detailed survey on the work with reference to two dozens Italian dictionaries produced during the last four decades. In course of her discussion, she pays utmost attention to the features of innovations in content and format of the dictionaries. Although the emphasis of the writer has been most on general- purpose monolingual dictionaries, quite often attention is diverted towards some historical-etymological, regional-dialectological and encyclopedic-technical reference works. With a critical approach, the merits and limitations of these works are addressed and described. However, we also agree with the author, when she finally admits that the objective criteria for evaluating and comparing dictionaries are still rare.
In chapter 37 (pp. 211-217) Ahmad Taherian divides his paper into two broad sections. In the first section, he concentrates on the history of Persian dictionary making. Here he describes the three distinct periods of dictionary making in Persia from the Sassanian Dynasty to the end of the twentieth century. From his narration we come to know that ever since the pre-Islamic tradition of ancient Persia, Iranian lexicographers have been adopting and adapting various practices from their neighboring countries. In the second part, Taherian describes recent developments of lexicographic works in the country, particularly since the Revolution of 1979. This study refers to the progress made in the use of information technology for preparing Farsi dictionaries, which requires the creation and maintenance of linguistic database tools. Since use of information technology in dictionary making requires skilled manpower well-versed in handling both electronic language databases and computer systems, there is no denial of the argument of the author that training of the dictionary compliers as well as the users is a primary requisite in such works.
In chapter 38 (pp. 218-245) Rufus H. Gouws first presents brief sketches of the linguistic and the lexicographic contexts in the Republic of South Africa. Next, he gives an outline on the role of PANSALB (i.e. Pan South African Language Board) in the creation of National Lexicographic Units for each of the eleven official languages. Finally, he addresses some of the problems of dictionary making in this multilingual and multicultural region. The entire work of dictionary making that involves multiple languages, requires systematic synchronization of the interests of the target people as well as careful handling of the language data and information, which are meant to be incorporated in the dictionary. Obviously, such a wide futuristic project demands not only collective wisdom but also combined efforts for success. He is probably right when he argues for to a new generation of dictionaries compiled on sound principles.
In chapter 39 (pp. 257-268) Henry Sweet rightly observes that there is a certain degree of antagonism between the dictionary compilers and the dictionary users. In fact, these two classes of people are poles apart. While dictionary makes seldom consider the need of target users, language users hardly get any scope to convey their needs to the dictionary makers. Keeping this at background, Sweet explores the useful role of dictionary in practical language learning (especially the study of vocabulary) for the benefit of teachers and students of foreign languages. Like James Murray, Sweet is aware of the importance of diachronic change in language and the value of historical lexicography in language study. And, like Saussure, Sweet appreciates the importance synchronic systematicity in language study (in terms of phonetics, grammar, semantics, style and dialect variation, etc.) and the value of descriptive linguistics. Finally, Sweet refers to the coverage of information categories (e.g. grammar, pronunciation and meaning) as well as their scope and arrangement in the dictionary, with occasional suggestions for improving its content and structure.
In chapter 40 (pp. 269-287) Doris A. Bartholomew and Louise C. Schoenhals meticulously sketch an elaborate guideline on how we should codify materials gathered from native speakers in bilingual dictionaries. To establish their propositions, the authors describe here the sounds, structures and vocabulary items obtained from relatively unrecorded languages in relatively inaccessible regions of the world. They also provide good examples to deal with the problems of grammatical classification of words to be included as entry words in bilingual dictionaries (e.g. verb sub-categories, affixes and irregular forms and the like). Finally, they show how these classification schemes should be treated as part of a consistent overall labeling policy employed for making a bilingual dictionary maximally accessible to the target users.
In chapter 41 (pp. 288-294) Peter K. Austin gives an introduction on the lexicographic treatment of Aboriginal languages in Australia. He reports how ethnographic fieldwork methods are used in the lexicographic codification of minority languages in different parts of the world. Aboriginal languages in Australia are increasingly attesting focus of the experts, although due to imperialistic aggression of other languages, these are regrettably becoming endangered, if not altogether extinct. The situation is further aggravated due to the decline in the numbers of speakers of these languages, the lack of relevant skills and resources, and the unsettle state of bilingual dictionary making practices. However, the author is highly optimistic about the survival of these endangered languages, since sincere attempts are being made for the progress of many of the languages. The author himself is involved in one of the projects (i.e. Gamilaraay) dealing with bilingual dictionary, which aim at accelerating and improving the status of the languages by the use of innovative computer technology.
In chapter 42 (pp. 295-312) HENG Xiao-jun presents and interesting estimation on the compilation of a bilingual dictionary of idiomatic and proverbial expressions. He first situates and defines the notions of idiom and proverb to summarize the characteristic features of these units. In general, idioms and proverbs are information categories that sit awkwardly between grammar, lexis and verbal examples. Their treatment in bilingual dictionaries will therefore often vary and sometimes it would the case of simple hit-and-miss between the languages considered for the dictionary. Then, he considers some of the difficulties involved in their lexicographic codification, with special reference to English and Chinese. Finally, he presents a justification for the selection of the word-list and the rather original five-step method (i.e. Chinese phonetic transcription, literal translation, free translation, English equivalent, and register label) of arranging translation equivalents in this bilingual dictionary.
