Interlingual Lexicography: Selected Essays on Translation Equivalence, Constrative Linguistics and the Bilingual Dictionary 9783110972399, 9783484391338

Citation preview

Series Maior

LEXICOGRAPHICA Series Maior Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for Lexicography Supplements ä la Revue Internationale de Lexicographie Supplementbände zum Internationalen Jahrbuch für Lexikographie

Edited by Pierre Corbin, Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, Franz Josef Hausmann, Ulrich Heid, Sven-Göran Malmgren, Oskar Reichmann 133

Published in cooperation with the Dictionary Society of North America (DSNA) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX)

Reinhard Rudolf Karl Hartmann

Interlingual Lexicography Selected Essays on Translation Equivalence, Contrastive Linguistics and the Bilingual Dictionary

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2007

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-484-39133-8

ISSN 0175-9264

© Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 2007 Ein Imprint der Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG http://www.niemeyer.de Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Laupp & Göbel GmbH, Nehren Einband: Nadele Verlags- und Industriebuchbinderei, Nehren

Table of Contents List of Figures

vi

List of Reprinted Essays (in chronological order)

vii

List of Abbreviations

χ

Introduction

1

Part I: Translation Equivalence Chapter 1: Linguistics and Translation Chapter 2: Contrastive Text Analysis and the Search for Equivalence in the Bilingual Dictionary Chapter 3: Equivalence in Bilingual Lexicography: From Correspondence Relation to Communicative Strategy Chapter 4: The Not So Harmless Drudgery of Finding Translation Equivalents Chapter 5: Contrastive Textology, Bilingual Lexicography and Translation Chapter 6: Dictionaries for Translators

11 15 24 30 38 46

Part II: Contrastive Linguistics Chapter 7: Contrastive Lexicology Chapter 8: Contrastive Textology in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics Chapter 9: Contrastive Textology, Applied Linguistics and Translation Chapter 10: Contrastive Linguistics and Bilingual Lexicography Chapter 11: Contrastive Linguistics: (How) Is It Relevant to Bilingual Lexicography? Chapter 12 From Contrastive Textology to Parallel Text Corpora: Theory and Applications

53 67 76 83 89 95

Part III: Interlingual Dictionaries Chapter 13: Das zweisprachige Wörterbuch im Fremdsprachenerwerb (The Bilingual Dictionary in Foreign-Language Learning) Chapter 14: Contrastive Textology and Bilingual Lexicography Chapter 15: Lexicography, Translation and the So-called Language Barrier Chapter 16: The Dictionaiy as an Aid to Foreign-Language Teaching Chapter 17: Bilingualised Versions of Learners' Dictionaries Chapter 18: Dictionaries across Cultures: Monolingual or Interlingual?

104 113 121 129 141 151

vi

Part IV: Dictionary Research Chapter 19: The Bilingual Learner's Dictionary and Its Uses Chapter 20: Bilingual Dictionary Reference Skills: Some Research Priorities Chapter 21: 300 Years of English-German Language Contact and Contrast: The Translation of Culture-specific Information in the General Bilingual Dictionary Chapter 22: Recent Trends in Pedagogical Lexicography: The Case of the 'Bilingualised' Learner's Dictionary Chapter 23: Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use Chapter 24: Interlingual References: On the Mutual Relations between Lexicography and Translation

156

208

Consolidated Bibliography (a) Cited dictionaries and other reference works (b) Other literature

218 222

Index

240

List of Figures 4.1 Lexical asymmetry 8.1 Relevant disciplines 8.2 Situational factors in translation 8.3 Descriptive and practical applications of CT 9.1 Linguistic levels and semiotic dimensions 9.2 Approaches to translation 10.1 Divisions of contrastive linguistics 11.1 Four scales of correspondence 11.2 Dictionary coverage 11.3 Parallel text analysis 13.1 Lexical usage and dictionary use 13.2 Look-up frequency 13.3 Contexts of dictionary use 13.4 Information categories 15.1 Translation as a means-end act 15.2 User profile 16.1 Correlating age and school activity contexts 16.2 Illustrated thesaurus entry 16.3 Illustrated dictionary entry 17.1 Observers and observed 17.2 Task and dictionary reference 20.1 Reference needs and skills 21.1 Cultural multivergence 24.1 Concordance 24.2 Comparable text evidence

33 68 69 71 78 81 84 91 92 93 104 108 109 110 123 126 133 136 138 146 148 168 175 213 215

165

172 185 189

List of Reprinted Essays (in chronological order*) (1) "Linguistics and translation", ASLIB Proceedings (London) 21 (1969), 190-194. (7) "Contrastive lexicology", ERIC Report ED 102.813. Washington DC: CAL 1973, 1-43. (8) "Contrastive textology in descriptive and applied linguistics", Sophia Linguistica (Tokyo) Nr. 4 (1978), 1-12. (9) "Contrastive textology, applied linguistics and translation", Poetics Today 2 (1981), 111-120. (13) "Das zweisprachige Wörterbuch im Fremdsprachenerwerb", in Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie II ed. by Herbert Ernst Wiegand (Germanistische Linguistik 3 6/80). Hildesheim: G. Olms 1982, 73-86 [title of English translation presented here as Chapter 13: The Bilingual Dictionary in Foreign-Language Learning]. (19) "The bilingual learner's dictionary and its uses", Multilingua (Berlin) 2 Nr. 4 (1983), 195-201. (2) "Contrastive text analysis and the search for equivalence in the bilingual dictionary", in Symposium on Lexicography II. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Lexicography, May 1984, at the University of Copenhagen ed. by Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen and Arne Zettersten (Lexicographica. Series Maior Vol. 5). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer 1985, 121-132. (14) "Contrastive textology and bilingual lexicography", in Grammar in the Construction of Texts ed. by James Monaghan. London: F. Pinter 1987, 114-122. (3) "Equivalence in bilingual lexicography: from correspondence relation to communicative strategy", Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (Poznaü) Nr. 22 (1988), 21-28. (15) "Lexicography, translation and the so-called language barrier", in Translation and Lexicography. Papers Read at the EURALEX Colloquium Held at Innsbruck 2-5 July 1987 ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby and Esther Pöhl (Paintbrush Special Monograph 16). Kirksville MO: Northeast Missouri State University (& Amsterdam: J. Benjamins) 1989, 9-20. (20) "Bilingual dictionary reference skills: some research priorities", in Language & Literature - Theory & Practice. A Tribute to Walter Grauberg ed. by Christopher S. Butler et al. (University of Nottingham Monographs in the Humanities 6). Nottingham: University of Nottingham 1989, 17-26. (16) "The dictionary as an aid to foreign-language teaching", [Article 23] in Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires. International Encyclopedia of Lexicography ed. by

* In each of the four thematic Parts, they are also arranged in chronological order: I (1-6), II (7-12), III (13-18), IV (19-24).

viii

Franz J. Hausmann et al. Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1989, Vol. I: 181-189 [ISBN 3-11-0095058], (4) "The not so harmless drudgery of finding translation equivalents", Language and Communication [Special Issue on Translation ed. by Marilyn Gaddis Rose] 10 Nr. 1 (1990), 47-55 [ISSN 0271-5309]. (10) "Contrastive linguistics and bilingual lexicography", [Article 299] in Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires. International Encyclopedia of Lexicography ed. by Franz J. Hausmann et al. Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1991, Vol. Ill: 2854-2859 [ISBN 3-11012421-1], (21) "300 years of English-German language contact and contrast: the translation of culturespecific information in the general bilingual dictionary", in Language and Civilization. A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch ed. by Claudia Blank. Frankfurt: P. Lang 1992, Volume II: 310-327 [ISBN 3-63141-627-X]. (11) "Contrastive linguistics: (how) is it relevant to bilingual lexicography?", in New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics. Proceedings of the Conference in Innsbruck, 10-12 May 1991 ed. by Christian Mair and Manfred Markus (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Anglistische Reihe 4 & 5). Innsbruck: Universität, Institut für Anglistik 1992, Vol. I: 293-299 [ISBN 3-85124-159-2]. (22) "Recent trends in pedagogical lexicography: the case of the 'bilingualised' learner's dictionary", in Endangered Languages. Proceedings of XV International Congress of Linguists [Quebec, August 1992], ed. by Andrö Crocheti£re et al. Sainte-Foy Quibec: Les Presses de l'Universtö Laval 1993, Vol. II: 159-162. (17) "Bilingualised versions of learners' dictionaries", Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen [thematic issue on Dictionary Use ed. by Ekkehard Zöfgen] 23 (1994), 206-220 [ISSN 0932-6936]. (5) "Contrastive textology, bilingual lexicography and translation", in An Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies Chinese-English, English-Chinese ed. by Chan Sin-Wai and David E. Pollard. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press 1995, 505-518 [ISBN 962-201-617-0]. (18) "Dictionaries across cultures: monolingual or interlingual?", in Temas de Lingiiistica Aplicada ed. by Jorge Femändez-Barrientos Martin and Celia Wallhead (Monogräfica Centra de Lenguas Modemas 205). Granada: Universidad de Granada 1995, 53-62 [ISBN 84-338-2122-9], (12) "From contrastive textology to parallel text corpora: theory and applications", in Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday ed. by Raymond Hickey and Stanislav Puppel. Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1997, Vol. II: 1973-1987 [ISBN 3-110-14504-9]. (23) "Case study: the Exeter University survey of dictionary use", [Thematic Report 2] in Dictionaries in Language Learning ed. by R.R.K. Hartmann. Berlin: Thematic Network Project in the Area of Languages [http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc/TNPproducts/SP9dossier.doc] 1999, 36-52.

ix (6) "Dictionaries for translators" [presented at the International Conference on Literature, Linguistics and Translation, Yarmouk 1994], in Al-Ma'äjim 'abr al-Thaqäföt. Dictionaries across Cultures. Studies in Lexicography by RRΚ. Hartmann, ed. and translated into Arabic by Mohamed H. Heliel. Kuwait: Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science 2004, [Section 5.3] 228-246 [ISBN 99906-30-70-4], (24) "Interlingual references: on the mutual relations between lexicography and translation", The Hong Kong Linguist No. 25 (2005), 43-52 [ISSN 1025-2347]. I wish to express my thanks to all the publishers concerned for granting copyright permission to reprint these essays.

List of Abbreviations* AFRILEX AI AILA AL ALPAC ASIALEX ASLIB BL BLI CA CAL CDU CL COBUILD

African Association for Lexicography artificial intelligence Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquöe applied linguistics Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee Asian Association for Lexicography Association for Information Management (London) bilingual lexicography Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung contrastive analysis Center for Applied Linguistics (Washington DC) Christlich-Demokratische Union contrastive linguistics Collins Birmingham University International Language Database (Birmingham) Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System COSMAS (Institut für deutsche Sprache, Mannheim) contrastive textology CT DSNA Dictionary Society of North America Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards (Pisa) EAGLES European Corpus Initiative (Geneva) ECI EFL English as a foreign language English learner's dictionary ELD English as a second language ESL English for specific purposes ESP ET - EUROTRA EURALEX European Association for Lexicography EUROTRA European Communities Research & Development Programme on Machine Translation (follow-up projects ET-6, ET-10 etc.) foreign language FL HRAF Human Relations Area File (Yale) IBM International Business Machines (Yorktown Heights) ICAME International Computer Archive of Modern & Medieval English (Bergen) International Phonetic Alphabet IPA 1RAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Istituto Dalle Molle per gli Studi Semantici e Cognitivi (Geneva) ISSCO information technology IT first language (mother tongue and/or source language) LI second language (acquired other language and/or target language) L2 learner's dictionary LD LSP language(s) for specific purposes MT machine translation Multilingual Text Tools and Corpora (Aix-en-Provence) MULTEXT * Abbreviated dictionary titles are listed in Section (a) of the Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

List of Abbreviations NFL NLP SGML SL SPSS TEI TESOL TL TNP UNESCO

xi

Nordic Association for Lexicography natural language processing Standard Generalized Mark-up Language source language Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Text Encoding Initiative (Oxford) teaching English as a second language target language Thematic Network Project Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Education, la Science et la Culture (Paris)

Introduction

Since languages differ in all imaginable respects, the translator-lexicographer must sometimes use means quite different from those used in the original in order to obtain the same results. (Ladislav Zgusta 1984a: 151)

These essays (which I dedicate to the memory of Ladislav Zgusta t 27/4/2007) reflect the sorts of topics that I have been interested in for the whole of my professional life: interlingual communication, with special reference to linguistic analysis and codification, translation and bilingual lexicography, particularly for English and German. The aim of this selection is to survey some of the issues in interlingual lexicography, in order to see what has been done, and how much more needs to be done, until we have a more complete understanding of what is involved. I define 'interlingual lexicography' as "a complex of activities concerned with the design, compilation, use and evaluation of interlingual dictionaries"; the 'interlingual dictionary' is in turn defined as in (1) below (taken from the DoL by Hartmann & James 1998/2001: 75). (1) A type of reference work with information on more than one language. The term is used either when the contrast with monolingual dictionary is stressed or when the distinction between bilingual dictionary and multilingual dictionary is considered irrelevant...

It is indeed interesting to explore what sorts of dictionaries are actually on offer, whether the language pair in question makes a difference, and what particular purposes such dictionaries serve. Two particularly intriguing topics are 'translation equivalence' and 'directionality', although it remains a fact that, firstly, such issues have been neglected in the literature on lexicography, and, secondly, interlingual lexicography has much catching up to do to reach the level of intralingual (or unilingual, or monolingual, or monoglot) lexicography. Citation (2) below comes from one of the 24 essays that I have selected for reprinting. It was originally published in 1982 in a German journal edited by the metalexicographer Wiegand, who had commissioned me to report on one of the first empirical studies ever attempted of the use of dictionaries among British foreign-language learners. (2) [Gebrauchswörterbuch und Erwerbswörterbuch] ... Ich möchte analog zum (Sprach-)Gebrauchswörterbuch den Begriff des (Sprach-)Erwerbswörterbuches einführen [...], der dem im Englischen geläufigen learner's dictionary entspricht, nicht aber mit dem sogenannten Ubersetzungswörterbuch identisch sein muss. (Translation: By analogy with the general usage dictionary, I should like to introduce the notion of the pedagogical or didactic dictionary [...], which corresponds to the learner's dictionary as popularised in English, but is not necessarily identical with the so-called translation dictionary.)

The term I created then for the purpose of the paper was Erwerbswörterbuch, short for Spracherwerbswörterbuch (or 'language acquisition dictionary'), in contrast to Gebrauchswörterbuch, short for Sprachgebrauchswörterbuch (or 'linguistic usage dictionary'). In

2

Introduction

English, this distinction is terminologised differently, not by 'usage dictionary' versus 'acquisition dictionaiy', but rather by 'defining dictionary (for native speakers)' versus 'learning dictionaiy (for foreign learners)', the prototype of the latter being the so-called 'learner's dictionary' first developed by Hornby over 60 years ago for Asian students of English and then, since 1948, published under the title (Oxford) Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English and more recently imitated by four other British publishers (Longman, COBUILD, Cambridge and Macmillan). Incidentally, in the OALD the term learner's dictionary is not listed as a headword, but the entry for learner contains a relevant example: 'a dictionaiy for learners of English'. The issue whether such learning dictionaries should be monolingual or translated ('bilingualised') will be addressed later. If I had problems translating this German text into English, I would possibly turn to dictionaries for help. Bilingual dictionaries for German and English, such as the DOGE and the CKCGD, do not list (Sprach-) Erwerbswörterbuch or (Sprach-) Gebrauchswörterbuch. Their entries for the nouns Erwerb and Gebrauch offer no help, either, as they concentrate on the core meanings of these two words: 'acquisition' (in the sense of 'purchase', 'earning', 'employment' and 'occupation'), on the one hand, and 'use' (in the sense of 'utility' and 'custom'), on the other; but at least they both have entries for the compound lexemes Spracherwerb and Sprachgebrauch (and list the English equivalents 'language acquisition' and 'linguistic usage'). How can we check whether the terms (Sprach-)Erwerbswörterbuch and (Sprach-) Gebrauchswörterbuch have been catching on, and are used by people other than myself in the literature on lexicography? I checked in the international encyclopedia W/D/D (Hausmann et al. 1989-91), and the index there told me that there are at least two relevant occurrences, one when PQschel (1989: 132) wrote about Gebrauchswörterbücher and Erwerbswörterbücher as monolingual dictionaries for native speakers and dictionaries for foreign learners, and the other when I myself (Hartmann 1989b: 184) cited the distinction, made in the literature on the genre of the Spracherwerbswörterbuch, between learners' dictionaries for 'encoding' or writing (Schreibwörterbücher) and those for 'decoding' or reading (Lesewörterbücher). Thus we have met two of the most important and often ignored topics: interlingual communication (or translation) and classification of dictionaries (or typology); the former is usually linked to problems of dictionary use, the latter is usually associated with problems of dictionary-making, but as we shall see, both are essential for an understanding of interlingual lexicography. Regardless of structural similarities and differences between languages, translation equivalence is definitely not a straightforward matter. Indeed, the link between translation and lexicography is not just a single relation, but rather a very complex and intricate twoway traffic: when I am trying to translate a particular word or an expression from one language into another, and I consult a bilingual dictionary for its possible translation equivalents), I am using the dictionaiy as a tool, and I have to interpret the information categories I am offered to get the best result for the respective specific context. However, the process that leads to the presentation of a range of translation equivalents in the bilingual dictionaiy is very different; it involves a search, supported by the bilingual competence of the lexicographer, for sets of equivalents that will be suitable in the widest possible range of contexts - which is why so often, and so frustratingly, we are offered several different equivalents, none of which may fit the context in question.

Introduction

3

We can deduce a number of general points from the above example: - language learning, especially foreign-language learning, requires a pedagogically oriented dictionary genre that is different from the conventional defining or explanatory dictionary, particularly if interlingual encoding and translation are involved; - existing dictionary types may or may not be suitable for the task in hand; if not, new specialised formats (monolingual and/or interlingual dictionaries, pedagogical and/or terminological dictionaries, dictionaries for decoding and/or encoding, dictionaries in print and/or electronic form) may have to be developed, but even these may lag behind their monolingual counterparts; - our knowledge of what is involved in the processes of language learning and translation may actually be deficient, which means that we may not have access to all the empirical facts in order to fully appreciate what dictionary users may need and what dictionary makers can provide; and - specifically, we may need more evidence, which could well involve the need for observing translation strategies, with or without the support of parallel text corpora, to understand how equivalents are established in the first place and then codified in dictionaries. In view of all this, we need to revise the various models that have been proposed to improve our understanding of interlingual lexicography. And it follows from what has already been said that this is more difficult for interlingual than for monolingual lexicography. For instance, while there are now many more textbooks available than ever before, interlingual aspects are often ignored in them. Thus, Landau's introduction (1984/2001) has no chapter specifically on bilingual lexicography, Svens^n's (1993) devotes only one of 22 chapters (one of 28 in the 2nd Swedish edition 2004) to the topic of equivalents in bilingual dictionaries, my own book Teaching and Researching Lexicography (Hartmann 2001) mentions only two case studies, and the HSK encyclopedia published under the title Ü/T/T (2004) neglects most lexicographic topics altogether. There are very few publications devoted entirely to bilingual lexicography, such as the books by Marello (1989) and Adamska-Salaciak (2006). We also know very little about where and how lexicography is taught, and how it relates to the practical training provided by publishers, although I have tried, in my own way and with very limited means, to collect information on how the subject is passed on to the next generation, e.g. by initiating the EURALEX-sponsored Who's Who in Lexicography (1996) and more recently by starting a database of dissertations and theses on lexicographic topics entitled LexiDiss. Dozens of lexicography conferences linked or not linked to particular associations have been held, of course, around the world in the last three or four decades, but very few have paid sufficient attention to interlingual topics. For a start, dealing with language pairs is bound to be harder than with single languages. That there are difficulties with the problem of comparing different language pairs, and that it is almost impossible to generalise from one or more to all of them, came to me with a vengeance when I organised a seminar perhaps the first such international conference ever held - on the history of lexicography (Hartmann 1986), where several authors of the papers presented expressed the opinion that the provision of most bilingual dictionaries depends on both cultural contexts and users.

4

Introduction

Interlingual activities are also more intricate, involving varying degrees of bilingualism, language acquisition and translation (and consequently requiring more interdisciplinary collaboration). It is not surprising, then, that fewer experts have dedicated themselves to the task, less research has been done and less literature is available on these topics. Although (paradoxically) foreign-language learners are often observed to prefer bilingual to monolingual dictionaries, less attention has been given to, and much less is known about, their purpose, their design and their consultation. The result may well be the relatively low status that seems to be attached to interlingual dictionary-making, and even prejudice against it, as demonstrated by Piotrowski's (1989: 72) sarcastic comment on the opinions of two eminent British linguists implying that students should be 'weaned away' from bilingual dictionaries, as they tend to 'perpetuate translation' and prevent 'free creative expression' in the target language. An additional problem is lack of familiarity with the literature in languages other than the scholars' own, with the regrettable result that, as Ladislav Zgusta (1984b: 275) has pointed out, "... lexicography still is largely compartmentalized by languages and that the flow of information from one center of work to another is not yet what would be desirable." Wherever lexicography has managed to become established, and whenever it has developed elements of self-reflection, sets of principles and codes of practice, we now speak of metalexicography or 'dictionary research' (with Wiegand and Hausmann as prime movers in Germany, where they also initiated both the Lexicographica. Series Maior and the 3-volume international encyclopedia W/D/D). About half a dozen 'perspectives' (or branches, or components, or aspects) of metalexicography have been distinguished in the literature, but it must be admitted that most of the time these perspectives of dictionary research tend to focus on the traditions and practices of unilingual rather than interlingual lexicography. And, unfortunately, we do not know enough about whether and how these developments differ by language, country, and culture, as there are practically no comparative studies; one exception is the paper by Huang (1994), a contrastive account of what distinguishes metalexicography in China from that in the West. For the first perspective, dictionary history, there is no general pattern for the treatment of dictionary traditions across language pairs. What several authors share is their emphasis on copying, what Steiner (1986) diplomatically calls 'recension' and what Hayakawa (2001) refers to, more directly, as 'plagiarism'; so we can take it that the habit of following the model of predecessors is rampant, at least in the Spanish-English and the English-Japanese traditions. In some of these historical studies, the claim is made that the bilingual dictionary preceded the monolingual one. Certainly there has been a point of view that this was the case for many languages of Europe at the time when they broke free from the domination of Latin. The language pairs that have been investigated range from 1.5 million native speakers (Latvian) to nearly 400 million (English) and over 885 million (Mandarin Chinese). Several of the studies published in book form link German with languages in Eastern and South Eastern Europe. Most cover periods of at least 60 years, although they often give an indication of the whole tradition, e.g. Fejör (1995) discusses not just the highlights in the first half of the 20ώ century, but also mentions many of the Hungarian dictionaries produced in the 400 years since 1600, although she admits that she has not actually seen all the cited

Introduction

5

items (or editions thereof). For all these periods and language pairs, the coverage in terms of numbers of dictionaries ranges from at least 11 to over 50. Overall, there certainly seems to be a correlation between the size of the language pairs (in terms of their numbers of speakers) and the range and quantity of dictionaries on offer. What other tendencies can we diagnose from such historical studies? Most seem to concentrate on so-called 'general' bilingual dictionaries (usually they come in two separate parts, although I know of one or two dictionaries, e.g. the DGEEG 1912, that have combined the two parts into a single alphabetic sequence). Other interlingual genres are occasionally mentioned, such as the special-purpose or technical bilingual dictionary, the bilingual dictionary of idiomatic phrases, and the bilingual pronouncing dictionary. At certain periods and for certain language pairs, the bilingualised and the multilingual dictionaries are significant sub-types (such as a trilingual dictionary being compiled by three friends of mine in Hong Kong, for Chinese, Cantonese and English). Directionality can also be an important consideration, depending on the status of the languages in question and the needs of the potential dictionary users. Thus, the beginning of a tradition is typically dominated by the major language (such as Latin in medieval Europe, and English today in most parts of the world), so bilingual dictionaries are designed initially and predominantly for reception and interpretation (reading or decoding, or version in French), while later on productive uses become more important (writing or encoding, or theme in French). The overriding impression is that there are enormous divergences between the lexicographic traditions of various language pairs. We are now ready to turn to the second perspective, dictionary criticism. Although there is a relatively long tradition going back to Paolo Beni's (1612) reception of the Italian Academy Dictionary published in 1611, and several different approaches can be distinguished, the problem is that no-one knows for sure exactly how good (i.e. positive as well as negative) dictionary criticism should be carried out, least of all for interlingual dictionaries. Several criteria or sets of standards for evaluating and assessing dictionaries have been proposed, but only rarely are they applied to interlingual dictionaries. The comparative approach pioneered by Heuberger (2000) for the critical analysis of monolingual English learners' dictionaries (ELDs) has not yet been adapted to the needs of interlingual lexicography. The closest anyone has ever got to this was Iannucci's (1962) critical account of the less than satisfactory treatment of meaning discrimination in bilingual dictionaries, but it is limited to just that: 75 specimen entries in 32 dictionaries with English. What we can generalise from all this is that we have very few guidelines for reviewing bilingual dictionaries, and those that are available, such as Steiner's (1984) checklist under three headings, 'inclusiveness', 'content' (including directionality and equivalence), and 'organization', are not widely known among most dictionary critics, and comparative critical accounts of different interlingual traditions are practically non-existent. The third perspective is dictionary typology. I will concentrate on interlingual reference works for English and other languages, but there may well be more than the eight subgenres listed under (3) below. (3) Dictionary genres: 1 (Bilingualised) general monolingual dictionary, 2 (Bilingualised) specialised monolingual dictionary, 3 (Bilingualised) monolingual learner's dictionary,

Introduction

6 4 5 6 7 8

(Bilingualised) LSP monolingual dictionary, General bilingual dictionary, Specialised bilingual dictionary, LSP bilingual dictionary, LSP multilingual dictionary.

