Landau, Sidney I. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

6-12 What is a Dictionary? Dictionary is a powerful word. Authors and publishers have found that if they call a reference book a dictionary it tends to sell better than it would if called by another name because the word suggests authority, scholarship, and precision. It should come as no surprise, then, that all kinds of books are described as dictionaries. There are dictionaries of silk and cinematography, of drink and dance, of fashion, taxes, and chivalry. There is a dictionary of poker, a dictionary of movie terminology, and a dictionary of motor bike slang. Had Ambrose Bierce called his book Bierces Aphorisms, instead of the Devils Dictionary1, the book would have suffered the neglect it deserved, but I suppose one must give the devil its due. To most people, dictionaries and encyclopaedias are closely linked and are sometimes considered interchangeable, but they are essentially different kinds of reference works with different purposes. A dictionary is a text that describes the meanings of words, often illustrates how they are used in context, and usually indicates how they are pronounced. Dictionaries in the traditional form of books usually have their words listed in alphabetic order. Modern dictionaries often include information about spelling, etymology (word derivation), usage, synonyms, and grammar, and sometimes include illustrations as well. An encyclopaedia is a collection of articles about every branch of knowledge. Although some articles include definitions, their descriptions go far beyond the information given in a dictionary. Dictionary definitions are usually confined to information that the reader must have to understand an unfamiliar word. The emphasis is on the word, and all the information given bears directly on the meaning, pronunciation, use, or history of the word. Encyclopaedic articles are essentially topical, dealing with the entire subject represented by the articles title. An encyclopaedic article on religion does not merely say what the word religion means or has meant in the past or how it is pronounced or used; it systematically describes the religions of the world: their histories, doctrines and practices. The difference is sometimes stated, perhaps a bit too simply, by the aphorism: Dictionaries are about words, encyclopaedias are about things. This is true enough if we look at dictionaries and encyclopaedias as a whole, but it admits of many exceptions if we try to apply it to every entry in each type of work.

The Devil's Dictionary is a satirical "reference" book written by Ambrose Bierce. The book offers reinterpretations of terms in the English language, lampooning cant and political doublespeak, as well as other aspects of human foolishness and frailty. It was originally published in 1906 as The Cynic's Word Book before being retitled in 1911. Modern "unabridged" versions that include Bierce "definitions" that were for various reasons missed by earlier editions continue to be popular a century later.

It is difficult to make grand generalizations about dictionaries. They are not encyclopaedias, but what are they? They are protean in form, so that any generalization that may apply to one or several types of dictionaries may not apply at all to others. It will therefore be necessary, before we proceed much further, to analyse the various types of dictionaries and related language books.

A Survey of Types of Dictionaries and Other Language References Dictionaries may be classified by many criteria, some of them obvious to everyone, such as size, but there is no standard, agreed-upon taxonomy for dictionaries. A few intrepid souls have, however, made an attempt to construct an organized scheme of classification or typology: before we start our own survey, it will be worth taking a look at a thoughtful and discriminating typology devised by the linguistic scholar Yakov Malkiel. Malkiel says dictionaries can be distinguished by three categories: range, perspective, and presentation. Range refers to the size and scope of the dictionary: how well does it cover the entire lexicon? He calls this quality density. When dealing with an entire language, range is almost impossible to establish: who knows the total extent of the lexicon? But when the designated lexicon is limited to a specific work, the range can be comprehensive. Another aspect of range is the number of languages covered: whether it is monolingual, bilingual or multilingual (including more than two languages). The third aspect of range is the extent of concentration on lexical data: in other words: how encyclopaedic is the work? Perspective is based on how the compiler views the work and what approach is taken. First, is the work diachronic (covering an extended time) or synchronic (confined to one period)? Second, how is it organized: alphabetically, by sound (as in rhyming dictionaries), by concept (as in some thesauruses) or by some other means? Third, is the level of tone detached, perceptive (or didactic), or facetious? Presentation signifies how material of a given perspective is presented: specifically, how full are the definitions? For example, monolingual dictionaries tend to have fuller definitions than bilingual works. Compared to native-speakers dictionaries, dictionaries for foreign learners have simpler definitions and more illustrative examples. What form of verbal documentation is employed? One type of dictionary may rely on cited quotations, another may give invented phrases, a third may list bibliographical references. Are graphic illustrations included? Finally, what special features, such as pronunciation and usage information, are included? Malkiels classification is valuable because it suggests relationships between types. For example, diachronic dictionaries tend to have few or no pictorial illustrations; bilingual dictionaries are seldom diachronic and usually alphabetic in arrangement. Virtually every type of dictionary can be analysed with reference to the three categories of range, perspective and presentation. Malkiels system, while elegant, is

not very serviceable as a teaching tool. Accordingly, I offer my less elegant survey, which is not intended to be a formal typology, but merely a convenient way to highlight significant differences among dictionaries. The categories are not exclusive. This arrangement will give the opportunity to explain in what ways types of dictionaries differ and are alike.