In chapter 43 (313-324) Charles M. T. Bwenge deals with the complex morphology of Bantu languages and its treatment in dictionaries. While we consider the problem of linguistic description and lexicographical codification, we find a complex relationship between the structure of a language and the arrangement of the information on it provided in the dictionary. Thus, if grammatical form of words (i.e. morphology) is complicated by way of inflectional and derivational affixes, the shapes of the headwords listed in the dictionary (i.e. their canonical forms) may not be easy to determine by the users. To illustrate his arguments, the author gives examples of both nominal and verbal affixation patterns and the way they are handled in three bilingual and one monolingual dictionary. He ends with a recommendation for the lemmatized part of an entry on the derived noun (e.g. m-cheza-ji 'player'). He argues that such mixed word-stem-affix entry systems would make things easier both for the dictionary makers and the dictionary users. However, we believe that such recommendation needs to be implemented and examined with the users first on an experimental basis before it is adopted in regular practice.
In chapter 44 (pp. 325-342) Carla Marello makes a long survey to deal with the nature and origins of bilingual lexicography. She starts from the early Latin-based glossaries, refers to various bilingual and polyglot works, addresses various modern print dictionaries, and finally points towards the electronic reference works. According to her observation, interlingual dictionaries in contrast to the monolingual dictionaries are far more useful since these are intended to help mediation between the languages. For instance, bilingual dictionaries for language pairs and the polyglot dictionaries for multiple languages are better resources for the purpose of interlingual information exchange and foreign language education and interlingual translation. Finally, the author presents a rather original typological section where she argues the case for the quality of bidirectionality in dictionary, that is, the need to serve users from belonging to both speech communities.
In chapter 45 (pp. 343-374) Manuel Alvar Ezquerra traces the historical development of bilingual dictionaries starting from the early Latin- vernacular glossaries and the bilingual dictionaries with Spanish and six other European languages. The author also surges through the Spanish Academy dictionary and technical and encyclopedic works to the dictionaries of our own era. There is a strong debate regarding the position of linguistics with respect to lexicography. Since monolingual and interlingual dictionaries contain information on languages, we are persuaded to believe that linguistics must be logically and chronologically prior to lexicography. The author, however, stresses on the strong mutual link between the two domains, since she inclines towards the proposition that argues that lexicographic codification is incomplete without a full knowledge of the facts on linguistic usage. This is probably true, since a dictionary without adequate information of a language is nothing more than a list of words. Here the principles of precision obviously demands for the development and utilization of comprehensive language corpora for enhancing acceptability of a dictionary.
In chapter 46 (pp. 375-383) Hiroaki Sato, for the first time in the volume, introduces a database of six electronic dictionaries for direct on- screen access (e.g. for inflected and derived forms). He also refers to Internet for web searches, and a corpus of 500 American films to provide linguistic database for both dictionary compilers and users. This is followed by a reference to the Berkeley-based FrameNet resource that helps users to check complementation patterns of dictionaries. Such electronic databases provide essential evidences on the facts of usage in spoken and written language for precision and quality in dictionary compilation. In fact, exciting innovations in information technology have been one of the strong incentives for the dictionary developers in various ways for a number of years now. However, the author argues whether corpus linguistics is a misnomer for this kind development, since the technology comes from computer experts rather than the linguists. His argument also finds ground if we take into account that the output of is actually exploited by lexicographers rather than linguists. However, in our opinion, it is better to call lexicomputing, since the method of electronic dictionary making is primarily based on the language databases available in electronic form.
Part 4 (chapter 22 to chapter 30) makes a contribution to our knowledge of how lexicographic traditions have developed. The history of dictionary making can be traced back to early Greek glossaries in the 5th Pre- Christian century, and in Mesopotamia, Southern India and China for probably more than two millennia, in some cases possibly even before the invention of writing. It is worth pursuing the question whether what has been written on dictionary history can be classified into different genres according to what kinds of topics have been investigated. The papers included in this part exemplify these issues, link lexicography to cultural history, and ravel through the description of particular national or intellectual traditions.
Part 5 (from chapter 31 to chapter 38) gives an impression of global diversity, between Europe and Asia and other countries (and even within Europe). It must be admitted that regional perspectives tend to overlap with linguistic perspectives in the sense that authors who write about particular traditions may focus either on the territory or the language in question. It is impossible to provide a conspectus here of the status of lexicography in all regions and countries of the world. More information on Europe can be found in Hartmann (1999, 2000), on Africa in Hartmann (1990); on Asia in (McArthur and Kernerman (1998); all this with the double provision that some regions are better covered than others, and where there is literature, it tends to run rapidly out of date. Today it is increasingly possible to consult the websites of continental associations of lexicography as well as the proceedings of their conferences (p. 135).
Part 6 (chapter 39 to chapter 46) focuses on the fact that dictionary work often goes hand in hand with other forms of linguistic codification and can thus be older than the linguistic sciences. Moreover, dictionary making is such a complicated task, which needs a close interface between the linguists and the non-linguists. In any case, what is important here is the issue of linguistic accuracy in dictionary making, which is meant to provide reliable information (i.e. reference) to users who have needs for it.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.) (1990) Lexicography in Africa. Progress Reports from the D.R.C. workshop at Exeter 1989. (Exeter Linguistic Studies Series 15). Exeter: University of Exeter.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.) (1999) Dictionaries in Language Learning. Recommendations, National Reports and Thematic Reports from the TNP Sub- Project 9: Dictionaries. Website www.fu- berlin.de/elc/TNPproducts/SP9dossier.doc
Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.) (2000) European lexicography: Perspectives on dictionary research, with special reference to the countries of the European Union. Dictionaries. 21: 1-21.
Humblé, P. (2001) Dictionaries and Language Learners. Haag und Herchen.
McArthur, Tom and Ilan Kernerman (Eds.) (1998) Lexicography in Asia. Selected Papers from the Dictionaries in Asia Conference, Hong Kong 1997, and other papers. Tel Aviv: Password Publishers.
Mishra, B.G. (ed.) (1970) Lexicography in India. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Singh, Ram Adhar (1982) An Introduction to Lexicography. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
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.