Any monolingual dictionary is inherently interlingual, especially when it is subjected to translation, as in the sub-genres (1), (2), (3) and (4) for which bilingualised versions of English dictionaries exist, e.g. the NODE in Chinese, the LLCE in Chinese, the OALD in Korean, and the DoL in Japanese. The so-called general bilingual dictionary, such as the CKCGD or the DOGE, is the most well-known, but it can be contrasted with more specialised and technical types, e.g. the CEDIP and the ECDP (note that the directionality can go either way, or both ways, as in many dictionaries that have two parts addressing users from two languages, cultures, countries and markets). Sometimes it is difficult to establish the borderline between monolingual and bilingual products, for instance in the LBCP (2001) which provides information on Chinese proverbs or quotations, but is entirely in English. Sometimes more than two languages can be involved, as in the polyglot or multilingual dictionary which has a long-established tradition in some technical fields (sometimes called 'languages for specific purposes' or LSP) like law, music, medicine, science and technology. Contrary to general belief, it may not be easier to correlate technical terms across language barriers than it is to find translation equivalents for non-technical general and conversational words and phrases. Thus, with reference to the GAP, which presents the LSP associated with the building of towns, squares, roads, bridges etc. in German, French and English, I remember making the comment (Hartmann & Hartmann 1989: 153) that "(i)f both systematic treatment and multilingual correspondence are to be achieved, compromises are inevitable." Finally, elements of all of all these sub-genres can be presented in electronic form, or even combined, in a number of different ways. Two recent survey papers are relevant in this context, one written by Tono from the Japanese point of view in relation to foreignlanguage learning, and the other by Zhang from the Chinese standpoint in relation to translation. Tono (2004) shows us that the typology of various reference materials is confusingly unsettled (from the chip-operated pocket calculator and the CD-ROM-fed computer terminal to various online web-links and parallel-database translation software), while Zhang (2004) demonstrates that the quality of electronic dictionaries is surprisingly deficient, especially in terms of the often inadequate translation equivalents offered by these products. What can we generalise then about dictionary typology in relation to interlingual lexicography? It seems to me that we would be justified in saying that almost anything is possible, and therefore we need to keep an open mind on diverse new reference works, provided that we are confident they appeal and make sense to the average user. One less than common type that I have recently investigated (Hartmann 2006) is the so-called 'onomasiological' format used in thesauruses and dictionaries of synonyms. Regardless of whether these are monolingual or bilingual, there is a close parallel in this dictionary type between explaining the meanings for words in terms of their (intralingual) near-synonyms, as in the examples learner's dictionary, pedagogical dictionary etc., or finding corre-

Introduction

7

sponding words in terms of their (interlingual) translation equivalents in another language, e.g. Lernerwörterbuch or Erwerbswörterbuch in German, gakushuu jisho or kyouiku you jisho in Japanese, and jiao xue cidiart in Chinese. This is why for many language pairs such onomasiological dictionaries are sometimes compiled and published in bilingual form. The topic of 'hybrid genres' such as dictionary-cum thesaurus, monolingual-cum-bilingual dictionary, dictionary-cum-encyclopedia, etc. is also worth pursuing (Hartmann 2005b). The fourth perspective is dictionary structure, a notoriously difficult and underresearched problem area. My favourite piece in this context is the classic paper presented by Mary Haas at the famous Conference on Problems in Lexicography at Bloomington, back in 1960. Haas (1962: 45) stipulated the kinds of information categories that an 'ideal' bilingual dictionaiy should include; citation (4) summarises the first 8 of her list of 12. (4) The ideal bilingual dictionary would anticipate eveiy conceivable need of the prospective user: 1. It would provide for each word or expression in the source language just the right translation in the target language including, most importantly, the one needed for the passage in hand. 2. It would contain all the words, locutions, circumlocutions, and idioms that any user might ever want to look up. 3. It would contain all the inflectional, derivational, syntactic and semantic information that any user might ever need. 4. It would contain information on all levels of usage, including special warnings about words not to be used in the presence of ladies, in the presence of children, or in the presence of one's superiors. 5. It would contain all personal names, names of personages past and present, place names, names of famous books and plays, names of characters therein, and any other names that any user might want to look up. 6. It would contain all the specialized vocabulary items of all the sciences, professions, manufacturing industries, and trades, each carefully and appropriately labelled as to its field. 7. It would contain all necessary information about correct spellings, as well as information on alternate or commonly-encountered incorrect spellings. 8. It would include all the information needed to instruct the user in the proper way to pronounce each word so as to be indetectable from the pronunciation of a native speaker.

The most important point in Haas's list is of course No. 1, translation equivalence. How are lexical equivalents found and codified, how are all their occurrences in real contexts actually illustrated, and how are their various senses properly explained and discriminated? Here is an example from a bilingual dictionary compiled at Exeter, the CEDIP (1988), in which the translation equivalents are ingeniously arranged in a three-step sequence, as in (5) below. (5) Levels of equivalence for the Chinese idiom bu ju lijie: 'literal' translation: not stick to usual social rules 'free' translation: pay no attention to convention full English equivalent: do not stand on ceremony (marked with the register labels 'literary' and 'colloquial')

To generalise on dictionary structure today, more than 40 years after Haas proposed her list, we no longer regard it as preposterous, especially with the means IT has put at our disposal. However, to my knowledge no one has systematically studied all the various possibilities. This applies particularly to the subject of translation equivalence, where we need much

8

Introduction

more corroborating evidence, both on the kinds of interlingual correspondence and the kinds of activity in which it plays a part. Thus, it is surely important whether we are talking of literal or free translation, whether the people consulting the dictionary are engaged in professional translation or foreign-language learning, and whether the process involves 'passive decoding' into the mother tongue or 'active encoding' into the target language. For the fifth perspective, we turn to dictionary use, a specialisation to which I myself (with some of my research students) have made significant contributions, such as the study of British learners of German mentioned earlier. Most publications on the topic of observing and surveying dictionary users start with a reference to the famous American lexicographer Clarence Bamhart (1962), who reported the results of his commercially motivated questionnaire survey at the Bloomington conference. Barnhart's main point, that meaning and spelling outrank grammar and etymology, was important and influential, and may well have contributed substantially to the removal of historical facts from general and learners' dictionaries of English, in favour of stressing semantic and orthographic information. The trend since the 1980s and '90s has been for more direct (rather than indirect) observation, from the relatively large-scale questionnaire survey to the relatively limited direct observation by test or protocol (although large numbers by themselves are no guarantee for reliability, and small numbers can still be useful if they reveal typical behaviour patterns of typical dictionary users). From Barnhart's survey of native-speaker students at American colleges we have moved on to the observation of learners of English as a Foreign Language (Baxter 1980) and English as a Second Language (Battenburg 1991), even English for Specific Purposes: in the case of Diab (1990), nurses in a Jordanian university hospital; in the case of Li (1998), staff and students in a technological university in China. What can we generalise from these studies? The earlier research efforts were concerned with more general notions of dictionary 'reference needs', but gradually they have tended to focus on more specific instances of dictionary 'reference skills' associated with particular activity contexts, e.g. Tono's ingenious experiment (1984) which looked at the way his Japanese students search for information inside the microstructure (he found that often they do not move on beyond the first sub-entry), and Thumb's (2004) tests of how her Hong Kong students use bilingualised dictionaries, such as the Chinese version of the OALD. But practically no studies exist of the multifarious uses and users of specific dictionary genres, such as LSP experts. Even less is known about translators as dictionary users. And most studies devoted to dictionary use while translating, like Mackintosh's (1998), are based on students of translation rather than professional translators. The sixth branch or perspective is dictionary ΓΓ, or computational lexicography. IT has made it possible not only to mechanise many lexicographic processes (e.g. word-processing and corpus technology), but also to develop many new types of reference works, under such names as 'electronic dictionary' and 'terminological database'. Interlingual lexicography has not yet fully explored all the infinite possibilities; it also lags behind unilingual lexicography, and the literature does not cover all aspects, e.g. Ooi (1998) does not refer to bilingual dictionaries and translation at all, including the problem of how to treat (Haas's) multiple information categories (linguistic vs. encyclopedic information, verbal vs. illustrated examples, general vs. technical vocabulary) in the interlingual dictionary.

Introduction

9

Finally, we come to what I call research priorities. We have seen that lexicography has matured, both in practice and in theory, in terms of such things as more professional approaches to the discipline, more textbooks, more training facilities and more international associations. Some generalisations have also arisen from the six perspectives of dictionary research: dictionary history, dictionary criticism, dictionary typology, dictionary structure, dictionary use, and dictionary IT. Now we need to ask about what sorts of desiderata remain. Among the factors of interlingual dictionary use and dictionary provision that need to be investigated more fully are a number of problem areas (Hartmann 2005a), listed here in the form of 10 questions: 1. What do we know about varying levels of mother-tongue and foreign-language proficiency of the dictionary user, from beginner's to advanced? 2. What are the types of activity engaged in by the user, from reading to writing or translating from one language to another? 3. What is the degree of knowledge sought, from general information to technical expertise? 4. What genres of reference works are on offer, from general-purpose to special-terminological, or from monolingual to interlingual, or from print to electronic, with various hybrid types? 5. Which information categories are to be made available in the dictionary, from spelling and pronunciation to lexical meaning, usage and encyclopedic details? 6. Are we familiar with all the types and directionality of the translation process, from mother tongue to foreign language, or vice versa, or from literal to free and idiomatic, including problems of sense discrimination and equivalence? 7. What is the sequence of operations in a typical consultation process, from choice of dictionary to search within the entry and integrating the result of the operation with the requirements of the activity? 8. Which intradisciplinary methods are appropriate for carrying out research on the topics listed above? 9. What interdisciplinary methods can we draw on for such studies? 10. What are the implications of all of this not only for lexicography, but also for a number of other fields such as translation studies, technical terminology and foreign-language learning?

Because of the uneven developments in all the aspects of dictionary research, we need to 'compare and contrast', learn from each other, and try to improve both practice and theory in all respects, for the potential benefit of interlingual lexicography around the world, particularly as time seems ripe for its development in the direction of an international, interdisciplinary and multimedia 'reference science'. How do the essays that I have selected fit into the various topics, issues and desiderata discussed above? There are 24 of them, spread over a period of over 35 years, grouped into the following four thematic parts of six chapters each, retaining their chronological order: I Translation Equivalence Under this heading, there are papers (Chapters 1 to 6) on the relations between translation and linguistics, on establishing equivalence for general vocabulary and technical terminology, and on codifying translation equivalents in the bilingual dictionary. Translation is not only considered as a donor to the process of dictionary-making, but also as a potential user of the products of lexicography.

10

Introduction

II Contrastive Linguistics The subjects treated under this heading (Chapters 7 to 12) include interlingual comparisons at the levels of lexis and text and their benefit for bilingual lexicography, paying particular attention to the possibilities of exploiting corpora of parallel texts. III Interlingual Dictionaries Bilingual and bilingualised dictionaries, with special reference to English and German, are the focus of this group of papers (Chapters 13 to 18). This includes their critical evaluation, their use, especially in Britain, by language learners and translators, and their relations to monolingual and interlingual activities. IV Dictionary Research Several metalexicographic research priorities are addressed here (Chapters 19 to 24): how to investigate dictionary use by language learners and translators, how to observe dictionary reference skills and assess dictionary types, how to trace dictionary history, and how to build bridges between lexicography and translation studies. All essays have been edited with particular attention to uniform presentation, improved clarity, and minimal repetition. Numbered sections, figures, tables, diagrams (and quotes from dictionaries) have been presented in similar format; bibliographical references to cited dictionaries and other literature have been consolidated into a single Bibliography at the end of the volume. One of the essays (No. 13) has been translated from German to English. Some cross-references (—•) have been added to show internal progression and continuity between the chapters. I should like to conclude this Introduction by acknowledging my thanks to the publishers who have given me copyright permission to reprint these papers (—* List of Reprinted Essays, pp. vii to ix), and to my fellow editors in the Lexicographica. Series Maior for agreeing to publish them in this volume, above all to Ladislav Zgusta for the inspiration he has given us for over two decades! Very special thanks go to my wife, for not interrupting me during the many hours spent on my computer preparing and editing these texts. I am also grateful to Daniela Zeiler for providing guidance on the publishing format, to Tim Rickwood for helping me to scan in the essays in a standard template, and to Walter Schneider for assisting me with the index.

References —» Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Part I: Translation Equivalence

Chapter 1 Linguistics and Translation*

1.1 Introduction As an 'applied linguist', I look at the process of translation as one of the most interesting and fascinating interlingual operations we know - although we still really do not know enough about it. I should like to show how linguistics as a subject can provide some of the tools with which we tackle translation. Fundamental to any linguistic discipline must of course be language, the most basic means of human communication. There are a number of different ways of looking at language. The philosopher sees it as a vehicle for interpreting human experience, the anthropologist as a form of cultural behaviour, the sociologist as interaction between members of a social group, the student of literature as an artistic medium, the language teacher as a set of skills, the communication engineer as a collection of signs to be transmitted from point A to B, etc. All these fields have a contribution to make to our understanding of how language works, but we must not forget that it can only be the linguist (in the sense of linguistic scientist, not of polyglot layman) who brings to the study of language a full understanding of all the various processes involved in it. The linguist recognises the complexities of language: (s)he knows that there are many facets to it, and (s)he develops his/her own techniques for analysing them (for some basic textbooks, cf. Crystal 1968, Bennett 1968, Hall 1960, Lyons 1968). The term applied linguistics (AL) has come to be used for various applications of linguistic and phonetic scholarship to specific practical fields. The first, and still the most important, of these is language teaching. Indeed, some linguists (such as Halliday et al. 1964 and Valdman 1965) use the term applied linguistics to refer only to the acquisition of the native or a foreign language and its pedagogical aspects. Other branches of AL may be said to include lexicography (or dictionary-making), translation, speech pathology and therapy, etc. AL in the widest sense borders on other disciplines, some of which have been named psycholinguistics, biolinguistics, sociolinguistics, clinical linguistics, computational linguistics, etc. Let me enlarge on the term computational linguistics to bring us back to the original topic. Much has been made in the last two decades of 'machine translation'. While translation by computer is now practically defunct as a serious and realistic academic proposition, it has taught linguists - and non-linguists - a lot about the syntax and lexis of pairs of languages and about the characteristics of restricted languages (cf. the report Language and Machines by the ALP Advisory Committee 1966).

* Number 1 in List of Reprinted Essays (pp. vii-ix), first published in 1969.

12

Parti

1.2 The nature of translation As I see it, translation is one of the central concerns of AL. However, I do not consider linguistics to be the only donor to these problem-oriented studies; as an applied linguist I feel free to draw on non-linguistic studies such as psychology, education and communication technology, as long as their techniques and findings have a bearing on the problem at hand (sometimes they do, more often they do not). Linguists can 'take' or 'learn' almost as much from applying themselves to practical matters as they can 'give' or 'teach'. I must also admit that traditionally linguists have done precious little research into the problems of technical translation. But in the last few years there has been enough interaction between translators, linguists, computer engineers, missionaries, documentation experts, language teachers, philosophers and others to develop a fairly general understanding of the elementary processes. We now know that there are various types of translation (oral translation or interpreting, written translation, translation by machine - perhaps), that there are various stages of translation (reading through the original text, sorting out the vocabulary, preparing a first draft, checking it, polishing it, etc.); we know that the aim is to reproduce as accurately as possible all grammatical and lexical features of the source language original by finding suitable equivalents in the target language, and that sometimes it is more important to retain the factual information, sometimes the emphasis is on form (cf. the books by Brower 1966, Jumpelt 1961, Mounin 1963, Nida 1964 and Oettinger 1960, the UNESCO 1957 report Scientific and Technical Translating, and numerous papers in such journals as The Incorporated Linguist, Lebende Sprachen and The Bible Translator).

1.3 The linguistics of translation I should like to sketch a few problems of translation and show how certain branches of linguistics might cope with them. 1.3.1 Type of text Some progress has been made in the last few years to categorise and classify texts by various criteria. One way to do this is by using the so-called 'communication model' set up in information theory, incorporating factors which are not strictly speaking linguistic but are just as important in the communication process, namely the subject matter, the time and place to which the text refers, any personal attachments of author and reader, the special associations of satire and euphemism, and many others. Linguistically, a text can be described in terms of its graphemic, lexical, and grammatical components, first in terms of the division into graphic words, lines, sentences and paragraphs, which may or may not correspond neatly to the main points of information contained in the passage. [A text from the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Swiss technological university education was used to illustrate some of the points made here, and the main results of a survey made in connection with a language examination for students of science and technology were presented in the lecture on which this paper is based.] We can then go on to characterise the syntactic structures of the text as ranging from the simple declarative

Linguistics and Translation

13

subject-predicate pattern to highly complex grammatical forms including discontinuous constructions, embedding, and compounded dependent clauses. Lexis may be just as complex. The vocabulary items in technical passages give a clue to the subject only to those familiar with the particular 'register' or equipped with an appropriate dictionary. Words which are infrequent in the general vocabulary occur here as technical terms with meanings peculiar to the special topic. There are some procedures which can help to substantiate such vague labels as 'emotive', 'technical', 'expressive', etc., by providing numerical evidence. Statistical counts and computer programmes can be used to determine the frequency of linguistic elements in texts and their probability of occurrence, and thus to give valuable information on the characteristics of certain styles (on word frequency research, cf. Hartmann 1964; on scientific vocabularies, cf. Hoffmann 1968). One should also mention in this context the role of lexicography and terminology studies. There has been much new work on the lexicological analysis of the vocabulary of some major languages, and a flood of dictionaries caters for the specialist user (cf. journals such as The Incorporated Linguist, Lebende Sprachen, Babel, BL1, Cahiers de Lexicologie, Idioma, Language and Speech, Linguistic Reporter, Voprosy Jazykoznanija and various bibliographies, e.g. by Wüster 1955-59 and Zaunmüller 1958). 1.3.2 Contrastive analysis The second area in which linguistic progress has been made which might be of relevance to the problem of translation is usually labelled by the collective term 'contrastive linguistics'. Such contrastive studies have been carried out on a small number of pairs of European languages, mainly in connection with language-teaching needs, particularly the difficulties of 'interference' (cf. the works by Moulton 1962, Kufher 1962 and others in the Contrastive Studies Series published by the Center of Applied Linguistics in Washington DC). The trouble with contrastive work is that it usually presupposes the existence of full descriptions of each of the respective pairs of languages, and they are not always available. One can only hope that the vast surveys which are now being undertaken will furnish more complete descriptions of the well-known as well as the more exotic languages of the world. Two linguistic schools in particular compete in this field: 'Systemic' or 'Scale-andCategoiy' Grammar, based on the Neo-Firthian ideas of Michael Halliday (e.g. Catford 1965) and relevant to the description of texts and language varieties and the classification of differences and similarities between source and target languages, and 'TransformationalGenerative' Grammar, based on the Neo-Cartesian ideas of Noam Chomsky (e.g. Bach 1964) and relevant to the understanding of the underlying processes and structures of human speech. Semantics, or the systematic study of meaning in language, has traditionally been regarded as one of the most fundamental disciplines in the elaboration of a theory of translation. Linguistic semantics looks at the way an individual language structures the world for its speakers, and analyses the sense relations that can be set up between different words or groups of words. I am sure I need not remind this audience of the truism that no two languages have the same semantic structure. 'Contrastive semantics' deals with the differences (cf. Leisi 1953/1971 [for more on this within a wider framework of 'contrastive textology', —• Chapter 7 below]).

Parti

14 1.3.3 Techniques and categories

I have nothing to add to the available literature on how a translation is arrived at as a result of a number of successive operations. Most people seem to agree on the following stages: (1) reading the original text; (2) sorting out unknown vocabulary and getting other background information, possibly 'parallel texts'; (3) drafting a first version; (4) checking the draft by referring to the original situation and to experts; (5) working out a final draft, with special attention to style and target-language readers. The next question my survey had a bearing on is that of setting up of different categories of translation. I am concerned not with the distinction made sometimes by professional translators themselves between 'literary' and 'pragmatic' translating, but rather the linguistic classification of translations into such categories as 'word-for-word', 'literal', 'free' or 'idiomatic'. This question is also intimately tied up with establishing a rating scale for different 'qualities' of translations and assessing the contribution that a good dictionary can make. Catford's threefold categorisation (1965: 25) into 'word-for-word', 'literal' and 'free' is useful and valid, as long as one realises that the boundaries between them are not always rigid. According to the grammatical correspondence between the source and targetlanguage texts, a word-for-word translation is 'rank-bound' at the level of the word; a literal translation is 'rank-bound' at die level of the phrase; a free translation is 'rank-bound' at the sentence level. My data can be used to illustrate divisions into three or more categories, but I would rather see them as proof that there is what linguists call a 'cline' or continuum between the two extremes which Nida (1964) calls 'orientation towards formal equivalence' and 'orientation towards dynamic equivalence'.

1.4 Conclusion I must repeat my plea for more empirical research into translation within the framework provided by applied and contrastive linguistics. If I have been able to show some of the lines along which such research may lead to results, then I have fulfilled my task. [Subsequent essays, e.g. Chapter 2 and others in Part I, Chapter 9 in Part II, and Chapter 24 in Part IV, will address more of these issues.] Translating is an extremely complex process, taxing the competence of the professional translator and testing the adequacy of the linguist's tools.

References —» Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Chapter 2 Contrastive Text Analysis and the Search for Equivalence in the Bilingual Dictionary

2.1 Introduction My paper is an attempt to address the joint fields of German-English translation and bilingual lexicography. I want to comment on five approaches to the ever-urgent problem of equivalence in various applied linguistic disciplines. I want to explore, in particular, how they can account for "... die (übrigens noch unerforschte) Fähigkeit des in beiden Sprachund Kulturrräumen kompetenten Kompilators, lexikalische Gleichungen aufzuspüren" (Hartmann 1982: 84 [for the English translation, Chapter 13 in Part III below]).

2.2 Contrastive linguistics More than half a century ago, the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev remarked on the fact that semantic space is distributed differently from one language to another, using as an example words like tree, wood and forest in Danish, German and French. Other linguists have developed this notion of structural and semantic 'anisomorphism' (Zgusta 1971: 294) in the direction of a more systematic 'contrastive lexicology'. Ernst Leisi, for example, has explored the question of how closely the vocabulary of English matches that of German, and in what respects. In a classic article (Leisi 1962) he discussed the notion of equivalence in terms of the 'coverage' (or range of semantic application) of words from any language pair. One instructive example (which according to Leisi is often inadequately treated in dictionaries) is the German word Bohrer and its multiple English equivalents gimlet, brace, drill, and auger. One of Leisi's colleagues, Mary Snell-Homby, has further stressed the limits of equivalence in her contrastive study of German and English descriptive verbs. According to Snell-Hornby (1983 : 247), the compiler of a bilingual dictionary should rely "not on the illusion of equivalence among lexemes, but on the awareness that partial coverage and nonequivalence are a reality of interlingual comparison". Snell-Hornby is sceptical of a single notion of equivalence and suggests that it should be sub-divided into a range of several equivalence classes between the two extremes of 'total equivalence' and 'nil coverage'. This is timely criticism from within contrastive lexicology. Progress has indeed been relatively slow, and results have been fairly limited. Also, there is no consistent methodology, the work is often patchy, partial, intuitive, arbitrary and tentative, and thus of limited generalisability (which is particularly true of some claims about the 'semantic field'). There are rarely reliable criteria for testing the validity of notations used, and hardly ever can the findings be applied to predict or solve problems. For example, far from affecting the work of the lexicographer, such comparative studies would be very difficult without the help of bilingual dictionaries! Frequently such studies convey a feeling of ' Number 2 in List of Reprinted Essays (pp. vii-ix), first published in 1985.