Number of languages Dictionaries differ in the number of language they contain. The difference between the monolingual dictionary and a bilingual one consists not only in the number of languages in which they are written but in their essential purpose. A bilingual dictionary consists of a list of words or expressions in alphabetical order when in printed form, in one language (the source language), for which, ideally, exact equivalents are given in another language (the target language). The purpose is to provide help to someone who understands one language but not the other. More, the presumption is that one of the languages is the users native language. A monolingual dictionary, written entirely in one language, may be intended for the native speakers of that language, for people learning it as a second language in a country where the language is widely spoken either as a native language or a lingua franca, or for people learning it as a foreign language. It provides many kinds of information about its entry words but most importantly gives definitions, that is, each of the entry words or expressions is rephrased in words of the same language as the entry word. The chief purpose of a monolingual dictionary is to explain, in words likely to be understood, what other words mean, and, especially in a learners dictionary, how to use them. Thus, whereas bilingual dictionaries provide equivalents of their entry words in another language, monolingual dictionaries provide periphrastic definitions in the same language. Bilingual dictionaries may be unidirectional (monodirectional), or bidirectional; that is, they may go in one direction only, from English, let us say, to French, or be combined with another dictionary that goes from French to English. In studies of bilingual lexicography, the languages included are often designated as L1 and L2. Bidirectional dictionaries really consist of two dictionaries, L1 to L2 and L2 to L1. There are also dictionaries in which the entry words are translated into two other languages (trilingual dictionaries) or more than two other languages (multilingual dictionaries). There are two main purposes for using a bilingual dictionary: for comprehension, as in reading, of the source language, by a person who knows the target language; or as an aid in expression, as in writing, of the target language, by a person who knows the source language. A dictionary that is intended to be used in the latter way (for translation from a persons native language to a foreign language) is sometimes called an active dictionary, and one used for translation form a foreign language to a persons native language is called a passive dictionary. A speaker of English, for example, will consult a French - English

dictionary for passive help in understanding French unfamiliar words encountered in reading. On the other hand, a French speaker who must write an essay in English may consult a French English dictionary for active help in finding the right words to express himself. Many bilingual lexicographers have observed that it is next to impossible to construct a unidirectional bilingual dictionary for speakers of both languages. The compiler has, or ought to have, one group in mind, else the dictionary is likely to be satisfactory for neither. But rarely does a bilingual dictionary identify the user for whom it is intended. As one linguist comments, Book-publishers can scarcely be expected to take kindly to the thought, but it is nevertheless true that bilingual dictionaries should be titled in such a way that the language of the intended user is made clear, e.g. French English Dictionary for Americans as against French English Dictionary for Frenchmen. Why is this so? First of all, there is often no equivalent in the target language for entry words in the source language, not only in the obvious instances of indigenous flora and fauna but for many common words as well. Ladislav Zgusta cites the English word girlhood as an example that poses problems in providing an exact French equivalent. tat de fille is an explanatory equivalent, but it will be of no use to the English speaker who wants to translate girlhood into French in a sentence such as, In her girlhood, she used to read Tennyson. Many words, too, are culture specific (or culture-bound, as some linguists prefer). For example, American and Canadian football terms like tackle have no equivalent in countries where this sport is not played. Many social terms (such as those referring to family relationships), culinary words, political and legal terms, and religious words have no equivalent in the target language and require explanations instead of or in addition to some approximate translation. Terms relating to historical events and to health care are also often culture specific. The lack of equivalence is particularly acute, of course, when the two languages are used in cultures that differ greatly in cultural background, but it occurs with surprising frequency even in cultures with a similar heritage. In a paper particularly rich in examples of culture-specific items, the Slavic scholar Morton Benson observes that because of such cultural anomalies, the bilingual lexicographer cannot just reverse the direction of translation to obtain a word list for a companion volume. lexical gaps occur when a thing or concept in the culture of the source language does not exist in the culture of the target language; Benson cites as examples the English items advance-man, dial-a-joke and exit poll. Some items have partial equivalents in the target language, but no exact parallel; assistant professor and health maintenance organization are examples of this type. Sometimes the concept exists in the target language, although there is no term to describe it; Benson mentions gridlock, double-park, and moving violation as falling into this category. It is crucial for the lexicographer to decide in advance whether an L1 to L2 dictionary is intended to help L2 speakers comprehend L1 or to help L1 speakers express themselves in L2. If the dictionary also includes an L2 to L1 dictionary, the same questions must be asked: is the dictionary intended to help L1

speakers comprehend L2 or to help L2 speakers express themselves in L1? Thus there are four possible purposes of every bidirectional, bilingual dictionary. The decision on exactly for which speakers the dictionary is intended will affect not only the kind of translational equivalents given and the fullness of the equivalents, but the choice of entries themselves. For example, in an English-French dictionary for French speakers, the inclusion of culture-specific words like tackle in football use would make sense; the French speaker would be puzzled by this unfamiliar word. But if the dictionary is intended to help an English speaker express himself in French, tackle has no place in the dictionary. Moreover, for the English speaker, many uncommon or difficult words, such as circumnavigate, would be unnecessary, for if the English speaker wanted a French equivalent he cold seek the same sense under simpler entry words, such as sail around. Yet for the French speaker, uncommon and difficult English words are of considerable importance. If he equivalent of a common word in the source language (English) is an uncommon or difficult word in the target language (French), the disparity is of less consequence to the French speaker than to the English speaker, who may use the uncommon French word in an altogether unsuitable context unless the dictionary specifies its limited usage. Few dictionaries have space for such information. Mary R Haas lists a number of desiderata for a bilingual dictionary, including the following:

1. it provides a translation for each word in the source language

2. its coverage of the source language lexicon is complete 3. grammatical, syntactic, and semantic information is provided 4. usage guidance is given 5. names are included 6. it includes special vocabulary items, such as scientific terms 7. spelling aids and alternative spelling are indicated 8. pronunciation is included

9. it is compact in size, which obviously limits its coverage of items.