Parti

16

unreality and artificiality. Words are abstracted, seen in isolation, shorn of all their derivational, inflectional and collocational context, taken out of their real-life discourse settings. Lexical equivalence remains static correspondence of words at stipulated structural levels or ranks. Recent progress in text linguistics and discourse analysis offers a spark of optimism and an opportunity for re-thinking. I have argued (Hartmann 1980) for a 'contrastive textology', as the combination of the comparative-contrastive and the textual-discourse approaches, which would analyse parallel texts which are functionally equivalent in a communicative context in the respective languages. The idea of parallel texts, which originally came out of translator and interpreter training programmes, is not only an effective teaching exercise, but also must be the obvious empirical basis for the typological or stylistic comparison of any pair (or multiple) of languages. To illustrate this method, I have on several occasions used an extract from De Beaugrande's & Dressler's (1981) introduction to text linguistics which is available in English and German versions published almost simultaneously. In Sentence (1) below, taken from Section 1.3 of their book, De Beaugrande and Dressier make reference to seven criteria or conditions of textuality [—• Chapter 14 below] that must be met in order for a piece of discourse to qualify as a 'text': (IE) If any of these standards is not considered to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative. (IG) Wenn irgendeines dieser Kriterien als nicht erfüllt betrachtet wird, so gilt der Text nicht als kommunikativ.

Contrastive lexicology can explain in general terms what places the verbs meet and satisfy on the one hand and erfüllen on the other, or the nouns criteria/conditions/standards and Bedingungen/Kriterien, occupy in the semantic structures of English and German, respectively, but it cannot determine which sets of lexical equivalents are appropriate in any particular co-text. The value of parallel texts lies precisely in allowing us to document specific occurrences of lexical equivalents, thus testing the bilingual speaker's intuitive double linguistic competence. Viewed in this light, most equivalents are not one-to-one, one-to-two, or even one-to-many, but many-to-many. If we consider only the second clause of the above sentence, we could represent die English and German versions as deliberate choices from among a range of options in each of the two languages, as follows: (2Ea) the text will be not communicative (2Ga) *wird der Text nicht kommunikativ sein (2Eb) the text will not be communicative (2Gb) *wird der Text nicht kommunikativ sein (2Ec) the text is said to be not communicative (2Gc) heißt der Text nicht kommunikativ (2Ed) the text is not regarded as communicative (2Gd) wird der Text nicht als kommunikativ erachtet (2Ee) *the text is not valid as communicative (2Ge) gilt der Text nicht als kommunikativ (2Ef) *the text is valid as not communicative (2Gf) gilt der Text als nicht kommunikativ

Lexical equivalence is a relative, fluid and relational concept: it does not exist until it has been established as a result of a bilingual conscious act. The authors of the parallel text

Contrastive Text Analysis and the Search for Equivalence

17

from which Sentence (1) is taken had to do some careful double-checking to produce an acceptable translation; die selection of (2Eb) and (2Ge) as equivalent clauses in this particular passage is the result of a more or less deliberate choice (it is debateable, by the way, whether items (2Ea) and (2Gf) might have been stylistically more appropriate). It is no coincidence that De Beaugrande & Dressier (1981: 217) recommend the "confrontation of textual strategies" in pairs of languages as a means of widening the scope of contrastive linguistics. Recent advances in information technology suggest the mechanisation of such contrastive text analysis; it may become possible that lexical equivalents could be automatically generated from an archive of parallel texts. One step in this direction is the study by Guckler (1975) which used a computer to sort automatically the equivalents extracted from a set of German and Italian business texts and their translations.

2.3 Translation theory A similar development 'up the ladder', from microlinguistic units to macrolinguistic settings, is taking place in translation theory. Translation is no longer seen as matching words at particular slots within corresponding grammatical hierarchies, but as a dynamic process of approximation, relating whole texts to their communicative contexts. Consequently, theorists are concerned less with classifying types of correspondences, but more with specifying the conditions that must be present to achieve equivalence. Contrastive lexical analysis can help explain divergent and convergent relationships between items, but not predict the difficulties a particular translator is likely to encounter with a particular text, or the strategies that (s)he should adopt to overcome them. Thus, when no literal equivalent is available, a number of translation 'procedures' may be followed to make a suitable substitution, such as borrowing, explanatory paraphrase, or other forms of adaptation. The distinctions introduced by Vinay & Darbelnet (1958) are relevant in this context, as is the more recent general model of the mechanism of interlingual conversion by intralingual paraphrase proposed by Sharwood-Smith (1976). In the example (3) below from the parallel textbook (1981) by De Beaugrande & Dressier, the authors chose to fill the 'lexical gap' in German (presumably after considering a number of other possibilities) by means of the loan translation (3G), thus creating a 'surrogate' terminological nonce-formation: (3E)... (is defined) as a communicative occurrence ... (3G)... (wir definieren) als eine kommunikative Okkurrenz (engl, 'occurrence')...

Translation is not dead code, but active code-switching carried out by a bilingual mediator. His/her approximations are not only constrained by the nature of the textual discourse in question, but also by their individual levels of linguistic proficiency and encyclopaedic laiowledge. To observe translation in action empirically is fraught with the methodological problem that normally we have access only to the product of a single translation act of a single translator, rather than multiple or subsequent versions of several translators. I have reported elsewhere [—» Chapter 3 below] on the exceptional case of tracing the complete genesis of a translated text, Arthur Wesley Wheen's rendering of Erich Maria Remarque's famous antiwar novel Im Westen nichts Neues. It is indeed possible to illustrate, with the help of several

Parti

18

consecutive attempts, some of the equivalence-seeking techniques used by this translator, e.g. in the formulation of the title in Example (4): (4Ea) No News in the West. (4Eb) All Quiet in the West. (4Ec) All Quiet on the Western Front.

For any language pair, these separate acts of approximation in professional and pedagogical translation practice are compounded into a number of teachable routine equivalents which become codified in teaching manuals (cf. Astington's 1983 English-French catalogue) and, most importantly, in the bilingual dictionary. Indeed it makes sense to regard the bilingual dictionary as a repository of the collective equations established by generations of 'translating lexicographers'.

2.4 Error analysis Moving on to the third of the five approaches to the problem of equivalence-finding, error analysis, we note its motivation to detect, describe and possibly avoid those deviant utterances in foreign-language learning which may be due to divergences between the source and target languages. Do non-correspondences between pairs of languages lead to errors? Can we predict them from what we know about the contrasts? Does switching back and forth lead to interference, and how can this process be controlled? Why do German learners of English (the example is taken from Paulovsky's EE (1949) often say things like (5a) instead of (5b)? (5a) *The water is cooking. (5b) The water is boiling.

One of the few scientific studies in this field is the paper by Nemser & Vincenz (1972) which uses Romanian and English data to test one of the basic assumptions of contrastive linguistics and inter-language learner behaviour. Starting with the hypothesis "... that a significant and apparently uneliminable element of randomness characterizes the learner's establishment of correspondences between lexical elements in his base and target languages and that, therefore, the nature of lexical interference in a given learning situation is largely unpredictable", they ask whether it is possible to predict lexical errors by plotting some of the semantic non-equivalents between the mother tongue and the foreign language. The answer, unfortunately but not surprisingly, is 'no'. Contrastive semantic analysis cannot prevent lexical errors, which in any case seem a necessary condition of natural incremental language learning. I have applied the Nemser/Vincenz method to the cook/kochen example in (5), analysing (with the help of the meaning discrimination details given in monolingual dictionaries) the main senses, or 'semantic features', of the words and their potential equivalents. It appears that in the sense of 'heating food with water', the German verb kochen co\\ocaXe& with such substances as Fleisch, Eier, Obst, Milch, Suppe, Kaffee and Tee, while the English verbs cook, boil and stew collocate only with some of these: cook with meat and eggs, but not milk and coffee and tea; boil with all except tea; and stew with meat and fruit, but not the others. In the case of identical meaning components (e.g. for cooking of meat and fruit) it is possible to predict semantic agreement between German and English, where the learner is

Contrastive Text Analysis and the Search for Equivalence

19

not likely to make errors. In a few cases (e.g. with tea) we can predict conflict: German has kochen, while English uses none of the cooking verbs but rather 'borrows' the item make from a neighbouring lexical field; thus the learner is likely to experience some difficulty. However, in the majority of cases, where one or the other equivalent is possible, 'indeterminacy' is the result: we cannot forecast whether or not the learner will have trouble establishing the correct correspondences. Nemser & Vincenz thus prove that the process of acquiring lexical equivalents is very complex indeed. Even advanced learners and proficient bilinguals will commit unavoidable errors of this kind.

2.5 Vocabulary learning The chief reason why foreign-language learners make lexical errors is that equivalents do not occur in fixed, static pairs, but must be approximated and practised afresh for almost every new context. What is needed is a learning context that allows the learner to develop flexible strategies of approximation rather than demands reliance on a finite set of equations. In an effort to explore the metalinguistic devices available to language learners for developing, refining and enlarging their vocabulary, some applied linguists have recently turned to the notion of 'communicative strategy'. The collection edited in 1983 by Faerch & Kasper contains several contributions on the theme of communication and learning strategies in vocabulary acquisition. One of these, by Blum-Kulka & Levenston, is concerned with a phenomenon that occurs in several different communication contexts, but has so far not been studied systematically with reference to foreign-language learners, viz. the process of 'simplification'. Both the translator faced with zero equivalence in the target language and "the learner who does not have the vocabulary to express his meaning ... use various strategies to fill the semantic gap" (Blum-Kulka & Levenston 1983: 123). Lexical simplification occurs in children's speech (and adults' kiddies talk), in foreigner talk, in simplified reading materials, in pidginisation, in translation, and in the error-prone utterances of the foreign learner. From among such linguistic strategies, Blum-Kulka & Levenston select five for detailed study: (a) the use of superordinate terms, (b) approximation, (c) the use of synonyms, (d) transfer, (e) circumlocution and paraphrase.

The use of superordinate terms refers to the ability of speakers to replace a missing word by one that is higher up the semantic hierarchy, with or without a qualifying word. Thus, instead of the verb boil, we might use the hyperonymous word cook, or — further down the hierarchy — instead of simmer we might say boil gently. This principle is in operation in the process of dictionary definition, such that boiling could be described as 'a kind of cooking', and simmering as 'a kind of boiling', with optional qualifiers to specify additional semantic components. The strategy of 'approximation' refers to the substitution of an expression by one that is contextually close but perhaps not as concise as the appropriate lexicalisation. Thus, if the

20

Parti

English equivalent for the Danish koldt bor Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Chapter 23 Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use* 23.1 Introduction Sub-Project 9 of the EU-funded Thematic Network Project in the Area of Languages detected and deplored a relatively low level of 'dictionary awareness' among university teachers and students of Modern Languages and a lack of empirical evidence on the use of dictionaries and other reference works in higher education. Thus I was fortunate in 1998, at just the right time for the purposes of the TNP Sub-Project, to obtain a research grant which enabled me to collect appropriate data by means of a survey of dictionary use across the University of Exeter. There are very few precedents for such a large-scale project. Of the nearly 500 studies annotated in the bibliography by Dolezal & McCreary (1999), only about 60 report on dictionary use in university settings; similarly, of the 86 empirical papers mentioned in Wiegand's magnum opus (1998) and of the 70 studies cited in the collection of papers edited by Atkins (1998), only a relatively small proportion are concerned with higher education. Of all these, the vast majority relate to university students in a small number of (predominantly English-speaking) countries, and none cover more than one set of users (typically students or teachers of a particular subject, such as English as a native or foreign language, rather than a cross-section of users across several subject fields). Examples include Barnhart's (1962) questionnaire survey of American college students and their teachers, and Quirk's (1974) study of British undergraduates' attitudes to dictionaries (replicated at an American university by Greenbaum et al. 1984). More specific studies have focused on such topics as French students' familiarity with the conventions of monolingual English learners' dictionaries (Böjoint 1981), German students' views of etymological dictionaries (Hoffmann 1978), the difficulties faced by Dutch students of French looking up multi-word expressions (Bogaards 1990), the relative usefulness of monolingual or bilingual or bilingualised dictionaries for Israeli students of English (Laufer & Melamed 1994), the reference needs and skills of ESP staff and students in a Chinese technological university setting (Li 1998), and the effect of dictionary use on a vocabulary test following a reading task by ESL students at an American university (McCreary & Dolezal 1999). The most recent British study of relevance to the user perspective (Bishop 1998) is a comparative questionnaire survey of the use of bilingual dictionaries among 25 Open University students and 25 Α-level school pupils taking non-beginner's French courses.

23.2 The project None of the above-mentioned studies have contributed significantly to a revealing profile of (British) university students as dictionary users. So it was a great challenge to attempt a * Number 23 in List of Reprinted Essays (pp. vii-ix), first published in 1999.

190

Part IV

survey of the whole range of issues across departmental or faculty boundaries. The project was entitled 'University Reference Skills: A Case Study of Dictionary Use in Higher Education', and its declared main aim was to 'collect valuable data about levels of reference provision and reference proficiency in several Schools and Services at our University, by a combination of student-based questionnaires and staff-based interviews'. This made it an interdisciplinary investigation, with important local implications for teaching quality and national and international implications for assessing and comparing dictionary awareness. The work would be spread over the whole 1998-99 academic year, but the bulk of the empirical survey was to be carried out in the autumn term 1998 so that preliminary findings could be presented at a workshop held in January 1999 which had been planned to coincide with the Exeter meeting of the Scientific Committee of the TNP Sub-Project 9, 'Dictionaries'. The latter had already declared, in its 1997 Interim Report, that 'findings from user studies suggest a surprising indifference among staff and students to the availability and usefulness of various kinds of reference works' and, based on synthesis reports on the lexicographic scene in several countries of the European Union, had agreed to make the following recommendation (the first of nine): Research into dictionary use should provide theframeworkfor all lexicographic production, and more such research will be needed if the level of dictionaiy awareness is to be raised and the teaching of reference skills is to be improved. The Exeter survey was therefore both timely and welcome. Supported by regular and minuted meetings (eight were held between 2 September 1998 and 12 January 1999, and a further five in the period up to 24 June 1999), the Project Group first considered a draft questionnaire (prepared by Lan Li on the basis of her own Exeter Ph.D. on dictionary use in China) which incorporated a number of items previously investigated by others and, after piloting it with over 100 students in the English Language Centre, modified it several times, confirming Wiegand's (1998) experience with the elaboration of a questionnaire progressively refined by a Heidelberg project team. Version 4 of the Exeter questionnaire was then distributed between late October and mid-November to large numbers of both undergraduate and postgraduate students (a sample ofjust over 2,000 or nearly a fifth of the student population) in five Schools (Business & Economics, Education, Engineering & Computer Science, English, and Modern Languages) and two Centres (Foreign Language Centre and English Language Centre). To test the methodological effectiveness of computer technology in this process, an electronic version of the same questionnaire was also distributed to 60+ postgraduate students, chiefly in the School of English and part of the School of Engineering. The questionnaire survey was supplemented by 17 interviews with representatives of the staff in these departments, schools and centres (—• Section 23.5 below).

23.3 The questionnaire: questions There were 30 questions to be answered by students filling in the questionnaire. The intention was that subjects should be able to complete the task in about half an hour, that they should all be given similar deadlines for returning the forms (i.e. one week), and that the whole operation should not take more than one month. On the whole, these conditions were met, but there were exceptions. Some departments were late in starting (e.g. Italian), some (e.g. Business & Economics) did not pass on the instruction that the questionnaires

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

191

should be returned within a week, consequently some respondents may have taken longer than others or may have communicated their opinions to others still engaged in the process. One School sent questionnaires out by post to the home addresses of students (postgraduates in English), where conditions of completion may have differed markedly from those of the average undergraduate student resident at Exeter. It proved impossible to guarantee supervision of the process, except in the School of Engineering where the librarian took it upon herself to introduce and distribute the questionnaires in classroom tutorials. By the time of the final cut-off date (8 December 1998), forms were still arriving, but these were discarded in the analysis. To investigate dictionary awareness, we chose to concentrate on the following 14 topics. (1) General personal details (Questions 1 to 3) In line with the principle that anonymity should be respected, students were not asked for their names, but we did want to elicit information on the subjects' sex, age and native language, factors which have not been systematically studied. One of the few research reports of relevance here is Ripfel's (1990) on the results of her questionnaire survey of native-speaker users of German dictionaries, in which she concluded that sex and age are not correlated with dictionary ownership to the same extent as level of education, while Battenburg's (1991) study of foreign students in an American university established that dictionary use is less affected by their native language and cultural background than by their proficiency level in the target language, English. We wanted to determine the relative proportions (out of the total Exeter student population of about 10,500) between male and female students, between native speakers and foreign learners and between younger and older students, and find out whether their opinions on dictionary use showed significant differences in these respects. (2) Foreign language(s) studied (Question 3) It is self-evident that dictionary use differs according to whether it involves monolingual native-speaker (LI) activities or interlingual foreign-language learning (L2) tasks. Some research has addressed this issue (e.g. Galisson 1983 who contrasted dictionary use among students of French inside and outside France), and independent evidence comes from the various demands for and designs of the '(foreign or L2) learner's dictionary' in opposition to the model of the traditional 'native-speaker (mother-tongue or LI) dictionary' (cf. Hornby 1965, Rundell 1988, Battenburg 1991, B6joint 1994 and Zöfgen 1994). In a university context, we would want to know whether there are further differences between individual foreign languages studied (e.g. French vs. German vs. Arabic) or between the specialisation in Modern Languages and other subjects studied (e.g. French vs. English vs. Engineering). (3) Level of study and subjects) taken at Exeter (Questions 4 and 5) It may be natural to assume that reference proficiency increases in proportion to experience and education, but empirical proof for this is hard to come by (some is offered in the studies of the Jordanian and Chinese university contexts by Diab 1990 and Li 1998). Specifically, we wanted to know whether there is a tendency for dictionary ownership and reference skills to rise as students progress through the university, from first-year undergraduate studies to postgraduate research level, and whether there was any variation

192

Part IV

in the perceived dictionary 'image' (as Quirk 1974 found between Arts-based or Sciencebased students). (4) Start of dictionary use and ownership (Questions 6 and 7) No longitudinal studies exist of prototypical modes of dictionary use throughout a young person's maturation, from nursery and primary school to further and higher education. We hypothesised that dictionary use is normally associated with reading and writing in primary school (practically nothing is known about children's dictionaries at kindergarten and in the family home before that), and that it progresses and expands gradually along the educational hierarchy. Given the vagaries of personal memory, questionnaires may not be completely reliable records of early use and first ownership of reference works, but they can illustrate tendencies based on a large sample. (5) Type(s) and number of dictionaries owned (Questions 8 to 10) Distinctions such as monolingual vs. bilingual dictionaries, general vs. specialised dictionaries and alphabetical dictionaries vs. thematic thesauruses are often discussed in the literature, but their respective appreciation among various users has not been adequately surveyed. Greenbaum et al. (1984) report that 97% of their sample of American college students own at least one dictionary, while Hatakeyama (1998) mentions that 80% of his Japanese students of English own one or two bilingual dictionaries and 20% own three or more. We were interested in the whole range of reference works, including electronic types, their ownership and (in combination with data elicited by other questions) their use among different student groups. (6) Type(s) and title of dictionary used most frequently (Questions 11 to 13) Several researchers have remarked on the striking ignorance displayed by users about the contents of their dictionaries, even their inability to remember the correct titles of the ones they consult on a regular basis. We wanted to pursue this line of enquiry with particular reference to Exeter students, and to determine in addition the extent to which electronic dictionaries are known. (7) Conditions of dictionary purchase (Questions 14 and 15) In a pioneering study which combined group interviews with questionnaires, Ripfel (1989b) asked four groups of Modern Language students at Heidelberg University about their familiarity with and evaluation of their dictionaries. Students of English tend to own a greater number of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, students of Translation and Interpreting own and use such dictionaries more than students of Language and Literature. The following rank order emerged for their priorities of dictionary purchase: recommendation by university tutors, usability in examinations (where only monolingual dictionaries were permitted), personal preference, etc. Monolingual dictionaries were apparently bought after bilingual ones, and the price was given as the main reason why a purchase was resisted. In the Exeter survey, we added more categories for reasons ('suggestion by a friend or relative', 'impulse buy') and criteria ('convenience', 'relevance').

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

193

(8) Awareness of appendices and user guidance (Questions 16 and 17) The research literature is generally sceptical (but also relatively vague) about the average dictionary user's (incompetence regarding front-matter and back-matter information. Bishop (1998) found, for example, that more mature Open University students are more likely than 16- or 17-year-old secondary-school students to have come to grips with such material, but phonetic symbols and part-of-speech indicators are the only examples given for what his questionnaire simply calls 'the introduction'. We wanted to establish whether and to what extent Exeter students were familiar with several types of appended information and whether or not they bothered with the explicit instructions provided in the prelims of their dictionaries. (9) Contexts and frequency of dictionary use (Questions 18 to 21) The next set of questions addressed some of the most important issues investigated since Barnhart's famous 1962 study. According to their teachers, American college students tend to rank information on meaning and spelling higher than pronunciation and synonyms, with usage and etymology coming last (note that encyclopedic information was not among the items mentioned). But information categories are only one factor in the complex process of dictionary consultation; other factors analysed since the 1960s include purpose, context and type of activity engaged in by the learner-user, often expressed in terms of frequency scales between the two extremes '(very) often' and '(almost) never'. We suspected that there would be differences in dictionary use according to the occasion (in class or exams, study at home or in the library?), activity (reading or writing, work or play?) and motivation (look up or ask others?) as well as the particular information type sought (meaning, grammar, encyclopedic fact etc.?). We expected work-based and written activities to dominate over entertaining and oral interchanges, but kept an open mind on the possible breakdown of these by such factors as proficiency level, native language and subject specialisation, the latter topic never having been investigated before. (10) (Dis)satisfaction with the dictionary (Questions 22 and 23) Whether or not users are satisfied with their dictionaiy has certainly been asked before, e.g. by Quirk (1974) and Greenbaum et al. (1984) who discovered that American students tend to rely on (and be content with) their dictionaries more than British students, and they criticise different design features, such as completeness of the word-list (insisted on by Americans) and the transparency of definitions (demanded by the British). We wondered whether we could obtain more specific data on the students' own ability to use a dictionary and, conversely, their frustration at any unsuccessful searches. (11) Difficulties of use (Questions 24 and 25) If we are willing to admit that the user perspective is worth exploring as much as the compiler perspective, we are faced with the problem of topicalising the process of dictionary consultation. Is it straightforward, or is it difficult? Is it a singular or complex act? Are the difficulties inherent in the material sought, or are they dependent on the users' navigational skills? We decided to subdivide this question into two, 'problem words' and 'sources of difficulty'. Drawing on findings by Li (1998), we suspected that there would be differences in the way British (rather than Chinese) students rank 'general words', 'technical terms', 'common words in technical fields' and 'idioms and phrases' as motivating dictionaiy

194

Part IV

searches. Do native speakers have more (or less) trouble with technical vocabulary or idiomatic expressions than foreign learners? And, if difficulties of navigation arise during a search, are these due to the users' relative inexperience or the nature of the dictionary text? Indeed, in view of the inconclusive evidence of previous research, is it sensible to attach a blame to either inadequate user skills or inadequate dictionary design? (12) Thejoys of dictionaries (Questions 26 and 27) Is there a popular folklore about dictionaries, and where in any case do people's opinions about the dictionary come from? We started with the premise that 'dictionary awareness' is low even among academics (see also Points (3), (6) and (8) above), and wanted to find out more about the students' reactions to a range of statements about the nature and personal benefits of dictionary use. (13) Instruction in dictionary use (Questions 28 and 29) The most 'practical' part of the questionnaire was concerned with an issue that has troubled many authors of research papers on the theme of dictionaiy use: whether (and how) to provide deliberate instruction in the required reference skills. This statement by Atkins & Varantola (1998b:l 15) is representative: We believe that dictionary skills must be taught, carefully and thoroughly, if users are to extract from their dictionaries the information which lexicographers have put into them. Teachers will be better able to cany out such teaching if they are fully aware of exactly what their students are doing with their dictionaries, what they expect from them, and how easily they are satisfied during the process of consultation.

Hence, exercises and workbooks (see Stark's 1990 evaluation of these) cannot be designed properly until we know more about what real users do in real situations of dictionary reference. With Questions 28 and 29 we wanted to elicit data on whether students had received some instruction before and how important they judge such teaching to be in the context of their present degree course. We expected the answers to have a bearing on current and future departmental policies on dictionary use within the wider context of teaching quality. (14) Other (open) points (Question 30) Most questionnaire surveys include 'open' questions with the intention of encouraging respondents to use their own words on one or more aspects of the field investigated. We limited this to the last question, expecting critical comments from a vocal minority of Exeter students.

23.4 The questionnaire: answers The analysis of the questionnaire data was undertaken by Lan Li, using standard statistical and computational techniques and drawing on the facilities of the 'Pallas' (Arts and Humanities) section of the University IT Services. The response rate of 35% (710 completed out of 2,040 distributed questionnaires) is extremely satisfactory for a study of this kind, although it varied considerably by departments, ranging from 81.7% (German)

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

195

through 53.2% in English and 42.5% in Computer Science to 15.8% (Business and Economics). This section summarises the results, discussing the wording of the respective question (and the choices offered), relating the answers to our expectations (as outlined in the previous Section) and drawing inferences from the Exeter data to the wider pedagogical, linguistic and lexicographical context. Question 1: Gender The 39.7% to 60.3% ratio of male to female had been expected. It reflects the universitywide sex distribution, although there is some variation by departments, with female students outnumbering male students in all Schools except Engineering and Computer Science. Question 2: Age Four age ranges had been specified, and the percentage figures were roughly as expected: 17-25: 78.7% 26-35: 12.3% 36-45: 4.9% over 45: 3.9% Question 3: What is your native language? Which foreign language(s) have you studied? As expected, the vast majority (579 of 710, or nearly 81.5%) of the subjects are native speakers of English. The rest (131 of 710, or 18.5%) claim 29 different mother tongues, (in numerical order) from French, Greek, German and Japanese to 'Scottish', Gujarati, 'Creole' and Serbo-Croatian. The percentage of non-English speakers is higher than the overall proportion of foreign students in the University (c. 660 out of over 10,000, or 12%), probably because the survey had targeted a greater number of students in the English Language Centre and the Foreign Language Centre. 9 students (1.3%) said they had not studied any foreign language at all; the rest mention 20 languages, notably the European ones studied in British schools (French 83.7%, German 51.4%, Spanish 38.5%, Latin 8.3%, Italian 7.2%, Russian 7.0%) followed by Arabic (3.0%), Japanese (1.5%) and Chinese (1.3%). However, as this sample includes foreign students, nearly 18% mention English as L2, and the number of (European as well as nonEuropean) languages studied is probably also higher for the same reason. It is also necessary to point out that the number of (European) languages other than English is greater than the average across the University because of the relatively high proportion of students sampled in the School of Modern Languages. Question 4: Please indicate which level of study you are in There were seven possible levels to choose from: 1st year: 20.7% 2nd year: 24.9% 3rd year: 12.5% 4th year: 12.3% Master: 6.2% Ph.D.: 7.2% other: 16.2%

196

Part IV

This distribution was as expected, and is in line with general university student figures, except perhaps for the relatively low representation of M.A. students which constitute well over twice the above percentage. In the School of Education the proportion of postgraduate students (78%) is higher than in other parts of the University because of the emphasis on teacher training. Question 5: Which subject(s) are you studying at Exeter? The following special subject distribution emerged: English: 20.0% Modern Languages: 29.4% Business & Economics: 8.5% Education: 16.9% Engineering & Computer Science: 18.3% other (including English Lang.Centre) 5.9% The relative predominance of Modern Languages over the other Schools turned out to be an advantage for the purposes of this project, as we were particularly interested in eliciting data for dictionary awareness levels among students under the aegis of the 'TNP in the Area of Languages'. Question 6: When did you start to use a dictionary? Four choices were offered, and ticked as follows: at primary school: 72.5% at secondary school: 25.8% at further education college: 1.5% at university: 0.1% The figure for 'primary school' is high (interestingly even higher, 81.7%, among teacher trainees in the School of Education), but makes sense in view of the importance of reading and writing in early education, and contrasts sharply with the very low percentages for further and higher education. Question 7: If you OWN a dictionary, when did you first acquire it? Dictionary ownership is not necessarily identical with dictionary use, which is proven by these data on the different school levels at which the first dictionary was reported to have been acquired: at primary school: 39.9% at secondary school: 49.2% at further education college: 4.1% at university: 3.9% Question 8: What type(s) of dictionary do you OWN? Five choices were offered (and more than one could be ticked), producing the following figures:

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

197

general dictionary (e.g. Dictionary of English): 94.7% special subject dictionary (e.g. Die. of Music): 37.8% bilingual dictionary (e.g. English-French Die.): 77.2% 66.2% thesaurus (e.g. Dictionary of Synonyms): 40.5% encyclopedia: We had not expected the high percentages for the 'general dictionary' (justifiable by the correlation with results for Question 6), for the 'bilingual dictionary' (accounted for by the high proportion of students specialising in Modem Languages) and for the 'thesaurus' (for which we cannot at this stage offer a sensible explanation. Nor were we prepared for the relatively low figures for the 'special subject dictionary'. Question 9: Do you OWN any electronic dictionaries? We offered four choices, and the answers were as follows: in the form of a pocket calculator: 7.1% in the form of a personal computer: 22.3% other format (to be specified): 3.5% NO: 65.5% As we had expected, the electronic dictionary has not yet fully 'arrived': less than a quarter (in the School of Education slightly more, 25.8%) of our student sample have a PC, and nearly two thirds do not own any electronic reference aids at all. Question 10: How many dictionaries do you OWN? The number of dictionaries owned (average: 5.9) varies by several factors: by sex (6.55 male, 5.51 female), by age (17-25: 4.5; 26-35: 12.3; 36-45: 12.3; over 45: 8.8), by native language (4.99 English, 10.16 non-English) and, most notably if expectedly, by subject studied: English: 10.47 Modern Languages: 6.15 English Language Centre: 5.52 Education: 4.93 Business & Economics: 3.95 Engineering & Computer Science: 3.09 98.3% of Exeter students own at least one dictionary, 48% have more than four, Language and Humanities students on average own more than twice as many as Science students. Question 11: Which type(s) of dictionary do you USE most frequently? Only one choice out of the five given in Question 8 was allowed here, to concentrate the subjects' minds on what they would consider the most important single dictionary type (although the plural in parentheses may have confused them): general dictionary: 50.4% special subject dictionary: 3.7% bilingual dictionary: 39.8%

198

Part IV

thesaurus: 5.1% general encyclopedia: 0.9% This helped to relativise the data obtained in Question 8, showing the dominance of the general dictionary (especially in English, Education and Science) and the bilingual dictionary (especially in Modern Languages and, to a lesser extent, in Education) and confirming the expectedly low ranking of the special-subject dictionary and the thesaurus. Much less expected was the very low-level position of the general encyclopedia, a fact which matches the opinion, expressed in interviews with a university librarian and a School librarian, that students have to be reminded of the existence of general encyclopedic and specialised subject-based reference works. Question 12: If you remember, can you provide the following information about this dictionary? This question was intended to contribute to the debate on dictionary users' reference competence, regarded by many researchers as seriously deficient. Seven choices were offered, and the percentage answers were as follows: 80.2% its title: 35.9% its editor: its publisher: 62.3% the year of publication: 57.0% the number of 30.0% entries included: 59.7% its size: its colour: 76.1% It is difficult to verify these data (some students completing the questionnaire on their desks may have taken the opportunity of looking at their dictionaries for this information), but it confirms our guess based on the findings of other studies that apart from the title, the most readily remembered features are 'colour', 'name of publisher', 'size' and 'year of publication', with 'name of editor' and 'number of entries' coming last. One by-product of this question was the inference that most dictionaries owned are of relatively recent vintage (the date 1957 was the earliest given). Question 13: If you USE an electronic dictionary, which type is it? The answers to this question cross-correlate with those in Questions 8, 9 and 11 on ownership and use. Of the five (electronic) dictionary types mentioned, the general dictionary (19.3%) by far outstrips the others: thesaurus 8.3%, general encyclopedia 6.2%, bilingual dictionary 4.1% and special subject dictionary 0.1%. Although we had failed to ask explicitly about computer-based spell-checkers and thesauruses, answers to this question may give a clue to their increased use, a trend also confirmed by the interview with a member of the Arts Computing service. Cross-tabulation also shows that electronic dictionaries are more prevalent in the Sciences than in the Arts. Question 14: When you last BOUGHT a dictionary, was it... A choice of six reasons for dictionaiy purchase was offered, producing the following answers:

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

199

because a teacher of tutor recommended it: 30.6% because a friend or relative suggested it: 7.2% as a result of your own deliberate choice: 55.5% as a result of an advertisement: 1.3% due to an impulse: 4.6% I cannot remember: 9.4% We had expected a higher incidence of tutor recommendation, but the figures confirm the impression, strengthened by several interviews, that apart from Modern Languages very little guidance is actually given to (and taken by) students in this respect. Consequently there is room for much more personal initiative than we had thought to be the case. We were also surprised at the relatively low incidence of advertisements and buying on impulse. Question 15: What is your priority when you BUY a new dictionary? More specifically, we asked students to rank the priorities under six headings, which turned out to be as follows (averages out of 6): its relevance to my needs: 4.04 the number of words: 3.39 the number of examples: 3.25 a reasonable price: 3.21 the reputation of the publisher: 3.15 convenient to cany about: 2.84 That there may be unexpected (and unexplainable?) variation between students in different subjects is suggested by an analysis of the rank order in the School of Education, where the criterion of 'price' takes second place, before 'number of words'. If the figures are statistically adjusted along a six-point scale from 'most important' and 'very important' to 'least important' and 'not important', they allow different interpretations according to which several of the criteria may be simultaneously 'most' and 'least' important, which indicates that respondents may have been confused by the wording of the question: some may have ranked these criteria from 6 to 1, others from 1 to 6. These figures must therefore be considered extremely tentative, requiring further analysis and/or empirical work (which also appears to be the case for Question 20 below). Question 16: Do you ever use information contained in the appendices? Five choices were offered here, and the following answers were given: lists of abbreviations: 52.6% lists of irregular verbs: 46.5% units of measurement: 33.5% proper names: 16.3% other (to be specified): 12.0% On the whole, these findings did not surprise us, nor the tendency for (predominantly female) students of Modern Languages to pick out irregular verbs, while (male) students of Science ranked units of measurement higher. As expected, foreign students seem to be more aware of back-matter information than English students. Question 17: If you are aware of the user guidance notes at the front of the dictionary, do you ... Three choices were offered, prompting the following answers:

200

Part IV

study them? 10.2% find them user-friendly? 21.8% manage without them? 70.9% We expected something like this, but the extent of the students' antipathy towards guidance from the dictionary front-matter is emphatic, and must be interpreted in die light of answers to other Questions such as 25 (on causes of 'difficulties') and 28 (on training in 'reference skills'). In general, awareness tends to be greater among foreign rather than English students, and avoidance more pronounced in Science than Arts students. Question 18: When do you use a dictionary? Five choices were offered here, producing the following response: during a class: 17.8% during an exam: 10.6% studying at home: 97.7% studying in a library: 58.6% other (specify): 8.2% That 'studying' produced a high score was not surprising, but we did not expect the percentages to be so much higher for studying 'at home' than for studying 'in a library'. In view of the general university rule that dictionaries are not usually permitted in examinations we would not have expected a percentage above 10% (in Education it was only 5.8%) although those who are entitled to this, foreign students who are not native speakers of English, constitute about 18% of our sample. Question 19: Do you use a dictionary while you ... Seven activities were on offer, and students made the following multiple choices: read newspapers and magazines: 26.2% read textbooks: 68.3% read academic journals: 39.1 % read a book for entertainment: 26.9% work on a written assignment: 91.2% work on a translation exercise: 60.0% play word games: 40.4% There may be some variation between subject specialisms and overlap between the categories, but the overall tendency is clear and roughly in line with our expectations. Workrelated writing (including translating, more in Modern Languages than in other Schools) and reading (of textbooks more than of journals and newspapers) outrank entertaining activities. Foreign students use dictionaries more than home students, except for playing word games (in Education at higher than average 47.5%), which apparently motivates dictionary consultation more often than reading academic journals. Question 20: What do you do when you notice a new or difficult word while reading? Four alternative responses had to be given in rank order, and students supplied the following average values: look it up in a dictionary: 2.71 guess the meaning: 2.53 ask other people what it means: 2.46 ignore it and go on reading: 2.06

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

201

Looking up a word in the dictionary is (just) ahead of the other alternatives. Using an alternative calculation already mentioned under Question 15 produces inconclusive figures and raises doubts as to whether students may have had difficulties ranking these items from 1 to 4 or from 4 to 1. Question 21: How often do you use a dictionary? Subjects were asked how often and for which (four) activities and (eight) information categories they consulted their dictionaries, and they gave the following responses (averages are listed here in preference to the four-fold frequency scale as tabulated in the questionnaire): when you write: 2.95 when you read'. 2.46 when you listen: 1.53 when you speak: 1.29 to look up a meaning of a word: 3.16 to look up a spelling of a word 2.98 to look up synonyms/ words of similar meaning: 2.38 to look up examples of a word's use: 2.13 to look up a grammar point, e.g. part of speech: 1.95 to look up encyclopedic information: 1.87 to look up the pronunciation: 1.64 to look up a word origin/etymology: 1.63 There are minor variations by Department or School (e.g. in Education encyclopedic information comes before grammar, and etymology before pronunciation), but in general the ordering of activity types and information categories is as expected and in accordance with responses to other questions, e.g. 19 which established writing and reading as the main triggers of dictionary reference. Encyclopedic information, pronunciation and etymology are apparently in much less demand than meaning and spelling. Whether there are significant differences by sex, native language or level of study is not yet clear and will require further analysis. Question 22: Are you, on the whole, satisfied with your ability to use a dictionary? This simple question produced an unequivocal, but somewhat surprisingly high preponderance of 'yes' answers (90.6%) over 'no' answers (6.4%), which may suggest an exaggerated feeling of self-confidence. This in turn needs to be balanced against other overlapping issues such as ignoring other people's advice on purchasing a dictionary (Question 14), managing without the guidance provided by the dictionary (Question 17), specifying causes of difficulties in finding information (Question 25) and considering the importance of deliberate instruction (Question 28). Question 23: Do you ever consult a dictionary WITHOUT being able to find the information you need? Four options were treated as follows: very often: 0.7% often: 8.6%

202

Part IV

sometimes: 74.1 % never: 13.5% These answers indicate that users take dictionaries for granted, which goes with the feeling of self-satisfaction diagnosed in Question 22 and the tendency to blame the dictionary rather than themselves for any shortcomings in the look-up process (Question 25). Question 24: What type of information is most difficult to find? Four choices were offered and answered as follows: general English words: 6.4% specialised technical terms: 52.2% common English words in a special-subject area: 29.1% idioms and phrases: 42.3% Modern Language and Humanities students mentioned idioms more than Science students, who seemed to find technical terminology more problematic. Question 25: What to you think are the causes of these difficulties? Five options were taken up as follows: my lack of dictionary skills: 8.0% my lack of dictionary knowledge: 8.2% not enough information in the dictionary: 63.7% unclear layout of the dictionary: 19.7% I don't read the instructions to the user: 12.0% It was interesting to find that students attribute the bulk of their difficulties to the dictionary rather than their own limitations in terms of 'skills' or 'knowledge' (if indeed they appreciated any distinction between these two notions, which admittedly perhaps we should have explained). The fact that they 'don't read the instructions' tallies with the responses to Question 14 on self-reliance in dictionary purchase, 17 on aversion to guidance notes, 20 (although the data may be inconclusive) on alternatives to dictionary look-up, 22 on their own high ability rating, and 23 on the rarity of admitted search failures. Question 26: In your opinion, using dictionaries is... To prompt the subjects' opinions, we asked for reactions to six descriptive statements about dictionary use: easy: 58.3% difficult: 3.2% exciting/fun: 12.1% tedious/boring: 10.6% worthwhile/ informative: 77.2% of little help/ not worth the trouble: 2.0% These figures display a positive attitude towards dictionaries which took us by surprise. There are marked but unexplained differences here between foreign students and native English speakers, the former being more willing than the latter to regard dictionary use as 'exciting', 'tedious' and 'difficult'.

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

203

Question 27: Based on your experience, which of the following statements do you agree with? We used the same technique as in Question 26 to elicit reactions to four ways in which dictionaries can be of use: using dictionaries can improve my reading: 64.7% using dictionaries can improve my writing: 83.2% using dictionaries can help my speaking: 37.0% using dictionaries can help me perform better in my studies: 77.3% These results not only seem to confirm the great value of dictionaries for writing and reading (already established, in this order, in Questions 19 and 21), which we had expected, but also demonstrate an appreciation for their benefits to the job of studying, which we had not. This may be an area worth pursuing in greater detail. Question 28: Have you ever been taught how to use a dictionary? Answers were given in terms of three alternatives: yes: 21.0% a little: 43.2% never: 34.6% More specifically, Science students had received less training (43.8% 'never') than students in Modern Languages (33.4% 'never'); the group that seems to have had least instruction are foreign students (16.9% 'yes' and 42.3% 'never'). In the School of Education the situation is much better (25.8% 'yes', 50.8% 'a little' and 21.7% 'never'), but we do not know whether this reflects a recent trend to incorporate dictionary reference skills into teaching and examination syllabuses. Question 29: Do you think it is important for students in your subject to be taught how to use dictionaries? Four ways of answering this question were suggested: it is very important: 30.2% it is important: 39.4% it is not important: 15.5% I don't know: 13.7% We were surprised by the high rating of this desideratum, which is even higher in the School of Education: 46.7% 'very important', 40.0% 'important', 5.0% 'not important' and 5.8% 'don't know', while in the Science area students do not seem to be in favour of any training schemes (8.0% 'very important' and 32.8% 'not important'). In conjunction with the obvious deficiencies diagnosed in earlier Questions, particularly 14, 17 and 20 to 25, it makes sense to build on the students' own assessment and review current teaching arrangements in Departments, Schools and Centres in an effort to raise dictionary awareness across the whole University. Question 30: Add any other points you want to make about your experience with dictionaries. Only 22.6% of the respondents took advantage of the opportunity to add some personal comments. Ian Spackman who analysed these for the Project Group characterises them as

204

Part IV

generally favourable towards dictionaries, although there are a small number which contain jocular and critical points. Many drew on their own (often limited but occasionally enjoyable) experience with dictionary use and, perhaps because of the proximity of Question 29, stressed that teaching of relevant skills is important. Various look-up difficulties were mentioned, as were some dictionary types and alternatives (e.g. spell-checkers on computers) as well as specific features of dictionaries (such as size and cost). Certain dictionaries were cited by name, several commentators passed on tips on techniques they have discovered or developed, one student who claimed to have made his own 7,000-word French dictionary by computer offered his telephone number for possible contact. One or two comments concerned the questionnaire itself, one respondent wished us 'good luck'. Thank you!

23.5 The interviews Concurrent with the distribution, collection and analysis of the student questionnaires, personal interviews were conducted by the principal researcher with representative members of staff in each of the Schools and Centres (heads of schools and directors of centres had previously been asked to nominate 'coordinators' for this task) as well as the Director of the 'Pallas' Arts Computing Service, the Examinations Officer and a University Librarian. The following check-list of questions was used, both to keep the time spent to a minimum and to ensure comparability of the statements: (1) Do you need more details on the Project (or have you got enough background information)? (2) Will you have (or have you had) difficulties with the distribution and collection of the Questionnaires? (3) Will completion by (early) November be feasible? (4) What are the issues of dictionary use for you, in terms of (a) the students experiencing problems with dictionaries, (b) the School's/Department's/Centre's policy on reference works, or (c) any explicit guidance given to students? (5) Any other comments?

This worked reasonably well; no interview lasted longer than 30 minutes, with the exception of the one with the Coordinator for the School of Education who expressed interest in contributing a paper on the position of dictionaries in the recently revised National Curriculum (and its implications for teacher training) to the report on the survey results and/or the presentation planned for the Workshop. The interviews were held between 13 October and 10 December 1998 with coordinators in 12 constituent Departments of the 5 Schools targeted (representing approximately 4,000 students), two Language Centres and three other units (Arts Computing, Examinations Office and University Library). All interviewees were extremely cooperative, showing a willingness to understand the foundations of the Project and to appreciate its potential usefulness to the departmental teaching context. When prompted by the reaction to Question (1), the interviewer supplied more background details, pointing out the relevance of the expected findings to local reference needs of staff and students and the wider implications of data-gathering for pedagogical and lexicographical purposes. Several coordinators mentioned that the project had heightened

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

205

their 'dictionary awareness' and that the results might influence future debates on issues of teaching quality. Questions (2) and (3) on the distribution, collection and completion of student questionnaires brought out the variable nature of Departments and Schools in the University. Some (like Computer Science) used a system already in place to copy and hand out personal copies to (half of the) student pigeon-holes, others needed specially negotiated services (such as clerical staff in English, a departmental librarian in Engineering, and tutoring staff in most other departments) and implements (such as a prominently displayed labelled box for collecting the forms) or the assistance of volunteer helpers from among our own Project Group. These varying practices, which could not have been foreseen, explain delays experienced across the board and the felling behind schedule of the processing of data collected. When asked (in Question 4) about problems with dictionary use, most interviewees could not recall many. Dictionaries and other reference works do not figure prominently in staff meetings, they are rarely part of a departmental policy, or specified in student handbooks or module descriptions. In this latter respect, the School of Modem Languages has devoted more attention to the subject of dictionaries than other sections of the University. Several coordinators mentioned that informal guidance was provided by individual (but not all) tutors when the need arises, e.g. when student exercises reveal errors that could have been avoided if an appropriate dictionary had been consulted. When pressed, such interviewees remember occasions where such practices have led to tutorial help given to individuals or seminar groups, but the comment recurred, even among language tutors, that 'dictionaries are taken for granted' (Librarian), or 'dictionary use is not a priority' (Education), and deliberate instruction is (therefore?) not generally provided except where it may form part of a course in Linguistics (e.g. Spanish) or Lexicography (postgraduate programme in English). The majority of Modern Language departments mention dictionaries (in passing) in their student handbooks, or list specific titles in module descriptions and book-lists. Some interviewees admitted that this is a 'neglected area' and that there was 'room for improvement' in this respect, particularly in terms of advice that could be offered on the advantages of the monolingual over the bilingual dictionary, of specialised over generallanguage dictionaries, or of electronic dictionaries over print dictionaries. The Foreign Language Centre mentions some dictionaries as part of its course descriptions on the website; one section of the School of Modern Languages (Russian) has experimented with a 'dictionary quiz' to encourage library and reference awareness; another section (Arabic) recommends a dictionary workbook with exercises to its first-year students; one Lecturer (in French) has designed written practice material for solving 'dictionary problems'. Specific difficulties did emerge in the course of the interviews, such as price, size and availability of good foreign-language dictionaries (e.g. Arabic and Russian), limited library budgets (French and German) or lack of space where a reference library could be installed (Italian). Two large departments and the Foreign Language Centre possess their own libraries, but provision of dictionaries and other reference books is limited (to at least a dozen items each in the Business & Economics and Engineering Libraries), and their use is not monitored systematically. A separate interview was held with a University Librarian who stated that (a) staff and students in Modern Languages tend to be more aware of dictionaries than those in other disciplines, (b) general English dictionaries are in general use, but knowledge about other dictionary types (including electronic reference sources) is

206

Part IV

limited, and (c) 'most people's information-gathering skills are haphazard', and need to be strengthened. In reply to Question (5), the problem of dictionary use in examinations was mentioned by several departmental representatives. The topic was explicitly addressed in an interview with the Examinations Officer, who confirmed (a) that the majority of taught modules were still assessed by written examinations, (b) that normally the use of dictionaries is NOT permitted in examinations, but (c) that international students whose first language is not English are allowed the use of a (monolingual or bilingual) dictionary for their examinations. Interestingly, she could not say which particular (types of) dictionaries are currently prescribed or proscribed, nor was she aware of the results of an email survey conducted by Raphael Salkie (Brighton) earlier this year which had recommended that in general, dictionaries should NOT be allowed in examinations [in British universities], but any module tutor could apply for an exemption from the general rule provided good academic reasons can be given. In that case, particular dictionaries should have been specified and prior training in their use should have been provided. Finally, an interview was also held with the Director of the 'Pallas' Arts Computing Service. He said that staff and student demand for dictionary reference appears not to have increased over the years, but that automatic spelling checkers and thesauruses are now generally accessible on most computers (except for email). No formal instruction is provided, but developments in the field of electronic dictionaries are being monitored. The interviews complement the results of the questionnaire survey. On the assumption that the nominated staff members are representative, they show a range of views from interest to indifference. They generally have an open mind towards dictionaries and other reference works, but do not consider them a major problem and therefore part of normal departmental policy. When difficulties arise, they tend to be met by occasional personal guidance rather than systematic instruction, although a minority (especially in Modem Languages) admit the possibility of change, particularly if the questionnaire results of this project should suggest a case for it. Areas for such action might be the specification of the role of particular types of dictionaries (and other reference works) in module descriptions, handbooks and book-lists, and an evaluation of the links (at staff, postgraduate and undergraduate levels) with the Library, the Examinations Office and IT Services.

23.6 Conclusion These preliminary results are encouraging in their breadth, complexity and direction. Although response rates, coverage and administration of the questionnaire varied considerably across the constituent units, a mass of data emerged which gives food for thought. Many of the results had been expected (such as the relative indifference to questions of dictionary use among some staff and the indirect evidence of low dictionary competence among many students), but many also surprised us (such as the high degree of user selfconfidence in the face of dictionary 'difficulties'). We were heartened by the students' recognition that some teaching of reference skills might be helpful and the willingness among staff to consider changes in the way dictionaries and other reference works might be treated in various study programmes in the future.

Case Study: The Exeter University Survey of Dictionary Use

207

The overriding impression that reference provision and reference proficiency in this University is still (too) low leads us inevitably to ask what the implications of this conclusion might be. Locally, the implication is that more attention should be paid to deliberate instruction in the basic tools and skills of information-gathering via reference books (and IT systems). Nationally, an attempt should be made to see whether the Exeter 'reference profile' could — and should — be generalised: what are the benchmarks on the basis of which comparisons can be made? Are the reforms currently underway in the national school curriculum going to have an effect on attitudes in higher education? For lexicography, the implication is that learners (not only language learners, but all students) need reference works that provide information in formats that are user-friendly. Finally, for dictionary research, the implication is that projects of this kind can provide some answers to old and new questions, but that the methods we have employed need to be further refined (e.g. questionnaires and interviews supplemented by direct observation and in-action tests). We have experimented with such techniques in the School of Education and the English Language Centre and are hoping to follow up this work during the 1999-2000 session. I wish to end this report by acknowledging the help I have received from many people: the members of the Project Group, notably Lan Li (who did most of the data analysis), Görard Poulet (who opened a door into Education and exciting new developments in school teaching and teacher training), the Schools, Centres and Services (and their staff and students) who contributed to the survey, and finally to the School of English and the University of Exeter for the research grant that enabled me to cany out this exciting enquiry.

References —»Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Chapter 24 Interlingual References: On the Mutual Relations between Lexicography and Translation In my experience many brilliant and acclaimed people in lexicography don't even get the basic point of interlingual lexicography, namely, the difference between a definition and an equivalent! (Roger Steiner, personal communication, April 2001)

24.1 Introduction This paper (which I dedicate to Roger Steiner) deals with the relations between the two fields of lexicography and translation1.1 shall ask why these disciplines have stood apart for so long and what can be done to bring about a rapprochement between them. The relative neglect of interlingual topics in lexicography and of lexicographic topics in translation will be demonstrated, and the special case of parallel text analysis will be examined to show how progress can be made in interdisciplinary collaboration. A few preliminary remarks on terminology are perhaps in order here. The term 'interlingual dictionary' is defined in the DoL (Hartmann & James 1998/2001: 75) as denoting "a type of reference work with information on more than one language", used "either when the contrast with monolingual dictionary is stressed or when the distinction between bilingual dictionary and multilingual dictionary is considered irrelevant". In turn, 'bilingual lexicography' is defined (ibid.: IS) as "a complex of activities concerned with the design, compilation, use and evaluation of bilingual dictionaries", a field which has "... lagged behind that of monolingual lexicography in terms of theory formation and professional standards ..." This is very much the sense in which a pioneering paper by Gold (1978) discussed 'problems in interlingual lexicography' (such as directionality and translation equivalence), in marked contrast to the anthology edited by Braun et al. (1990) whose contributors consider the study of 'internationalisms' (borrowed words and phrases, especially cognate vocabulary shared by European languages, e.g. English and French reference, Spanish (and even Hungarian) referenda, Italian referenza, German Referenz, Russian referentsija ...) as part of interlingual lexicology and lexicography. Parallel to lexicography as theory ('metalexicography', or dictionary research, or even 'reference science') and lexicography as practice (the act/process of dictionary-making, and its result/product: the dictionary and other types of reference works, such as the encyclopedia or the directory), we can distinguish translation as theory ('translatology', or 'traductology', or translation studies) from translation as practice (the act/process of translating, and its result/product: the translation and other types of language mediation, such as interpreting or interlingual paraphrase). We can further consider terminology as theory (terminology science) and terminology as practice (the act/process of 'terminography', and its result/product: the glossary and other types of terminological databases). * Number 24 in List of Reprinted Essays (pp. vii-ix), first published in 2005.

Interlingual References: Relations between Lexicography and Translation

209

For finding equivalents in interlingual lexicography, a distinction needs to be made between inherent dictionary-based 'bilingual equivalents' and text-insertable 'translation equivalents'. For the former, a detailed semantic analysis of lexical items to be matched needs to be carried out in terms of their referential components (cf. Hafiz 1996), for the latter, one technique that has been claimed to be useful is the analysis of parallel texts ('contrastive textology', cf. Hartmann 1980 [for more on CT, —• Chapter 12 in Part II above]). Such interlingual text corpora can be either bilingual or multilingual, and computer algorithms are now available to 'align' matching passages in bilingual concordances. It is also possible to conceive of 'intertexts', i.e. intralingual rather than interlingual parallel texts, e.g. a type of discourse paraphrased in a different style, such as a poem rewritten in prose or a report parodied in humorous fashion.

24.2 The neglect of interlingual issues in lexicography Among the various perspectives in lexicography, the interlingual is one of the most difficult as it involves contacts and contrasts between two or more languages. I have been aware of (and worried about) the reasons why such issues have been neglected both in lexicographical theory and practice. What are the differences and similarities between monolingual and interlingual dictionaries, and why do we seem to know so much less about the latter than the former? In a critical paper on the history of metalexicography, Hausmann explicitly complains about the neglect of the bilingual dictionary in historical studies, saying that too little is known about the "interdependence of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries through the centuries" (1989: 104, my translation). I have not systematically investigated this claim, but it is a sad fact that Steiner's (1970) book is one of the very few publications devoted to the lexicographic tradition of a particular language pair (in this case English and Spanish). I know of no similar book-length treatment of the history of bilingual lexicography for English and German, English and French, English and Italian, English and Russian, English and Chinese, etc. For English-Japanese lexicography, Hayakawa (2001) has highlighted the importance of copying in the period from 1850 to 1950. The best overall treatment of the history of (non-English) lexicography remains the book by Collison (1982), while the bilingual dictionary of Italian with French, English, Spanish and German is discussed by Marello (1989), and some other traditions are traced by contributors to a seminar I convened at Exeter (Hartmann 1986). Hausmann's (1989) paper also deplores lacunae in other areas of interlingual dictionary research, such as dictionary structure, dictionary criticism, dictionary typology and dictionary use. He particularly singles out the theory of the example which is so much more complex in bilingual than in monolingual dictionaries. The topic of examples is addressed in Landau's textbook (2001) under two headings: 'illustrative quotation' and 'corpus evidence', stressing the need for well-balanced verbal illustrations which should document realistic contexts. This is fine as far as it goes, i.e. in relation to the problem of defining meanings in the monolingual dictionary, but I would argue, with Hausmann, Steiner and others, that this completely ignores the very different case of the bilingual dictionary where definitions are replaced by translation equivalents, preferably one for each separate sense of any headword.

210

Part IV

Thus, a word like reference may have different synonyms for each of its senses, from basic to derived and from general to technical, e.g. for sense (a) 'mention(ing)': remark, allusion, innuendo; for sense (b) 'relevance': application, pertinence, respect·, for sense (c) 'information': authority, consultation, look-up, etc. These, and various compounds such as bibliographical reference, character reference and cross-reference, or reference science, reference skills and reference work, can then be defined and exemplified in the monolingual dictionary or thesaurus, such as the Encarta World English Dictionary (EWED 1999) or The Oxford Thesaurus (OThes 1997), drawing on semantic as well as syntactic features for sense discrimination. In other languages, each of these senses of the word may have a different translation equivalent that needs to be presented in the bilingual dictionary, e.g. in German Hinweis or Erwähnung for reference (a), Beziehung or Relevanz for reference (b). Quelle or Nachschlagen for reference (c), etc. Cognate words such as Referenz cover a more limited range of senses, such as 'testimonial' and 'meaning relation', and are less likely as equivalents for other senses, where reference and Referenz would be considered so-called 'faux amis'. The decisions lexicographers have to make on how senses can be established and specified are as difficult as they are variable, and depend on an awareness of what is appropriate in various (con-)texts in each language (such as, for the three senses distinguished above, the lexical or thematic fields 'associative reading', 'subject specificity' and 'reference sources'), which still leaves open the decision of how these should be monolingually and interlingually analysed, labelled, exemplified and matched, and whether some should be treated in specialised rather than general-purpose dictionaries. The question that arises here is whether lexical equivalents in interlingual dictionaries should be based on yesterday's translation acts or on today's discourse evidence gathered from matching (parallel) texts. For the 3rd EURALEX Congress in Budapest, I surveyed 65 lexicographic conferences held in various parts of the world between 1960 and 1988 (Hartmann 1990b) in an attempt to find out what sorts of topics had been covered. I noticed then that interlingual issues did not figure prominently. Thus, while 'bilingual dictionary' and 'translation' occurred in 38 and 17 individual conferences, respectively, only two conferences had addressed these two as linked overall themes, including the one at Innsbruck 1987 (cf. Hartmann 1989c). This pattern has continued during the last decade. The number of conferences held has increased further, of course, as has the number of papers offered, but the proportion devoted to interlingual topics is still relatively low, a recent exception being the Hong Kong conference on Translation and Bilingual Dictionaries in 2002. For a plenary lecture at that conference, I collected, tabulated and presented figures on the relative neglect of such interlingual issues in dictionary research by looking at bibliographical references in academic courses and conference proceedings, textbooks and periodicals, paying particular attention to various aspects of dictionaiy research (Hartmann 2004b). The proportion of publications devoted to interlingual topics is disappointingly low, e.g. 133 out of 573 papers presented in the first nine EURALEX congresses (1983-2000) and 45 out of 168 papers issued in the first 13 volumes of the journal International Journal of Lexicography (1988-2000). In one of the first thematic issues of IJL, on 'the dictionary as text', we find the interesting assertion by Steiner (1989: 249) that the bilingual dictionary not only cannot cover all the translation equivalents of all words and phrases that might occur in all possible texts, but that its function is limited to acting "as an index of the mono-

Interlingual References: Relations between Lexicography and Translation

211

lingual dictionaries upon which it is based", and that the information provided in such monolingual reference works needs to be supplemented by texts of many other kinds. The interlingual performance index of the over 100 volumes of the 'Lexicographica Series Maior' published during the last 15 years is slightly better (49/110). In contrast, the encyclopedia W/D/D (Hausmann et al. 1989-91) has only a ratio of 55/334 articles, while dissertations and theses at M.A./M.Phil. and Ph.D. levels at my own university (Exeter) show a better coverage of such topics (28/49), no doubt because they reflect my own interests. Occasionally we find publications that seem to prove exceptions to the rule, such as the proceedings of the biennial conferences of the Nordic Association for Lexicography (NFL, six between 1991 and 2001) and of ASIALEX (three from 1997 to 2001), or the series of studies published in seven thematic issues of the periodical Germanistische Linguistik edited by Wiegand (1993-2001). Another text type that should perhaps be added is the bibliography. Annotated lists such as the ones by Zgusta (1988) and Dolezal & McCreary (1999) are generally above-average on the interlingual index. To counteract the neglect of interlingual lexicography, and to fmd improved solutions to the problem of establishing and codifying translation equivalents in the dictionary (e.g. for the word reference as discussed above), we need to look next at the potential contribution of the field of translation.

24.3 The neglect of lexicographic issues in translation Translation is relevant to lexicography in two ways: as supplier of translation equivalents to be included in the bilingual dictionary and as consumer of information made available by lexicographers to professional translators. Both of these give-and-take operations presuppose that active channels of awareness and collaboration exist. Unfortunately, and similar to our diagnosis of the neglect of interlingual aspects in dictionary research, we can observe relatively scant attention paid to lexicographic topics within translation. Just to pick out three examples: the most prestigious international journal in translation studies, Target, in its 12 volumes between 1989 and 2000, contains 158 papers, of which only three address lexicographic topics! None of the 300+ entries in the Dictionary of Translation Studies (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997) is concerned with dictionaries or other reference works (although there are two on the topic of terminology). And none of the textbooks that I checked makes any reference to dictionaries or lexicography, not even Munday's (2001) whose final chapter is entitled 'Translation studies as an interdiscipline'. There are of course some authors who have combined the field of translation with either linguistic semantics or (meta-)lexicography. Prominent among them are Nida (1958) who has explored the relevance of linguistics to both translation and dictionary-making; Zgusta (1984a) who has written on the status of translation equivalents in bilingual lexicography; Krings (1986) who has investigated the use of dictionaries by advanced foreign-language students performing a translation exercise; Snell-Homby and Pöhl (1989) who have organised one of the few conferences on the interrelations between translation and lexicography; Farina (1996) who has edited a thematic volume of the periodical Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography on the topic of translation and the bilingual dictionary; and Hafiz (2001) who has made out a case for (a) greater awareness of both

212

Part IV

translation and lexicography among Arab university students of English and (b) the need for an entirely new 'Arabic-English Translator's Dictionary'. However, efforts of this kind have remained a minority pursuit and have not yet had the desired effect on the bulk of theoreticians and practitioners of either lexicography or translation. One exception that proves the rule, as it were, and partly addresses Hausmann's (1989) critical charge, is the interesting survey (in the Chapter by Van Hoof 1995) of dictionary making within the history of translating, which asks and answers questions like "What role have (translators) played throughout the ages? What role do they continue to play? Which came first, the translator or the lexicographer?" under three headings: unilingual dictionaries (from the clay tablets to supermarket editions), multilingual dictionaries (and their role in globalisation), and specialised dictionaries (and their mutual relations with terminological databases).

24.4 A case study of interdisciplinary collaboration: Parallel text analysis The time has come to review the whole development of the notion of 'parallel texts' and their use(s) in lexicography and translation. Over 20 years ago, in my book on 'contrastive textology' (Hartmann 1980), I had informally distinguished three types of parallel texts: (a) those that are the result of full-scale translation, (b) those that are the result of interlingual adaptation, and (c) those that are not translationally equivalent, but functionally similar in terms of situational motivation and rhetorical structure. For translationally linked parallel texts of types (a) and (b), the useful term 'bitext' has been proposed (Harris 1988), while 'paired texts' or 'comparable texts' of type (c) are regarded as independently formulated but matched by their respective contexts, e.g. English and Spanish newspaper texts on identical topics as used in translator training. It was this latter type that Laffling (1991) used to pioneer a machine-translation approach to contrastive textology in which German and British party political manifestoes were aligned to extract 'natural equivalents' from corresponding discourse, e.g. schwere Belastungen and severely disabled in the two extracts from the CDU Grundsatzprogramm 1978 and the Labour Party Programme 1976 reproduced below: Dazu gehören die ZukunAssicherung des Einkommens im Alter, bei Erwerbsunfähigkeit und Arbeitslosigkeit und die Sicherung gegen schwere Belastungen, zum Beispiel bei Unfall und Krankheit We are examining whether a 'no-fault' liability scheme ..., covering all who are severely disabled whether by accident or sickness, would be the long-term solution.

Laffling was able to demonstrate that often the natural equivalents occurring in these independently composed texts are more suitable to the context than the translation equivalents that can be found in bitexts (e.g. die inappropriate phrase serious burdens in the English translation of the CDU text prepared by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 1979) or the lexical equivalents that are on offer in current bilingual dictionaries (e.g. the excessively literal collocation heavy burden or the unidiomatic expression great strain and distress in the Duden/Oxford Grosswörterbuch Englisch (DOGE 1990).

Interlingual References: Relations between Lexicography and Translation

213

But well before Laffling's alignment experiments, the 'corpus revolution' had started (cf. Rundell & Stock 1992), nurtured by progress in natural language processing and computational lexicology and pursued since the late 1960s/early 1970s with greater vigour in Britain and Europe than in the United States. In a survey paper on the relevance and benefits of linguistic corpora to lexicography, Meijs (1996: 101) pointed out that "modem computerized corpus linguistics began in an era when mainstream linguistics showed no interest in performance data at all", but that its advantages were soon appreciated by lexicographers, notably the compilers of the 'big four' British learners' dictionaries published in 1995. Fig. 24.1, an extract from a concordance on the example reference mentioned in Section 24.1 above, illustrates eight of the more than 19,200 lines on this word from the COBUILD Bank of English corpus in Birmingham, documenting one basic sense, 'mention', as found in two British, three Australian and three American non-fiction texts. Fig. 24.1 Concordance econ/UK ...dubbing it 'Stimulus 2 \ a econ/UK ...the United States. Similar oznews/OZ ... remarks: a pointed oznews/OZ .. .ew from punctuating every oznews/OZ ... frequent use of insider usbooks/US ... ify moral constraints by usbooks/US ...thoroughly imaginal.

usbooks/US ... e day until he made some

reference references reference reference references reference Reference reference

to Mr Clinton's ill-fated... to British companies are... to the Americans turning the 1996... to the match with 'that's if I'm... to the twisted universe he has... to rules that rational persons... to drama and mask also... to a woman he'd had an affair...

Evidence of this kind has brought considerable innovations to lexicography, notably the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (first edition 1987). Thus, the entry on reference distinguishes 'mentioning)' as the first of five senses treated, subdivided into two sub-senses explained by means of its so-called full-sentence definitions, 1 Reference to someone or something is 1.1 the act of talking about them or mentioning them ... 1.2 the act of referring to them for information or advice ...

together with two and three corpus-derived examples, respectively. In the 'extra column' on the right of the entry, both are marked grammatically as Ν UNCOUNT: IF + PREP THEN to, and each is separately paraphrased by the synonyms allusion and consultation. At the same time, the value of corpora in the lexicographic and pedagogical context has been acknowledged universally, and various projects have devised their own approaches, such as the technical text corpora from a range of subjects made available to ESP students at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (James et al. 1997). Several authorities have argued that these benefits should also be extended to interlingual lexicography. At COBUILD, Sinclair had realised that there were many potential links with (machine) translation. In a paper written for the Gellerstam festskrift, he reminisces on the first emergence of 'bridge dictionaries' such as the Anglicko-öesky vykladovy slovnik (ACVS ed. by Cermäk in 1998), called by others 'bilingualized dictionaries' (cf. Marello 1998) or 'semi-bilingual dictionaries' (such as those published in the Kernerman/Password series), i.e. translational adaptations of monolingual dictionaries for groups of foreign learners of specific mother tongues: "There would be just one alphabetical index, the English one, and the definitions would be translated with the exception of the definiendum,

214

Part IV

which was identified as being in bold face, and which remained in English" (Sinclair 2001: 399). But there are still many lingering doubts about the methodology of such parallel corpus processing, especially for interlingual lexicography. One of the difficulties of relying on evidence from parallel text corpora based on translation is that equivalents may well be the result of source language interference based on inadequate word-for-word transposition. Translation corpora tend to confirm (rather than show us how to avoid) this kind of negative translation-induced interference, also variously called 'third language' (Duff 1981), 'third code' (Frawley 1984), 'translationese' (Gellerstam 1986) and 'hybrid texts' (Schäf&er & Adab 2001). Examples I picked up on a trip to China include the publication title tourism map (for tourist map), the warning sign to be noticed (for please note) and the abbreviation add (for address, usually left unstated on Western business cards). As Teubert has put it pointedly (1996: 247), "Linguists should never rely on translations when they are describing a language. That is why translations have no place in reference corpora. Rather than representing the language they are written in, they give a mirror image of their source language." One of the best-known parallel-text corpora based on translation is the French-English Canadian Hansard. Such concordances have been used since Church & Gale (1991) first reported on their successful text alignments for the purpose of extracting translation equivalents. However, Roda Roberts in her (1996) contribution to the interdisciplinary open forum on parallel text analysis, which I chaired at the AELA Congress in Finland, stressed that the Bilingual Canadian Dictionary Project relies on parallel texts that are not translationally equivalent but functionally similar in situational motivation and rhetorical structure in order to identify and verify any French-English lexical equivalents to be included. Based on such bilingual corpora of material from a variety of sources, the distinct senses of reference in English and their various equivalents in French (e.g. rifirence, allusion, mention, competence) can be confirmed, including those that appear in the bilingual Hansard corpus (such as renvoi for reference in a parliamentary debate on verbatim quotation practices in the House/Chambre). So what is needed is more evidence from corpora containing parallel texts which are not the result of translation acts ('bitexts'), but are matched by linking independently encoded passages from comparable contexts and styles in each of the two languages ('paired' or 'twinned' texts'). Since the early 1990s we have seen a slowly increasing number of such comparable text corpora in a wide range of fields and with a wide range of applications, from natural language processing and computational lexicology to (machine) translation, LSP teaching, terminology and lexicography. Some of these are listed in anthologies such as the one edited by Vironis (2000), newsletters such as that issued by the European Language Resources Association, or websites such as www.ruf.rice.edu/~barlow/para.html. I have myself presented the general case for comparable text corpora from the point of view of bilingual lexicography on more than one occasion. In closing the paper I presented to the 6® EURALEX Congress (Hartmann 1994b: 295), I complained that the "existing literature on bilingual dictionary-making (cf. Bartholomew & Schoenhals 1983, Marello 1989, Svensön 1993) is strangely silent on these issues", while in my contribution to the encyclopedia ETCE (Hartmann 1995a: 517 [—• Chapter 5 in Part I above]), I optimistically concluded that "translation and bilingual lexicography are among the most likely beneficiaries of the application of contrastive textology to the solution of practical problems".

Interlingual References: Relations between Lexicography and Translation

215

With more evidence from comparable texts, such as the extracts from different German corpora as cited in Fig. 24.2, the hypotheses advanced in Section 24.2 above about which equivalents might be best suited for any specific sense of a particular word can be verified. Thus, we see the cognate Referenz(en) occurring not only as an expected equivalent of reference in the (business) sense 'testimonial' (1) and the more specialised (linguistic) sense 'meaning relation' (2), but also, possibly under the influence of translation from English texts in this genre of news reporting, as an alternative to Angabe and other synonyms for the (literary) sense 'mention' (3) as well as the non-equivalent (media) sense 'appreciation' (4). Fig. 24.2 Comparable text evidence (1) Zwar konnte er erstklassige Referenzen vorweisen ... [U95 COSMAS (Steyer)] (2) Bei der Analyse der Bedingungen des propositionalen Aktes unterscheidet er Referenz (Gegenstandsbezug) und Prädikation. [Kindler Literaturlexikon WORTSCHATZ (Quasthoff)] (3) Dann überzeugt dieses musikalisch-gestische Theater als unterhaltsam-geistreiche Referenz an eine untergegangene Kultur und ihren Humor... CNN bezog sich bei dieser Angabe auf republikanische Kreise. [Berliner Zeitung COSMAS (Volz)] (4) ... an die Elbe geeilt, um Arafat seine Referenz zu erweisen. [T95 COSMAS (Steyer)]

One method which is still capable of refinement and wider application in bilingual lexicography is the specification of 'collocation profiles'. From concordance evidence gathered independently from the Bank of English COBUILD corpus in Birmingham and the Institut für deutsche Sprache COSMAS corpus in Mannheim, typical co-occurrence patterns can be established for potential translation equivalents of English words, e.g. Referenzen vorweisen 'provide references' and Referenz erweisen 'pay (one's) respect'. However, three problems remain to be solved in this respect: (a) compatibility (two corpora assembled separately for a pair of languages such as English and German do not match in all respects, e.g. in the range of text genres documented), (b) meaning discrimination (the larger the corpus, the more difficult it seems to be to isolate specific senses from the many possible contextual uses of a word, e.g. Referenz as 'good record', 'objective meaning', 'quotation' or 'respect'), and (c) multivergence (translation equivalents diverge and converge between a language pair according to the directionality of the process, e.g. from reference to Referenz or Verweis, from Referenz to recommendation or reverence (sic) and from Verweis to cross-reference or reprimand...). Whether equivalents are gained by parallel text analysis or direct observation of the translation process, and how they are used in interlingual lexicography, depends of course on how we define translation in terms of its purpose(s). Snell-Hornby (1984: 275) has reminded us "that the glib labelling of the general bilingual dictionary as the 'translator's dictionary' is erroneous" and that we should differentiate sub-types according to their varying uses, from tourism and language learning to technical terminology and professional translation. One exemplar of one such sub-type of the bilingual dictionary, the ChineseEnglish Dictionary of Idioms and Proverbs (CEDIP by Heng & Zhang 1988), compiled at Exeter, distinguishes three levels of equivalence. For the entry on the Chinese idiom bu ju li jie, for instance, the 'literal' translation is given as not stick to usual social rules, the 'free' translation as pay no attention to convention, and the 'English equivalent' as do not stand on ceremony (the latter marked with the register labels lit. & colloqu.).

216

Part IV

What in any case are the reference needs of translators? Varantola (1998) has done empirical research on the use of dictionaries by trainee translators. Adapting Krings's (1986) 'thinking aloud protocols' in the form of diary-like worksheets, she found that dictionaries are only one resource among many, and that encyclopedias, technical glossaries, parallel texts and concordanced corpora are also used by translators to establish equivalence. Again we learn that the dictionary is consulted as much to verify hunches as to locate direct equivalents. Varantola concludes (1998: 191) that "it is appropriate to ask whether resources should go towards improving the dictionaries, or improving the users' dictionary skills, or providing new reference sources designed to meet the translators' specific needs. I would argue that we must do all of these things." These findings tie in with what several other authorities have hinted at. Sinclair (2001) has suggested a kind of 'floating dictionaiy' as a multiple corpus tool in order to supplement conventional dictionary information, Laffling (1992) has promised a kind of 'transfer dictionary' as a series of computer-stored text models in order to help the (machine as well as human) translator to produce collocationally and stylistically appropriate discourse, Williams (1996) has recommended as an alternative to dictionary look-up the consultation of relevant texts listed in the bibliographical references which are parallel to the original and thus likely to furnish more natural target-language equivalents, and Melby (2000) has advocated a kind of 'translation memory' database derived from aligned parallel texts as an aid to looking up technical terminology. Such techniques may help compensate for the inherent limitation of the bilingual dictionary which Steiner has characterised as an index rather than an inventory of texts. So what, finally, is the 'ideal' interlingual dictionary or 'workstation' for lexicographers as well as translators? We now realise that the demanding and partly tongue-in-cheek desiderata for the treatment of various information categories in the bilingual dictionary as set out by Haas (1962) are now achievable thanks to all the electronic resources available to us today. In this spirit I leave the last word to Sue Atkins, whose paper at the Gothenburg EURALEX Congress (Atkins 1996: 531) confidently predicted that "computer-assisted compiling and online dictionaries offer the lexicographer the opportunity of creating a much fuller, more accurate and easier to use dictionary, whether it is monolingual or bilingual."

1

I wish to acknowledge the help several people have given me with aspects of this paper: Rosamund Moon provided data from the Bank of English corpus created by COBUILD at the University of Birmingham; Wolfgang Teubert, Norbert Volz and Ulrike Kramer helped me get German corpus evidence, John Laffling and Kathrin Steyer supplemented it by information on collocational profiling; Roda Roberts sent me several English-French parallel text examples from Canada; Christopher Upward and Carmen Millän-Varela reminded me of the use of 'parallel text' exercises in advanced foreign-language teaching and 'retextualisation' exercises in translator training; Wolfgang Worsch sent me information on English-German online dictionaries; Herbert Ernst Wiegand provided additional bibliographical references; Edward Gates and Luanne von Schneidemesser drew my attention to a list of speakers and papers at DSNA meetings prepared by Donald Lance; Roger Steiner, Alan Kirkness, FrantiSek Cermäk, Jeremy Munday and Al-Tahir Hafiz commented on an earlier version of this paper.

Interlingual References: Relations between Lexicography and Translation

217

24.5 Conclusion The recent expansion of dictionary research, pedagogical lexicography, terminological lexicography and corpus linguistics as well as improved international communication via professional associations and conferences give us hope for a change in the right direction. We need to bring together again the fields of lexicography and translation for their mutual benefit, and one effective means that I have described here is the use of corpus technology. It is high time to extend the tools that have helped improve monolingual dictionaries for native speakers and foreign learners to the bilingual dictionary. References —• Consolidated Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Consolidated Bibliography (a) Cited dictionaries and other reference works: Abrogans = Latin-German Dictionary of Synonyms comp, by Arbeo [et al.], Freising c. 765 A.D. ACVS = Anglicko-cesky vykladovy slavnik ed. by F. termäk. Prague: Nakladatelstvi Lidovi Noviny 1998. AHD = (The) American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ed. by W. Morris [et al.]. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin 1969/1982/1992. ALD — (O)ALD ALDCE = Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English English-Chinese ed. by Wu X.Z., Cheung F.K. (et al.) [bilingualisation of OALD 1963], Taipei: Tung-Hua Shu Chu & Hong Kong 1966/1970/1984/1986/1994/1997. AZBL - (An) A to Ζ of British Life comp, by A Room. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1990 [based on Dictionary of Britain 1986]. BBI = (The) BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English comp, by M. Benson et al. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins 1986. BSIDE = Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language (Anglo-Hindi Edition) ed. by R.C. Pathak. Banaras: P.N. Bhargava 1939. CCUD = Chambers Concise Usage Dictionary ed. by C.M. Schwarz & M.A. Seaton. Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers 1985 [bilingualised as PEDSF and OELDSG]. CED = Collins Dictionary of the English Language ed. by P. Hanks [et al.]. London/Glasgow: Collins 1979/1986. CEDIP = (A) Chinese-English Dictionary of Idioms and Proverbs [Part I: Idioms, Part II: Proverbs] comp, by Heng X.J. & Zhang X.Zh. (Lexicographica. Series Maior 24). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer 1988. CEL = (The) Cambridge English Lexicon comp, by R.X. Hindmarsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1980. CGD = Collins [English-German] Gem Dictionary comp, by J.M. Clark & V. Calderwood-Schnorr. London/Glasgow: Collins 1953/1978. CKCGD = Cambridge/Klett Comprehensive German Dictionary [English-German, GermanEnglish] ed. by M. Cop et al. Stuttgart: E. Klett and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002. CKGWB —* CPGED. CNGD = Cassell's [New] German Dictionary [2 volumes] comp, by E. Weir. London: Cassell and Boston: Heath 1888-89 [rev. edn by H.T. Betteridge 1955/1978], COBUILD = Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary ed. by J.M. Sinclair. London: Collins 1987. COD = Concise Chford Dictionary of Current English ed. by H.W. & F.G. Fowler [et al.]. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press 1911/1982/1990. CPGED = Collins/Pons [German-English &] English-German Dictionary [Collins/Klett Großwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch Englisch-Deutsch 2 parts in 1 volume] ed. by P. Terrell et al. Glasgow/London: Collins and Stuttgart: E. Klett 1980 [1983]. CRFED = Collins/Robert [French-English &] English-French Dictionary ed. by B.T. Atkins et al. Glasgow/London: Collins [and Paris: Robert] 1978. CULD = Chambers Universal Learners' Dictionary comp, by E.M. Kirkpatrick. Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers 1980 [bilingualised as VCELD], DBDS = Duden Bildwörterbuch der deutschen Sprache ed. by K.D. Solf & J. Schmidt [et al.]. Mannheim/Wien/Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut 3 r i edn 1977 [Vol. 3 of Der Duden in 10 Bänden, 1st edn Leipzig 1935; bilingualised as DPGED],

Consolidated Bibliography

219

DEGF = (A) Dictionary English, German and French [2 volumes] comp, by C. Ludwig. Leipzig: Fritsch 1706 [2nd edn Frankfurt: Gleditsch 1736/45; — TEL]. DF = Dictionnaire Franfois, contenant les mots et les choses ... comp, by P. RicheleL Geneva: J.H. Widerhold 1680. DGEEG = (A) Dictionary of German and English, English and German [2 parts in 1 single-order volume] comp, by M. Bellows. London: Longmans and New York: Holt 1912. DGEL = (A) Dictionary of the German and English Languages [2 parts in 1 volume] comp, by G.J. Adler. New York: Appleton 1848/1852. DGGLE - (A) Double Grammar for Germans to Learn English; and for Englishmen to Learn the German-Tongue comp, by H. Offelen. London: Thompson et al. 1687. DI = Diccionario Ingles ed. by F. de Mello Vianna. Boston MA: Voluntad/NTC & Houghton Mifflin 1982. DOGE = Duden/Oxford Großwörterbuch Englisch [English-German, German-English] ed. by W. Scholze-Stubenrecht & J. Sykes. Mannheim: Dudenverlag [and Oxford: Oxford University Press] 1990. DoLL - Dictionary of Language and Linguistics comp, by R.R.K. Hartmann & F.C. Stork. London: Applied Science Publishers 1972 [Chinese translation ed. by Huang C.Z. et al. Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe 1981]. DoL Dictionary of Lexicography comp, by R.R.K. Hartmann & G.C. James. London: Routledge 1998/2001 [Japanese translation Jishogaku jiten ed. by S. Takebayashi. Tokyo: Kenkyusha 2003]. DPGED = Duden Pictorial German-English Dictionary comp. J. Pheby [et al.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1980 [based on DBDS], DSS = (A) Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. A Contribution to the History of Ideas comp, by C.D. Buck. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1949/1965. DTS = Dictionary of Translation Studies comp, by M. Shuttleworth & Μ. Cowie. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing 1997. DWS = (Der) deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen comp, by F. Dornseiff [rev. 8 Λ edn by U. Quasthoff; with Introduction and Bibliography by H.E. Wiegand], Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1934/1959/1970/2004. DWW = Deutscher Wortschatz. Ein Wegweiser zum treffenden Ausdruck comp, by Η. Wehrle [& ed. by Η. Eggers]. Stuttgart: E. Klett & Frankfurt: Fischer 1881/1961/1968. ECDP = English-Chinese Dictionary of Psychology ed. by Yan P.G. Chengdu: Sichuan People's Publishing House 1989. EDW = Englisch-Deutsches [Deutsch-Englisches] Wörterbuch comp, by Κ. Wildhagen. Leipzig: Tauchnitz 1938 [rev. edn W. Höraucourt] Wiesbaden: Brandstetter [and London: G. Allen & Unwin] 1963/1972. EE = Errors in English. A Collection of Common Pitfalls in British and American Usage as an Aid to Conversation and Translation for German-Speaking Students comp, by L.H. Paulovsky. Wien: Verlag für Jugend und Volk 1949. EFGSWFD = (An) English-French-German-Spanish Word Frequency Dictionary. A Correlation of the First Six Thousand Words in Four Single-Language Frequency Lists comp, by H.S. Eaton. New Yoric: Dover 1940/1961. EHWGD = Englisches Handwörterbuch in genetischer Darstellung comp, by M.M.A Schröer & P.L. Jäger [3 volumes]. Heidelberg: C. Winter 1937-70. EoL = (An) Encyclopedia of Language ed. by N.E. Collinge. London: Routledge 1992. ETCE = (An) Encyclopaedia of Translation Chinese-English/English-Chinese ed. by S.-W. Chan & D.E. Pollard. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press 1995. EWED = Encarta World English Dictionary ed. by Κ. Rooney. London: Bloomsbuiy 1999. EWEDS = Enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache comp, by Ε. Muret & D. Sanders [revised edn by I. Schmidt & C. Stoffel; 4 volumes]. Berlin: Langenscheidt 18911901 [-+LEW],

220

Consolidated Bibliography

EWS = Englischer Wortschatz in Sachgruppen comp, by Α. Blass & W. Friederich. München: M. Hueber 1957/1865. GA9 = Glossarium Artis 9. Städte - Vilies - Towns ed. by R.E. Huber & R. Rieth [under the patronage of the Comit6 International d'Histoire de Γ Art], München: K.G. Saur 1987. GA WE = Grund- und A ufbauwortschatz Englisch comp, by Ε. Weis. Stuttgart: Ε. Klett 1964. GBED = (The) General Basic English Dictionary ed. by C.K. Ogden. London: Evans 1940/1957. GDFF = (Le) Grand Dictionnaire Frangois et Flamand ... comp, by F. Halma. Amsterdam: R. & G. Wetsten 1717. GEL = (A) Greek-English Lexicon ed. by H.G. Liddell & R. Scott Oxford: Clarendon 1843 [based on HGS 1831]. GWD = Grundwortschatz Deutsch/Essential German/Allemand fondamental comp, by H. Oehler. Stuttgart: E. Klett 1966. HCGED = Harrap's Concise German-English English-German Dictionary ed. by R. Sawers. London: G. Harrap 1982. HDG = Handwörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache ed. by G. Kempcke et al. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag [2 volumes] 1984. HEDSA = Harrap's English Dictionary for Speakers of Arabic (1987) [based on HEED 1980]. Toronto & Tel-Aviv: Kernerman 1987. HEED = Harrap's Easy English Dictionary comp, by P.H. Collin. London: G. Harrap 1980 [bilingualised as HEDSA and PEDSS], HGS = Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache comp, by F. Passow. Leipzig: Vogel 1819-1824/ 1831 [— GEL 1843], HSGED = (Oxford/)Harrap 's Standard German and English Dictionary ed. by Τ. Jones [et al.]. London: G. Hairap 1963-77. KHD = Klett/Harrap Dictionary English-German ed. by Η. Schöffler & Ε. Weis. Stuttgart: Ε. Klett [and London: G. Harrap] 1948/1969. KOL = Kleines Österreich-Lexikon ed. by S. Gassner & W. Simonitsch. München: C.H. Beck 1987. KWFF = Kleines Wörterbuch der falschen Freunde, Deutsch-Spanisch, Spanisch-Deutsch comp, by G. Wotjak & U. Herrmann. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie 1984/1987. LBCP = (The) Little Book of Chinese Proverbs comp, by J. Clements. Bath: Parragon 2001/2004. LCGD = Langenscheidt 's Concise German Dictionary/Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch comp, by Η. Messinger [German-English volume] & W. Rüdenberg [English-German volume]. Berlin/ München: Langenscheidt 1959,1964. LDEL = Longman Dictionary of the English Language comp, by H. Gay et al. Harlow: Longman (and Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster) 1984. LDoCE = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English ed. by P. Procter [et al.]. Harlow: Longman 1978/1987/1995. LDLTAL = Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics comp, by J. Richards et al. Harlow: Longman 1992. LEW = Langenscheidts Enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch [Englisch-Deutsch Deutsch-Englisch] [4 volumes, based on EWEDS] ed. by O. Springer [et al.]. Berlin: Langenscheidt 1962-75. LGWED - Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache [''Der Kleine Muret-Sanders'] ed. by Η. Messinger et al. Berlin/München: Langenscheidt 1982. LLACD = Linguae latinae Ambrosii Calepini Bergomatis dictionarium comp, by A. Calepino. Reggio: D. Bertochi 1502. LLC Ε = Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English comp, by T. McArthur. Harlow: Longman 1981 [bilingualised as LLCEC]. LLCEC = Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English English-Chinese Edition [based on LLCE 1981]. Hong Kong: Longman Asia 1992. LPD = Langenscheidt's Pocket Dictionary [English-German]. Berlin: Langenscheidt 1884/1929 [rev. edn by E. Klatt], 1951/1970.

Consolidated Bibliography

221

NCDEGL = (A) New and Complete Dictionary of the English and German Languages, for General Use comp, by W.O. Elwell. New York: Westermann 1849. NODE = (The) New Oxford Dictionary of English ed. by J. Pearsall [rev. edn Oxford English Dictionary by P. Hanks 2005]. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1998 [Chinese bilingualisation in press}. (0)ALD = (The Oxford) Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English comp, by A.S. Hornby [et al.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press [based on Idiomatic and Syntactic English Dictionary 1942] 1948/1963/1974/1989/1995/2000 [6th rev. edn by S. Wehmeier], CD-ROM edn 2000 [Chinese bilingualisation ALDCE ed. by Wu X.Z., Cheung F.K. (et al.). Taipei/Hong Kong 1966/1970/1984/1986/ 1994/1997; Korean bilingualisation OALDK], OALDK = Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, English-English-Korean [based on OALD 1974], Seoul: Panmun Book Co. 1981. OCELang = (The) Oxford Companion to the English Language ed. by T. McArthur. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992. OELD = Oxford Elementary Learner's Dictionary comp, by S. Burridge. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1981 [bilingualised as OGW1990]. OELDSG = Omega English Learner's Dictionary for Speakers of Greek [based on CCUD 1985]. Athens: OMEGA-Eurobook 1989. OGW= (Das) Oxford Grundwörterbuch English-German Deutsch-Englisch [based on OELD 1981], Oxford: Oxford University Press & Berlin: Cornelsen 1990. OSDCE = Oxford Student's Dictionary of Current English (1978) comp, by A.S. Hornby & C. Ruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978 [bilingualised as OSDHS 1986]. OSDHS = Oxford Student's Dictionary for Hebrew Speakers [based on OSDCE 1978]. Tel Aviv: Kernerrnan & Kahn 1986. OThes = (The) Oxford Thesaurus. An A-Z Dictionary of Synonyms comp, by L. Urdang. Oxford: Clarendon Press Press 1991/1997. ÖWB = Österreichisches Wörterbuch ed. by Η. Fussy & U. Steiner. Wien: ÖBV & Verlag Jugend und Volk [37th edn] 1990. PED - (The) Penguin English Dictionary ed. by G.N. Garmonsway. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1965. PEDSF = Password English Dictionary for Speakers of French [based on CCUD 1985], MontRoyal/Quebec: Modulo Ed. 1989. PEDSS = Password English Dictionary for Speakers of Spanish [bilingualisation of HEED 1980 by R. Sainz-Ezquerra]. Madrid: [Kernerrnan &] Ediciones SM 1991. POD = Pocket Oxford [German-English English-German] Dictionary ed. by M.L. Barker & H. Homeyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1946/1975/1980. RThes = Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases comp, by P.M. Roget [revised edn by R.A. Dutch et al.]. London: Longman & Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1852/1962/1966/1987. SDET = (The) School Dictionary, English-English-Tamil comp, by T.A. Swaminatha Aiyar. Madras: Coomaraswami Naidu 1909. TEL = Teutsch-Englisches Lexicon comp, by C. Ludwig. Leipzig: Fritsch 1716 [based on DEGF\. Ü/T/T = Obersetzung/Translation/Traduction. Ein Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung/An International Handbook of Translation Studies/Encyclopedie internationale des sciences de traduction ed. by A.P. Frank et al. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Vol. 26.1). Berlin: W. de Gruyter 2004. UW = Unser Wortschatz comp, by Η. Geifert et al. Braunschweig: G. Westermann 1972. VADS = Versuch einer allgemeinen deutschen Synonymik in einem kritisch =philosophischen Woerter-buche der sinnverwandten Woerter der hochdeutschen Mundart comp, by J.A. Eberhard [6 parts], Halle: RufF 1795-1802. VCELD = Vox-Chambers English Learners' Dictionary [con traduccion al espanol], Barcelona: Biblograf 1990 [based on CULD 1980], VEDDEW = Vollständiges Englisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch comp, by J.G. Flügel [2 volumes], Leipzig: Liebeskind 1827/1838.

222

Consolidated Bibliography

VLIAP = Vocabulario da lingoa de Iapam com adeclaragao em portugues ... Nagasaki: Collegio de Iapam da Companha de Iesus 1603. WDG = Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache ed. by R. Klappenbach & W. Steinitz. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag [6 volumes 1964-1977] 1984. W/D/D = Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography ed. by F.J. Hausmann et al. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 5.1, 5.2, 5.3). Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1989,1990,1991 μ * volume in preparation]. WDW = Deutsches Wörterbuch comp, by G. Wahrig [et al.] Gütersloh: Bertelsmann & MosaikVerlag 1966/1972/1980. WVDDV = Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben comp, by G. Heibig & W. Schenkel. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut 1969. WWL — Who's Who in Lexicography. An International Directory of EURALEXMembers comp, by S. McGill. Exeter: Dictionary Research Centre and European Association for Lexicography 1996.

(b) Other literature: Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta (2006) Meaning and the Bilingual Dictionary (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 18). Frankfurt: P. Lang. Al-Besbasi, Ibrahim A. (1991) An Empirical Investigation of Some Cognitive Processes of Translation between English and Arabic, with Special Reference to the Use of Dictionaries. University of Exeter, unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Al-Kasimi, Ali (1977) Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries. Leiden: E.J. Brill. ALPAC Report (1966) Language and Machines. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee. Apelt, Walter (1981) Motivation und Fremdsprachenunterricht (Linguistische Studien). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Ard, Josh (1982) "The use of bilingual dictionaries by ESL students while writing", ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 58: 1-27. Armstrong-Warwick, Susan et al. (1990) "Searching on tagged corpora: linguistically motivated concordance analysis", in: Electronic Text Research. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Centre for the New OED. Waterloo: UW Centre, 10-18. Assi, S. Mostafa (1994) "A computerised English/Persian dictionary of linguistic terms. A project report", Poster paper presented at the Sixth EURALEX Congress at Amsterdam (7 pages, unpublished). Astington, Eric (1983) Equivalences. Translation Difficulties and Devices French-English, EnglishFrench. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkins, B.T. Sue (1985) "Monolingual and bilingual learners' dictionaries: a comparison", in Ilson (1985), 15-24. - (1996) "Bilingual dictionaries: Past, present and future", in Euralex '96 Proceedings ed. by M. Gellerstam et al. Göteborg: University Department of Swedish, 515-546. - ed. (1998) Using Dictionaries. Studies of Dictionary Use by Language Learners and Translators (Lexicographica. Series Maior 88). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Atkins, B.T. Sue et al. (1994) "Corpus design criteria", Literary and Linguistic Computing 7, 1:1 -16. Atkins, B.T. Sue & Knowles, Francis E. (1990) "Interim report on the EURALEX/A1 LA Research Project into Dictionary Use", in BudaLEX r88 Proceedings ed. by T. Magay & T. Zigany. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6,381-392. Atkins, B.T. Sue & Varantola, Krista (1998a) "Language learners using dictionaries: The final report on the EURALEX/AILA Research Project on Dictionary Use", in Atkins (1998), 21-81. - (1998b) "Monitoring dictionary use", in Atkins (1998), 83-122. Bach, Emmon (1964) An Introduction to Transformational Grammars. New York & London: Holt. Baker, Mona (1993) "Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications", in Baker et al. (1993), 233-250.

Consolidated Bibliography

223

Baker, Mona et al. eds. (1993) Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Baldegger, Markus et al. (1980) Kontaktschwelle Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Council of Europe Modern Languages Project). Berlin: Langenscheidt. Bally, Charles (1932) Linguistique generale et linguistique frangaise. Bern: Francke. Barnhart, Clarence (1962) "Problems in editing commercial monolingual dictionaries", in Householder & Saporta (1962), 161-181 [reprinted as Chapter 14 in Hartmann (2003), Vol. I: 285-301], Bartholomew, Doris A. & Schoenhals, Louise C. (1983) Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous Languages. Mexico: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Battenburg, John D. (1991) English Monolingual Learners' Dictionaries. A User-oriented Study (Lexicographica. Series Maior 39). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Bausch, Karl-Richard (1977) "Zur Obertragbarkeit der 'Übersetzung als Fertigkeit' auf die 'Übersetzung als Übungsform'", Die neueren Sprachen (NF) 26, 5: 517-535. Baxter, James (1980) "The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: a single word or a handful?", TESOL Quarterly 14, 3: 325-336. Bazell, Charles E. et al. eds. (1966) In Memory of J. ft Firth. London: Longman. Beattie, Nicholas (1973) "Teaching dictionary use", Modern Languages 54,4: 161-168. B6joint, Henri (1981) "The foreign student's use of monolingual English dictionaries: A study of language needs and reference skills", Applied Linguistics 2, 3: 207-222. - (1994) Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries (Oxford Monographs in Lexicography and Lexicology 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bendix, E.H. (1966) Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary. The Semantic Structure of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. Beni, Paolo (1612) L'Anticrusca owero il paragone del italiana lingua [reprint edn Firenze: G. Casagrande 1982-83]. Bennett, William A. (1968) Aspects of Language and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benveniste, Emile (1969) Le vocabulaire des institutions indoeuropeennes [2 volumes]. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Bergenholtz, Henning & Mugdan, Joachim eds. (1985) Lexikographie und Grammatik. (Lexicographica. Series Maior 3). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Berlin, Brent & Kay, Paul (1969) Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bemdt, Rolf (1969) "Lexical contrastive analysis", Brno Studies in English 8:31 -36. Betz, Werner (1949) Deutsch und Lateinisch: Die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel. Bonn: Bouvier. Biber, Douglas et al. (1994) "Corpus-based approaches to issues in applied linguistics", Applied Linguistics 15, 2: 169-189. Bierwisch, Manfred (1967/1970) "Some semantic universale of German adjectivals", Foundations of Language 2: 1-36 [reprinted in: Vorschläge ftir eine strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen, ed. by Η. Steger. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 269-318], Bishop, Graham (1998) "Research into the use being made of bilingual dictionaries by language learners", Language Learning Journal 18: 3-8. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Levenston, Edward A. (1978/1983) "Universals of lexical simplification", Language Learning 28, 2: 399-415 [reprinted in Faerch & Kasper (1983), 119-139], Bogaards, Paul (1990) "Oü cherche-t-on dans le dictionnaire?", International Journal of Lexicography 3, 2: 79-102. Braun, Peter et al. eds. (1990) Internationalismen. Studien zur interlingualen Lexikologie und Lexikographie. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Brower, Reuben A. (1966) On Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

224

Consolidated Bibliography

Brown, Peter F. et al. (1990) "A statistical approach to machine translation", Computational Linguistics 16, 2: 79-85. Buchbinder, W.A. (1971) "Die Valenz und ihre Berücksichtigung bei der Auswahl lexikalischen Materials", Deutsch als Fremdsprache 8: 282-286. BQhler, Hildegund (1987) "Language and translation: Translating and interpreting as a profession", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 7: 105-119. Bujas, Zeljko (1975) "Testing the performance of a bilingual dictionary on topical current texts", Studio Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 39: 193-204. Butler, Christopher S. (1975) "Syntactic analysis of German chemical texts: On constructing a short course in German for chemists", IRAL 13: 320-326. Butler, Christopher S. & Hartmann, Reinhard R.K. eds. (1976) A Reader on Language Variety (Exeter Linguistic Studies 1). Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Carlson, Sybil (1988) "Cultural differences in writing and reasoning skills", in: Writing across Languages and Cultures. Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric ed. by A.C. Purves (Written Communication Annual 2). Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications, 227-260. Carroll, John B. (1963) "Linguistic relativity, contrastive analysis, and language learning", IRAL 1:120. Carstensen, Broder & Galinsky, Hans (1963) Amerikanismen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache: Entlehnungsvorgänge und ihre stilistischen Aspekte (Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien 8). Heidelberg: C. Winter. Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chafe, Wallace L. ed. (1980) The Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production (Advances in Discourse Processes 3). Norwood NJ: Ablex. Chiu, Rosaline (1973) "Measuring register characteristics", IRAL 11: 51-68. Christophersen, Paul (1973) Second-Language Learning: Myth and Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education. Church, K.W. & Gale, W.A. (1991) "Concordances for parallel text", in Using Corpora: Proceedings of the 8* Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New OED and Text Research, Oxford, September 29 - October 1, 40-62. Cloeren, Jan (1993) "Towards a cross-linguistic tagset", in Proceedings of the Workshop on Very Large Corpora: Academic and Industrial Perspectives at Columbus OH, 30-39. Clyne, Michael G. (1967) Transference and Triggering. Observations on the Assimilation of Postwar German-speaking Migrants in Australia. The Hague: Nijhoff. - (1972) Perspectives on Language Contact. Melbourne: Hawthorn. - (1983) "Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: English and German", in Kaplan (1983), 38-49. - (1984) Language and Society in the German-Speaking Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collinson, William E. (1939) "Comparative synonymies. Some principles and illustrations", Transactions of the Philological Society 1939: 54-77. Collison, Robert L. (1982) A History of Foreign-Language Dictionaries. Oxford: [Deutsch &] Β. Blackwell. Collitz, Κ. Hermann (1931) Verbs of Motion in their Semantic Divergence. Philadelphia PA: Language Monographs 8. Cowie, Anthony P. ed. (1981) "Lexicography and its pedagogic applications", [thematic issue of] Applied Linguistics 2, 3: 203-296. - ed. (1987) The Dictionary and the Language Learner. Papers from the EURALEX Seminar at the University of Leeds, 1-3 April 1985 (Lexicographica. Series Maior 17). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. - (1992) "Language as words: lexicography", in EoL, 671-700. Cowie, Jim et al. (1994) "Text processing using multilingual resources at the Computing Research Laboratory", Literary and Linguistic Computing 9, 1: 65-78.

Consolidated Bibliography

225

Crystal, David (1968) What Is Linguistics? London: Arnold. De Beaugrande, Robert A. (1978) Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translation (Approaches to Translation Studies 5). Assen: van Gorcum. De Beaugrande, Robert A. & Dressier, Wolfgang U. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics/ Einführung in die Textlinguistik. London/Harlow: Longman and Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Delattre, Pierre (1966) Studies in French and Comparative Phonetics: Selected Papers in French and English. The Hague: Mouton. Delisle, Jean (1980) L'analyse du discours comme methode de traduction. Initiation a la traduction frangaise de textes pragmatiques anglais. Theorie et pratique (Cahiers de Traductologie 2). Ottawa: University Press. Diab, Turki (1990) Pedagogical Lexicography. A Case Study of Arab Nurses as Dictionary Users (Lexicographica. Series Maior 31). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Di Pietro, Robert J. (1971) Language Structures in Contrast. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Dolezal, Fredde T. & McCreary, Don R. (1999) Pedagogical Lexicography Today. A Critical Bibliography on Learners' Dictionaries with Special Emphasis on Language Learners and Dictionary Users (Lexicographica. Series Maior 96). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1972) "Textgrammatische Invarianz in Ubersetzungen?", in Textsorten: Differenzierungskriterien aus linguistischer Sicht ed. by Ε. Gülich & W. Raible. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 98-112. Duft Alan (1981) The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Durmu§oglu, Gül (1983) The Notion of Parallel Texts and Its Place in Contrastive and Applied Linguistics. University of Exeter, unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Ellegärd, Alvar (1978) "On dictionaries for language learners", Moderna Spr&k 72,3: 225-242. Ellis, Jeff & Ure, Jean (1974) "The contrastive analysis of language registers", Edinburgh University pre-publication draft. Engelen, Bernhard (1972) Untersuchungen zu Satzbauplan und Wortfeld in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. München: M. Hueber. Esser, Jürgen (1974) "Translation and contrastive analysis of theme and rheme", Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning (Coleraine: New University of Ulster) 3: 73-83. Faber, Dornt & Lauridsen, Karen M. (1991) "The compilation of a Danish-English-French corpus in contract law", in: English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide ed. by S. Johansson & A.-B. StenstrOm. Berlin: Mouton, 235-243. Facal, Javier L. (1981) "The new Greek-Spanish Dictionary", The Classical Journal 76: 357-363. Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriele eds. (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (Applied Linguistics and Language Study). London/Harlow: Longman. (1984) "Ja und? - og hva[a']sa? A contrastive discourse analysis of gambits in German and Danish", in Fisiak (1884), 69 -106. - (1987) "Perspectives on language transfer, Applied Linguistics 8: 111-136. Farina, Donna (1996) "The bilingual lexicographer's best friend" [Editor's introduction to thematic issue on Translation], Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 12: 1-15. Fej6r, Rita (1995) Zur Geschichte der deutsch-ungarischen und ungarisch-deutschen Lexikographie (Lexicographica. Series Maior 60). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Filipec, Josef (1968) "Zur innersprachlichen Konfrontation von semantischen Teilstrukturen im lexikalischen System", Travaux Linguistique de Prague 3: 105-118. Filipovi6, Rudolf (1972) "A compromise system", in The Yugoslav SerboCroatian-English Contrastive Project. Studies 5:19-29. - (1984) "What are the primary data for contrastive analysis?", in Fisiak (1984), 104-117. Fischer, J.L. (1971) "Style contrasts in Pacific languages", in Current Trends in Linguistics (The Hague: Mouton) 8: 1129-1162. Fishman, Joshua ed. (1974) Advances in Language Planning (Contribution to the Sociology of Language 5). The Hague: Mouton.

226

Consolidated Bibliography

Fisiak, Jacek ed. (1980) Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. - ed. (1981) Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press. - ed. (1984) Contrastive Linguistics. Prospects and Problems (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 22). Berlin: Mouton & W. de Gniyter. - ed. (1990) Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Flowerdew, Lynne & Tong, Anthony Κ. K. eds. (1994) Entering Text. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre. Fluck, Hans-Rüdiger (1976) Fachsprachen: Einföhrung und Bibliographie (Uni-Taschenbücher 483). München: Francke. Fox, Marie S. et al. (1980) "The automated dictionary", Computer (IEEE) 13: 35-48. Frawley, William (1984) "Prolegomenon to a theory of translation", in Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives ed. by W. Frawley. London & Toronto: Associated University Press, 159-175. Fried, Vilem (1967) "Contrastive linguistics und analytischer Sprachvergleich", in: Linguistische und methodologische Probleme einer spezialsprachlichen Ausbildung, ed. by J. Schilling. Halle: Niemeyer, 24-32. Fries, Udo et al. eds. (1994) Creating and Using English Language Corpora (Language and Computers 13). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Gal, Susan (1979) Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press. Galisson, Robert (1983) "Image et usage du dictionnaire chez des itudiants (en langue) de niveau avanc£", Etudes de linguistique appliquee 49: 5-88. Gellerstam, Martin (1986) "Translationese in Swedish novels translated from English", in Translation Studies in Scandinavia ed. by L. Wollin & H. Lindquist. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 88-95. Gipper, Helmut (1966) Sprachliche und geistige Metamorphosen bei Gedichtübersetzungen. Düsseldorf: Schwann. - (1972) Gibt es ein sprachliches Relativitätsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese. Frankfurt: Fischer. Gipper, Helmut & Schwarz, Hans (1962-1989) Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Sprachinhaltsforschung. Köln-Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Gleason, Henry A. (1968) "Contrastive analysis in discourse structure", in Report of 19th Arnual Round Table Meeting: Contrastive Linguistics ed. by J.E. Alatis (Georgetown Monograph Series in Language and Linguistics 21). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 39-63. Gold, David L. (1978) "Problems in interlingual lexicography", Babel 24: 161-168. Götz, Dieter & Herbst, Thomas eds. (1984) Theoretische und praktische Probleme der Lexikographie. München: M. Hueber. Granger, Sylviane et al. (1994) "New insights into the learner lexicon: A preliminary report from the International Corpus of Learner English", in Flowerdew & Tong (1994), 102-113. Grauberg, Walter (1971) "An error analysis in German of first-year university students", in Applications of Linguistics. Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge 1969 ed. by G. E. Perren & J. L. Trim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 257-263. Greenbaum, Sidney et al. (1984) "The image of the dictionary for American college students", Dictionaries 6: 31-52. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966) Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Griffin, Pamela J. (1985) Dictionaries in the E.S.L. Classroom. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University, unpublished M.A. dissertation. Grootaers, Willem A. (1952) "Language behavior of an individual during one day", Orbis 1: 126129.

Consolidated Bibliography

227

Guckler, Gudrun Μ. (1975) Zweisprachiges Wörterbuch ftir angenäherte operationeile Analyse semantischer Entsprechungen mittels EDV. Aufgezeigt am Beispiel deutscher und italienischer Fachausdrücke (Tübinger Beitrage zur Linguistik 53). Tübingen: G. Narr. Gutschow, Harald Ed. (1974) Englisch. Didaktik, Methodik, Sprache, Landeskunde. Berlin: Cornelsen/Velhagen & Klasing. Haarmann, Harald (1976) Grundzüge der Sprachtypologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Haas, Mary R. (1962) "What belongs in a bilingual dictionary?", in Householder & Saporta (1962), 45-50. Hadlich, Roger L. (1965) "Lexical contrastive analysis", The Modern Language Journal 49: 426-429. Hafiz, Al-Tahir (1996) A Critical Study of Bilingual Dictionaries from the Point of View of Their Usefulness to Translators. Manchester: University of Manchester, unpublished Ph.D. thesis. - (2001) Understanding Translation and Lexicography. Teaching Translation and Lexicography to Students of Arab Universities (A Course Textbook). Madina: Dar Aliman Bookshop. Hagerty, Tim & Bowen, J. Donald (1978) "A contrastive analysis of a lexical split: Spanish hacer to English do/make etc.", in Readings in Spanish-English Contrastive Linguistics ed. by R. Nash. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Inter American University Press, 2-71. Hall, Robert A. (1960) Linguistics and Your Language. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books. - (1972) "Why a structural semantics is impossible", Language Sciences 21: 1-6. Halliday, Michael A.K. (1976) "On the development of texture in child language", in Proceedings of the 1st Edinburgh Speech Communication Seminar ed. by T. Myers. Edinburgh: University Press. Halliday, Michael A.K. et al. (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. LondonHarlow: Longman. Harris, Brian (1988) "Bi-text, a new concept in translation theory", Language Monthly 54: 8-10. Hartmann, Reinhard R.K. (1964) "Bedeutung und Entwicklung der Worthäufigkeitsforschung", Beiträge zur Sprachkunde und Informationsverarbeitung No. 4: 47-57. - (1965) "Is lexicography making progress?", The Incorporated Linguist 4: 42-45. - (1969) "Linguistics and translation", ASLIB Proceedings (London) 21: 190-194 [—• Chapter 1], - (1973) "Contrastive lexicology", ERIC Report ED102.813, Washington DC: CAL, 1-43 [-»• Chapter 7], - (1975) "Semantics applied to English-German lexical structures", Folia Linguistica 7: 357 -370. - (1976) "Über die Grenzen der kontrastiven Lexikologie", in Moser (1976), 181 -199. - (1978) "Contrastive textology in descriptive and applied linguistics", Sophia Linguistica (Tokyo) Nr. 4: 1-12 [- Chapter 9]. - (1981b) "Contrastive textology and translation", in Kühlwein et al. (1981), 200-208. - (1982) "Das zweisprachige Wörterbuch im Fremdsprachenerwerb", in Wiegand (1982), 73-86 [English translation: The Bilingual Dictionary in Foreign-Language Learning —• Chapter 13]. - (1983) "The bilingual learner's dictionary and its uses", Multilingua 2, 4: 195-201 [ - • Chapter 19], - ed. (1984) LEXeter '83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter, Sep. 1983 (Lexicographica. Series Maior 1). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. - (1985a) "Contrastive textology: Towards a dynamic paradigm for interlingual lexical studies?", Language and Communication 5: 107 -110. - (1985b) "Contrastive text analysis and the search for equivalence in the bilingual dictionary", in Hyldgaard-Jensen & Zettersten (1985), 121-132 [ - • Chapter 2]. - ed. (1986) The History of Lexicography. Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March 1986 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistics Science 111.40). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Consolidated Bibliography (1987a) "Contrastive textology and bilingual lexicography", in Grammar in the Construction of Texts ed. by J. Monaghan. London: F. Pinter, 114-122 [-» Chapter 14]. (1987b) "The dictionary in vocabulary learning, with particular reference to English learners of German", in Perspectives on Language in Performance [W. Hüllen Festschrift] ed. by W. Lörscher & R. Schulze. Tübingen: G. Narr, 133-147. (1987c) "Four perspectives on dictionaiy use: A critical review of research methods", in Cowie (1987), 11-28. (1987d) "Wozu Wörterbücher? Die Benutzungsforschung in der zweisprachigen Lexikographie", Lebende Sprachen 32,4:154-156. (1988) "Equivalence in bilingual lexicography: From correspondence relation to communicative strategy", Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (Ροζηβή) Nr. 22: 21-28 [—» Chapter 3], (1989a) "Sociology of the dictionary user: hypotheses and empirical studies", [Article 12] in W/D/D, Vol. I: 102-111. (1989b) "The dictionary as an aid to foreign-language teaching", [Article 23] in W/D/D, Vol. I: 181-189 [-»Chapter 16]. (1989c) "Lexicography, translation, and the so-called language barrier", in Snell-Hornby & Pöhl (1989), 9-20 [— Chapter 15], (1989d) "Bilingual dictionary reference skills: some research priorities", in Language & Literature - Theory & Practice. A Tribute to Walter Grauberg ed. by C.S. Butler et al. (University of Nottingham Monographs in the Humanities 6). Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 17-26 Η Chapter 20]. (1990a) "The not so harmless drudgery of finding translation equivalents", Language and Communication [thematic issue on Translation ed. by M. Gaddis Rose] 10, 1: 47-55 [—• Chapter 4]. (1990b) "A quarter of a century's lexicographical conferences", in BudaLEX '88 Proceedings ed. by T. Magay and J. Zigäny. Budapest: Akadäniai Kiadö, 569-575. (1991a) "Contrastive linguistics and bilingual lexicography", [Article 299] in W/D/D, Vol. Ill: 2854-2859 [— Chapter 10], (1991b) "What's the use of learner's dictionaries?", Institute of Language in Education Journal (Hong Kong) 8: 73-83. (1992a) "300 years of English-German language contact and contrast: The translation of culturespecific information in the general bilingual dictionary", in Language and Civilization. A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch ed. by C. Blank. Frankfurt: P. Lang, Volume II: 310-327 [— Chapter 21], (1992b) "Contrastive linguistics: (How) is it relevant to bilingual lexicography?", in Mair & Markus (1992), Vol. I: 293-299 [— Chapter 11], (1992c) "Lexicography, with particular reference to English learners' dictionaries", Language Teaching. The International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers and Applied Linguists 25,3:151-159. (1992d) "Learner's references: From the monolingual to the bilingual dictionaiy", in EURALEX '92 Proceedings ed. by H. Tommola et al. (Studia Translatologica A2). Tampere: University of Tampere, Vol. 1:63-70. (1993) "Recent trends in pedagogical lexicography: The case of the 'bilingualised' learner's dictionary", in Endangered Languages. Proceedings ofXVth International Congress of Linguists [Quebec, August 1992] ed. by A. Crochetifere et al. Sainte-Foy Qu6bec: Les Presses de I'Universitf Laval, Vol. II: 159-162 [— Chapter 22], (1994a) "Bilingualised versions of learners' dictionaries", Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen [thematic issue on Dictionaiy Use ed. by E. Zöfgen] 23: 206-220 [ - • Chapter 17], (1994b) "The use of parallel text corpora in the generation of translation equivalents for bilingual lexicography", in EURALEX '94 Proceedings ed. by W. Martin et al. Amsterdam: Free University, 291-297.

Consolidated Bibliography -

229

(1994c) "The bilingualised learner's dictionary: A transcontinental trialogue on a relatively new genre", in Meeting Points in Language Studies ed. by G.C.A. James. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre, 171-183. - (1995a) "Contrastive textology, bilingual lexicography and translation", in ETCE, 505-518 [—• Chapter 5]. (1995b) "Dictionaries across cultures: monolingual or interlingual?", in Temas de Lingüistica Aplicada ed. by J. Fernändez-Barrientos Martin & C. Wallhead (Monogräfica Centre de Lenguas Modemas 205). Granada: Universidad de Granada, 53-62 [—• Chapter 18]. - (1996) "Contrastive textology and corpus linguistics: On the value of parallel texts", Language Sciences 18, 3-4: 947-957. - (1997) "From contrastive textology to parallel text corpora: Theory and applications", in Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday ed. by R. Hickey & S. Puppel. Berlin: W. de Grayter, Vol. II: 1973-1987 [— Chapter 12], - (1999) "Case study: The Exeter University survey of dictionary use", [Thematic Report 2] in Dictionaries in Language Learning ed. by R.R.K. Hertmann. Berlin: Thematic Network Project in the Area of Languages [http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc/TNPproducts/SP9dossier.doc], 36-52 [—• Chapter 23]. - (2001) Teaching and Researching Lexicography (Applied Linguistics in Action Series). Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education. - ed. (2003) Lexicography: Critical Concepts [3 volumes]. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. - (2004a) "Dictionaries for translators" [presented at the International Conference on Literature, Linguistics and Translation, Yarmouk 1994], in Al-Ma'äjim 'abr al-Thaqäfat. Dictionaries across Cultures. Studies in Lexicography by RRK. Hartmann, ed. and translated by M.H. Heliel. Kuwait: Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science, [Section 5.3] 228-246 [—• Chapter 6], - (2004b) "Lexicography and translation" in Translation and Bilingual Dictionaries ed. by S.-W. Chan (Lexicographica. Series Maior 119). Tabingen: M. Niemeyer, 7-22. - (2005a) "Interlingual lexicography, with special reference to research priorities", in Words in Asian Cultural Contexts. Proceedings of the 4th ASIALEX Conference, 1-3 June 2005, Singapore, ed. V.B.Y. Ooi et al. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 76 [& Website http://asialex.nus.edu.sg/extracts/procd main.pdf pp. 393-401]. - (2005b) "Pure or hybrid? The development of mixed dictionaiy genres", Facta Universitatis. Series Linguistics and Literature (University of NiS) 3, 2: 193-207. - (2005c) "Interlingual references: On the mutual relations between lexicography and translation", The Hong Kong Linguist No. 25:43-52 [-+ Chapter 24], (2006) "Onomasiological dictionaries in 20th-century Europe", Lexicographica. International Annualfor Lexicography Nr. 21/2005, 1-11. Hartmann, Reinhard R.K. & Hartmann, Lynn (1989) "Review of Glossarium Artis Vols. 8 and 9 ed. by R. Huber & R. Rieth. München: K.G. Säur 1981, 1987", International Journal of Lexicography 2, 2: 152-154. Hatakeyama, Toshikazu (1998) "A study on the use of English-Japanese Dictionaries", Osaka International University Journal of International Studies 11, 3: 43-59. Hatherall, Glyn (1984) "Studying dictionary use: Some findings and proposals", in Hartmann (1984), 183-189. Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian (1990) Discourse and the Translator (Language in Social Life Series). London/Harlow: Longman. Hatifeld, Helmut A. (1923/1928) Leitfaden der vergleichenden Bedeutungslehre. Eine Zusammenstellung charakteristischen Beispielmaterials aus den bekanntesten Sprachen. MOnchen: M. Hueber. Hausmann, Franz J. (1974) "Was ist und was soll ein Lemwörterbuch?", Zeitschrift fur französische Sprache und Literatur 84: 97-129.

230 -

Consolidated Bibliography

(1977) Einfiihrung in die Benutzung der neufranzösischen Wörterbücher (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 19). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. - ed. (1982) Linguistik und Didaktik [thematic issue on Dictionary Use], 13: 1-112. - (1989) "Kleine Weltgeschichte der Metalexikographie", in Wörterbücher in der Diskussion ed. by H.E. Wiegand (Lexicographica. Series Maior27). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 45-109. Hausmann, Franz J. & Cop, Margaret (1985) "Short history of English-German lexicography", in Hyldgaard-Jensen & Zettersten (1985), 183-197. Hawkins, John A. (1986) A Comparative Typology of English and German. Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm. Hayakawa, Isamu (2001) Methods of Plagiarism. A History of English-Japanese Lexicography. Tokyo: Jiyusha. Heath, David & Herbst, Thomas (1985) "Wer weiß schon, was im Wörterbuch steht? Plädoyer für mehr Wörterbucharbeit im Englischunterricht", in Schröder (1985), 580-595. Henne, Helmut (1972) Semantik und Lexikographie. Untersuchungen zur lexikalischen Kodifikation der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Herbst, Thomas (1985) "Das zweisprachige Wörterbuch als Schreibwörterbuch: Informationen zur Syntax in zweisprachigen Wörterbüchern Englisch-Deutsch/Deutsch-Englisch", in Bergenholtz & Mugdan (1985), 308-331. - (1990) "Dictionaries for foreign language teaching: English", [Article 151] in W/D/D, Vol. II: 1379-1385. Hemändez, Humberto (1989) Los diccionarios de orientacion escolar (Lexicographica. Series Maior 28). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Hertzler, J.O. (1965) A Sociology of Language. New York: Random House. Heuberger, Reinhard (2000) Monolingual Dictionaries for Foreign Learners of English: A Constructive Evaluation of the State-of-the-art Reference Works in Book Form and on CD-ROM (Austrian Studies in English 87). Wien: W. Braumüller. Hiddemann, Herbert (1980) "Des Lehrers und Schülers 'ständiger Begleiter' - das Wörterbuch: ein Wegweiser für Englisch", Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 27: 243-249. Hietsch, Otto (1958) "Meaning discrimination in modern lexicography", Modern Language Journal 42, 5: 232-234. - (1961) "Volkssprachliche Parallelen: Eine Zusammenschau und methodische Anregung", in Österreich und die angelsächsische Welt: Kulturbegegnungen und Vergleiche ed. by Ο. Hietsch. Wien: W. Braumüller, Vol. I: 346-383. Hockey, Susan (1993) "Developing effective resources for research on texts: Collecting texts, tagging texts, cataloguing texts, using texts, and putting texts in context", Literary and Linguistic Computing 8,4: 236-242. Hoffmann, Lothar (1968) "Zur Spezifik der Fachsprache in sprachstatistischer Sicht", Fremdsprachenunterricht 12: 469-475. Hoffmann, W. et al. (1973) "Erfahrungsaustausch zur Wortschatzarbeit", Fremdsprachenunterricht 12: 209-272. Hoffmann, Wolfgang (1978) "Zum Gebrauchswert etymologischer Wörterbücher. Der LemmataBestand von Kluge-Mitzka1 und Duden2 und eine Umfiage unter ihren Benutzern", Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 6: 31-46. Honig, Hans G. (1988) "Wissen Obersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun?", Lebende Sprachen 33, 1: 10-14. Hornby, A.S. (1965) "Some problems of lexicography", English Language Teaching 3: 104-110. Hornung, Wolfgang & Wolff, Armin eds. (1985) Lexik im Fremdsprachenerwerb, in [thematic issue of] Materialien Deutsch als Fremdsprache 24: 7-207. Houghton, Diane & Hoey, Michael (1983) "Linguistics and written discourse: Contrastive rhetorics", in Kaplan (1983), 2-22. Householder, Fred W. & Saporta, Sol eds. (1962) Problems in Lexicography (Publications of Indiana University Research Centre in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics 21). Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.

Consolidated Bibliography

231

Howatt, Anthony P.R. (1984) A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huang, Jianhua (1994) "Chinese and Western metalexicography", in Entering Text ed. by L. Flowerdew & A.K.K. Tong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre, 228-238 [reprinted as Chapter 67 in Hartmann (2003), Vol. Ill: 391-404]. Hundsnurscher, Franz (1970) Neuere Methoden der Semantik Eine Einftihrung anhand deutscher Beispiele. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl & Zettersten, Arne eds. (1985) Symposium on Lexicography II. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Lexicography May 16-17, 1984 at the University of Copenhagen (Lexicographica. Series Maior 5). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Iannucci, James Ε. (1962) "Meaning discrimination in bilingual dictionaries", in Householder & Saporta (1962), 201-216 [reprinted as Chapter 10 in Hartmann (2003), Vol. II: 217-229]. Ickler, Theodor (1982) "Ein Wort gibt das andere. Auf dem Weg zu einem 'Wörter-Lesebuch' für Deutsch als Fremdsprache", in Hausmann (1982), 3-17. Ilson, Robert ed. (1985) Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT Documents 120). Oxford: Pergamon Press & British Council. - ed. (1986) Lexicography. An Emerging International Profession (The Fulbright Papers 1). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Iskos, Asja I. & Lenkowa, Ada L. (1963/1970) Deutsche Lexikologie fur pädagogische Hochschulen und Fremdsprachenfakultäten. Leningrad: Prosveshchenie. Ivir, Vladimir (1970) "Remarks on contrastive analysis and translation", in The Yugoslav SerboCroatian/English Contrastive Project. Studies ed. by R. Filipovid. Zagreb: University, 14-26. Jäger, Gert (1975) Translation und Translationslinguistik Halle/Saale: W. Niemeyer. James, Carl (1980) Contrastive Analysis. Harlow: Longman. James, Gregory C.A. (2000) "Bilingualisation as a genre", in Colporul. A History of Tamil Dictionaries by G.C.A. James. Chennai: Cre-A, 450-458 [reprinted in as Chapter 54, in Hartmann (2003), Vol. Ill: 135-146], James, Gregory C.A. et al. (1994) English in Computer Science. A Corpus-based Lexical Analysis. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology & Longman Asia. - et al. (1997) English in Biology, Biochemistry and Chemistry. A Corpus-based Lexical Analysis. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre. Jespersen, Otto (1946) Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. London: Allen & Unwin. Johansson, Stig & Hofland, Knut (1994) "Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus", in Fries et al. (1994): 25-37. Juhäsz, Jözsef (1970) Probleme der Interferenz. München: M. Hueber. Jumpelt, Rudolf W. (1961) Die Übersetzung naturwissenschaftlicher und technischer Literatur. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Kachru, Braj B. (1992) "Meaning in deviation: Toward understanding non-native English texts", [Chapter 16] in The Other Tongue. English across Cultures (English in the Global Context). Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press [2nd edn], 301-326. Kaplan, Robert B. (1977) "On the notion of contrastive rhetoric", Creativity (Yazigi) 24: 1-2. - ed. (1983) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3. Rowley MA: Newbury House/ Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, Robert B. & Touchstone, Ellen E. (1995) "Image and reality: Banking in Los Angeles", [in thematic issue on Intercultural Discourse in Business and Technology ed. by J. Ulijn & D. Murray] Text 15,4: 427-456. Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1963) "The structure of a semantic theory", Language 39: 170210. Kelly, Louis G. (1969) Twenty-five Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Kirkwood, Henry W. (1966) "Translation as a basis for contrastive linguistic analysis", IRAL 4: 175182.

232

Consolidated Bibliography

Kolde, Gottfried (1976) "Sprachberatung: Motive und Interessen der Fragesteller", Muttersprache 86: 20-47. Koziol, Herbert (1967) Grundzüge der englischen Semantik. Wien/Stuttgart: W. Braumüller. Klings, Hans P. (1986) Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirische Studie zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern (Tübinger Beitrüge zur Linguistik 291). Tübingen: G. Narr. Kromann, Hans-Peder et al. (1984a) "Überlegungen zu Grundfragen der zweisprachigen Lexikographie", in Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie V ed. by H.E. Wiegand (Germanistische Linguistik 3-6/84). Hildesheim & New York: G. Olms, 159-238. - (1984b) "'Active' and 'passive' bilingual dictionaries: The Sterba concept reconsidered", in Hartmann (1984), 207-216. Kronasser, Hans (1952/1968) Handbuch der Semasiologie. Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Kufher, Herbert L. (1962) The Grammatical Structures of English and German. A Contrastive Sketch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kühlwein, Wolfgang et al. eds. (1981) Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Trier/Saarbrücken, Sep. 1978. München: W. Fink. Kühn, Peter (1979) Der Grundwortschatz: Bestimmung und Systematisierung (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 17). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Kytö, Meija et al. eds. (1994) Corpora across the Centuries. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lado, Robert (1957) Linguistics across Cultures. Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Laffling, John (1991) Towards High-precision Machine Translation - Based on Contrastive Textology (Distributed Language Translation 7). Dordrecht: Foris. - (1992) "On constructing a transfer dictionary for man and machine", Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 4: 17-31. Lambert, Wallace E. (1969) "Psychological studies of the interdependencies of the bilingual's two languages", in Substance and Structure of Language ed. by J. Puhvel. Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 99-126. Landau, Sidney (1984/2001) Dictionaries. The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lang, R. (1977) "Technical aspects of oral interpretation", in Language, Culture, Society, and the Modern World ed. by S.A. Wurm. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1085-1115. Larson, Mildred L. (1984) Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham MD: University Press of America. Laufer, Batia & Melamed, Linor (1994) "Monolingual, bilingual and 'bilingualized' dictionaries: Which are more effective, for what and for whom?", in EURALEX1994 Proceedings ed. by W. Martin et al. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 565-576. Leech, Geoffrey & Fligelstone, Steven (1992) "Computers and corpus analysis", in Computers and Written Texts ed. by C.S. Butler (Applied Language Studies). Oxford: Blackwell, 115-140. Lehrer, Adrienne J. (1969) "Semantic cuisine", Journal of Linguistics 5: 39-55. - (1970) "Notes on lexical gaps", Journal of Linguistics 6: 257-261. - (1972) "Universale in a culture-bound domain", Preprints of 11th International Congress of Linguists, Bologna, 450-455. Leisi, Ernst (1953) Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer [4th edn 1971], - (1962) "Englische und deutsche Wortinhalte. Zonen der Deckung, Zonen der Verschiedenheit", Wirkendes Wort 12, 3: 140-150. - (1973) Praxis der englischen Semantik. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Lenders, Winfried ed. (1993) Computereinsatz in der Angewandten Linguistik. Konstruktion und Weiterverarbeitung sprachlicher Korpora (Forum Angewandte Linguistik 25). Frankfurt: P. Lang.

Consolidated Bibliography

233

Li, Lan (1998) "Dictionaries and their users in Chinese universities: with special reference to ESP learners", in Lexicography in Asia ed. by T. McArthur & I. Kernerman. Tel Aviv: Password Publishers, 61-79. Lindquist, Hans (1984) "The use of corpus-based studies in the preparation of handbooks for translators", in Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlußwert ftir die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik, AILA Kolloquium at Saarbrücken 1983 ed. by W. Wilss & G. Thoma. Tübingen: G. Narr, 260-270. Lord, Robert (1974) "Learning vocabulary", IRAL 12, 3: 239-247. Lyons, John (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackey, William F. (1965) Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman. Mackintosh, Kristen (1998) "An empirical study of dictionary use in L2-L1 translation", in Atkins (1998), 123-149. Mair, Christian & Markus, Manfred eds. (1992) New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics. Proceedings of the Conference in Innsbruck, 10-12 May 1991 (Innsbrucker Beitrüge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Anglistische Reihe 4 & S). Innsbruck: Universität, Institut für Anglistik. Malblanc, Alfred (1961/1968) Stylistique comparee du frangais et de l'allemand. Essai de reprisentation linguistique comparee et etude de traduction. Paris: Didier. Marchand, Hans (1960/1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. A Synchronic and Diachronic Approach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz & München: Beck. Marello, Carla (1989) Dizionari bilingui con schede sui dizionari italiani per francese, inglese, spagnolo, tedesco (Fenomeni Linguistic! 6). Bologna: Zanichelli [Chapter 1, "Definizione, storia, bidirezionalitä", reprinted in English translation as Chapter 44, "The bilingual dictionary: definition, history, bidirectionality" in Heitmann (2003), Vol. II: 325-342], - (1998) "Hornby's bilingualized dictionaries", International Journal of Lexicography 11, 4: 292314. Mauranen, Anna (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study (Nordeuropäische Beiträge/Scandinavian University Studies 4). Frankfurt: P. Lang. McCreaiy, Don R. & Dolezal, Fredric (1999) "A study of dictionary use by ESL students in an American university", International Journal of Lexicography 12, 2: 107-145. Meara, Paul (1980) "Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning", Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13, 4: 221-246. Meijs, Willem (1996) "Linguistic corpora and lexicography", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 16:99-114. Melby, Alan K. (2000) "Sharing of translation memory databases derived from aligned parallel text", in V6ronis (2000), 347-368. Mentrup, Wolfgang (1983) "Lexikographische Konzepte zur Beschreibung 'schwerer Wörter'", in Wortschatz und Verständigungsprobleme ed. by Η. Henne & W. Mentrup (Sprache der Gegenwart 57). Düsseldorf: Schwann, 160-194. Menzerath, Paul (1954) Die Architektur des deutschen Wortschatzes. Bonn: Dümmler. Meyer, Ingrid (1985) "Translation and the general bilingual dictionary", in American Translators Association Conference 1985 ed. by P.E. Newman. Medford NJ: Learned Information, 181-186. Moser, Hugo ed. (1976) Probleme der Lexikologie und Lexikographie (Sprache der Gegenwart 39). Düsseldorf: Schwann. Moulton, William G. (1962) The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mounin, Georges (1963) Lesproblemes theoretiques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimaid. Munby, John (1978) Communicative Syllabus Design: A Sociolinguistic Model for Defining the Content of Purpose-specific Language Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Munday, Jeremy (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.

234

Consolidated Bibliography

Mufloz-Martin, Ricardo & Sänchez-Trigo, Elena (1994) "Parallel texts: a research project", Paper presented at the V Encuentros Complutenses en torno a la traduccion at Madrid, February 22-26 (7 pages, unpublished). Nagashima, Daisuke (1991) "Bilingual lexicography with Japanese", [Article 328] in W/D/D, Vol. 111:3113-3119. Nakamoto, Kyohei (1994) Establishing Criteria for Dictionary Criticism: A Checklist for Reviewers of Monolingual English Learner's Dictionaries. University of Exeter, unpublished M.A. dissertation. Nemser, William & Vincenz, Ileana (1972) "The indeterminacy of semantic interference", Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 17: 99-120. Neubach, Abigail & Cohen, Andrew D. (1988) "Processing strategies and problems encountered in the use of dictionaries", Dictionaries. Journal of the DSNA 10: 1-19. Neuland, Eva (1984) "Ausgewählte Probleme der Sprachentwicklung im Schulalter", in Handbuch ftir Deutschlehrer ed. by J. Baurmann & O. Hoppe. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 64-91. Nickel, Gerhard (1972) Fehlerkunde. Beiträge zur Fehleranalyse, Fehlerbewertung und Fehlertherapie. Berlin: Cornelsen. Nida, Eugene A. (1958) "Analysis of meaning and dictionary making", International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 279-292. - (1964) Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. - (1974) "Translation", in Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by T.A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, Vol. 12: 1045-1068. Noel, Jacques (1993) "Bilingual corpora and dictionaries: alignment, concordancing, and beyond", Sprache und Datenverarbeitung. International Journal for Language Data Processing 17, 1-2: 31-50. Oettinger, Anthony G. (1960) Automatic Language Translation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Oiler, John W. & Richards, Jack C. eds. (1973) Focus on the Learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the Language Teacher. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Ooi, Vincent B.Y. (1998) Computer Corpus Lexicography (Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Opitz, Kurt (1979) "Technical dictionaries: testing the requirements of the professional user", in Dictionaries and Their Users ed. by R.R.K. Hartmann (Exeter Linguistic Studies 4). Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 89-95. Osselton, Noel E. (1983) "The history of English-language dictionaries", in Lexicography: Principles and Practice ed. by R.R.K. Hartmann (Applied Language Studies). London: Academic Press, 13-21. Osswald, Paul (1970) Frz. 'Campagne' und seine Nachbarwörter im Vergleich mit dem Deutschen, Englischen, Italienischen und Spanischen. Ein Beitrag zur Wortfeldtheorie. Tübingen: TBL. Ostler, Nicholas (1993) "Introduction to Part One [of Special Section on Corpora]", Literary and Linguistic Computing 8, 4: 221- 223. Perl, Matthias & Winter, Roger (1972) "Zum Problem der 'false friends'", Fremdsprachenunterricht 16: 183-185. P6ry-Woodley, Marie-Paule (1990) "Contrasting discourses: contrastive analysis and a discourse approach to writing", [State-of-the-art article] Language Teaching 23,3: 143-151. Picchi, Eugenio et al. (1992) "The Pisa Lexicographic Workstation: The bilingual component", in EURALEX '92 Proceedings ed. by Hannu Tommola et al. (Studia Translatologica A.2). Tampere: Yliopisto, I: 277-285. Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1989) "Monolingual and bilingual dictionaries: Fundamental differences", in Tickoo (1989), 72-83. Piatt, John T. & Platt, H.K. (1975) The Social Significance of Speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Politzer, Robert L. (1965) "Some reflections on transfer of training in foreign language learning", IRAL 3: 171-177.

Consolidated Bibliography

235

Porzig, Walter (1934) "Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen", Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58: 70-97. Ptlschel, Ulrich (1989) "Wörterbücher und Laienbenutzung", [Article 14] in W/D/D, Vol. I: 128-135. Quemada, Bernard (1972) "Lexicology and lexicography", in: Current Trends in Linguistics Vol. IX: Western Europe, ed. by T.A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, 395-475. Quirk, Randolph (1974) "The image of the dictionary" [reprint of 1973 paper "The social impact of dictionaries in the U.K."], in The Linguist and the English Language [papers by R. Quirk]. London: E. Arnold, 148-163. Reichmann, Oskar (1969) Deutsche Wortforschung. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel. Reif, Josef (1987) "The development of a dictionary and an exotic alphabet", in Cowie (1987), 146158. Reifler, Erwin (1954) "Linguistic analysis, meaning and comparative semantics", Lingua 3: 371- 390. Reiss, Katharina (1971) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik München: M. Hueber. - (1976) Texttyp und Übersetzungsmethode: Der operative Text (Monographien Literatur + Sprache + Didaktik 11). Kronberg/Taunus: Scriptor. Rettig, Wolfgang (1985) "Die zweisprachige Lexikographie Französisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Französisch. Stand, Probleme, Aufgaben", Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 1: 83-124. Reuning, Karl (1941) Jay and Freude. A. Comparative Study of the Linguistic Field of Pleasurable Emotions in English and German. Swarthmore PA: Swarthmore College. Rheinfelder, Hans (1926) Vergleichende Sprachbetrachtung im neusprachlichen Unterricht. München: M. Hueber. Riegl, Kurt (1961) "Max Reinhardt, Thornton Wilder und The Merchant ofYonkers", in Österreich und die angelsächsische Welt: Kulturbegegnungen und Vergleiche ed. by Ο. Hietsch. Wien: W. Braumüller, Vol. II: 564-584. Riley, Philip (1979) "Towards a contrastive pragmalinguistics", Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 10: 57-78 [reprinted in Fisiak (1981) 121-146], Ripfel, Martha (1989a) Wörterbuchkritik. Eine empirische Analyse von Wörterbuchrezensionen (Lexicographica. Series Maior 29). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. - (1989b) "Ergebnisse einer Befragung zur Benutzung ein- und zweisprachiger Wörterbücher", Lexicographica. International Annualfor Lexicography 5: 178-201. - (1990) "Wörterbuchbenutzung bei Muttersprachlern. Untersuchungsbericht über eine Befragung erwachsener muttersprachlicher Sprecher zur Wörterbuchbenutzung", Lexicographica. International Annualfor Lexicography 6: 237-251. Ripfel, Martha & Wiegand, Herbert E. (1988) "Wörterbuchbenutzungsforschung. Ein kritischer Bericht", in Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie VI, 2. Teilband ed. by H.E. Wiegand (Germanistische Linguistik 87-90). Hildesheim: G. Olms, 492-520. Roberts, Roda (1996) "Parallel text analysis and bilingual lexicography", in Programme Abstracts for the 1ΙΛ AILA Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, 183. Rundell, Michael (1988) "Changing the rules: Why the monolingual learner's dictionary should move away from the native-speaker tradition", in ZiiriLEX '86 Proceedings. Papers Read at the EURALEX International Congress, Zurich 1986 ed. by M. Snell-Hornby. Tübingen: A. Francke, 127-137. Rundell, Michael & Stock, Penny (1992) "The corpus revolution", English Today 8, 2: 9-14; 8, 3: 2132; 8,4: 45-51. Schäflher, Christina & Beverly Adab (2001) "The concept of the hybrid text in translation", in www.les.aston.ac.uk/hvbridhvpothftsBR html· 7 pp. Scherfer, Peter (1985) "Lexikalisches Lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht", in Handbuch der Lexikologie ed. by C. Schwarze & D. Wunderlich. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 412-440. Schmidt-Hidding, Wolfgang (1951) "Wortfelder des deutsch-englischen Grundstocks", Die lebenden Fremdsprachen 3: 65-71. Schmitz, Siegfried (1960) "Englische Wörterbücher", Die Neueren Sprachen 9: 226-242.

236

Consolidated Bibliography

Scholfield, Philip J. (1982) "Using the English dictionary for comprehension", TESOL Quarterly 16: 185-194. Schröder, Konrad (1984) "Die Vermittlung von englischem Wortschatz in Lehrwerken des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts", in Götz & Herbst (1984), 300-333. - ed. (1985) "Wörterbücher und Wortschatzerwerb", [thematic issue of] Die Neueren Sprachen 84: 577-733 (with bibliography pp. 652-669). Seiler, Hansjakob (1967) "Zur Erforschung des lexikalischen Feldes", in: Sprachnorm, Sprachpflege, Sprachkritik ed. by Η. Moser. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 268-286. Seleskovitch, Danica (1975) Langage, langue et memoire. Paris: Minard. Selinker, Larry (1966) A Psycholinguistic Study of Language Transfer. Washington DC: Georgetown University, Ph.D. dissertation. Sharwood-Smith, Michael (1976) "Interlanguage and intralanguage paraphrase", Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (Poznari) 4: 297-301. Siegrist, Leslie (1977) Bibliographie zur kontrastiven Linguistik Deutsch/andere Sprachen 19651976 (LAUT Papers B33). Trier: Linguistic Agency University of Trier. Sinclair, John Μ. (2001) "The floating dictionary", in Gällerstam, suffix och ord. Festskrifi till Martin Gellerstam den 15 oktober 2001 ed. by S. ΑΙΙέη et al. (Meijerbergs Arkiv 29). Göteborg: Meijerbergs institut för svensk etymologisk forskning, Göteborgs universitet, 393-422. Slobin, Dan I. ed. (1967) A Field Manual for Cross-Cultural Study of the Acquisition of Communicative Competence. Berkeley CA: University of California Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Snell-Hornby, Mary (1983) Verb-descriptivity in German and English. A Contrastive Study in Semantic Fields (Anglistische Forschungen 158). Heidelberg: C. Winter. - (1984) "The bilingual dictionaiy - help or hindrance?", in Hartmann (1984), 274-281. - (1987) "Towards a learner's bilingual dictionary", in Cowie (1987), 159-170. - (1990) "Dynamics in meaning as a problem for bilingual lexicography", in Meaning and Lexicography ed. by J. Tomaszczyk & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk. (Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 28). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 209-226. Snell-Homby, Mary & Pöhl, Esther eds. (1989) Translation and Lexicography: Papers from the EURALEX Colloquium at Innsbruck 1987 (Paintbrush Special Monograph XVI). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Spillner, Bernd (1979) "Kontrastive Pragmatik", in Proceedings of the 12* International Congress of Linguists ed. by W.U. Dressler & W. Meid (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft). Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 705-708. Standop, Ewald (1985) Englische Wörterbücher unter der Lupe (Lexicographica. Series Maior 2). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Stark, Martin P. (1990) Dictionary Workbooks. A Critical Evaluation of Dictionary Workbooks for the Foreign Language Learner (Exeter Linguistic Studies 16). Exeter: Exeter University Press. Stein, Gabriele (1985) "English-Geraian/German-English lexicography: Its early beginnings", Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 1: 134-164. Steiner, Roger J. (1970) Two Centuries of Spanish and English Bilingual Lexicography, 1590-1800. The Hague: Mouton. - (1977) "How a bilingual dictionary best serves the writer", in Papers of the DSNA 1977 ed. by D. Hobar. Terre Haute IN: Indiana State University & DSNA, 24-31. - (1984) "Guidelines for reviewers of bilingual dictionaries", Dictionaries 6: 166-181. - (1986) "The three-century recension in Spanish and English lexicography", in Hartmann (1986), 229-239 [reprinted as Chapter 28 in Hartmann (2003), Vol. II: 85-95], (1989) "The absence of text: The bilingual dictionary as an index", International Journal of Lexicography 2, 3: 249-257. Straubinger, Ο. Paul (1961) "The reception of Raimund and Nestroy in England and America", in Österreich und die angelsächsische Welt: Kulturbegegnungen und Vergleiche ed. by Ο. Hietsch. Wien: W. Braumüller, Vol. I: 481-494.

Consolidated Bibliography

237

Suarez, T.M. (1985) "Needs assessment studies", in The International Encyclopedia of Education. Research and Studies ed. by T. Husen & Τ. Ν. Postlethwaite. Oxford: Pergamon, Vol. 6: 34963498. Svens6n, Bo (1993/2004) Practical Lexicography. Principles and Methods of Dictionary-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press [2nd Swedish edn 2004. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag]. Tauli, Valter (1968) Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Taylor, B. and Webb, C. (1976) "Translation needs and resources in an Australian university", Festes 191:29-34. Ternes, Elmar (1976) Probleme der kontrastiven Phonetik (Forum Phoneticum 13). Hamburg: H. Buske. Teubert, Wolfgang (1996) "Comparable or parallel corpora?", International Journal of Lexicography 9, 3: 238-264. Thumb, Jenny (2004) Dictionary Look-up Strategies and the Bilingualised Learner's Dictionary (Lexicographica. Series Maior 117). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Tickoo, Makhan L. (ed.) (1989) Learner's Dictionaries: State of the Art (RELC Anthology Series 23). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Tomaszczyk, Jerzy (1979) "Dictionaries: Users and uses", Glottodidactica 12: 103-119. - (1981) "Issues and developments in bilingual pedagogical lexicography", in Cowie (1981), 287296. Tono, Yukio (1984) On the Dictionaiy User's Reference Skills. Tokyo: Tokyo Gakugei University, unpublished B.Ed, dissertation. (2004) "Research on the use of electronic dictionaries for language learning: Methodological considerations", in Computer-mediated Lexicography in the Foreign Language Learning Context ed. by M.C. Campoy Cubillo & M.P. Safont Jordi (CoHecciö Estudis Filoldgics 18). Castellö de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universität Jaume 1,13-28. Trager, George L. (1949) "The field of linguistics", SIL Occasional Papers 1. Trier, Jost (1931) Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes [Vol. I: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts]. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Ulimann, Stephen (1972) "Semantics", in: Current Trends in Linguistics Vol. IX: Western Europe, ed. by T.A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, 343-394. Underhill, Adrian (1985) "Working with the monolingual learners' dictionary", in Ilson (1985), 103114. UNESCO Report (1957) Scientific and Technical Translating. Paris: UNESCO. Valdman, Albert (1965) Applied Linguistics French: A Guide for Teachers. Boston MA: Heath. Van der Eijk, Pim (1993) "Automating the acquisition of bilingual terminology", in: Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the European Chapter of ACL at Utrecht, 113-119. Van Ek, Jan A. (1975) The Threshold Level English in a European Unit/Credit System for Modern Language Learning by Adults (Council of Europe Modem Languages Project). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Van Hoot Henri (1995) "Translators and the writing of dictionaries", in Translators through History ed. by J. Deslisle & J. Woodsworth (Benjamins Translation Library 13). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins & UNESCO Publishing, 229-242. Varantola, Krista (1998) "Translators and their use of dictionaries", in Atkins (1998), 179-192. Vermeer, Hans J. (1986) "Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer", in Übersetzungswissenschaft - eine Neuorientierung ed. by Μ. Snell-Homby (Uni Taschenbacher 1415). Tübingen: A. Francke, SOSS. - (1989) "Wörterbücher als Hilfemittel für unterschiedliche Typen der Translation", [Article 21] in W/D/D, Vol. I: 171-174. V6ronis, Jean ed. (2000) Parallel Text Processing. Alignment and Use of Translation Corpora. Dordrecht: KJuwer.

238

Consolidated Bibliography

Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean (1958/1966) Stylistique comparee du franqais et de l'anglais. Methode de traduction. Paris: Didier & Montreal: Beauchemin. Wächtler, Kurt (1969) Das Studium der englischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Ε. Klett. Wandruszka, Mario (1969) Sprachen — vergleichbar und unvergleichlich. München: Piper. Weinreich, Uriel (1953/1963) Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Weinrich, Harald (1972) "Die Textpartitur als heuristische Methode", Der Deutschunterricht 24, 4: 42-64. Weisgerber, Leo (1961) Vertragstexte als sprachliche Aufgabe: Formulierungs-, Auslegungs- und Übersetzungsprobleme des Südtirol-Abkommens von 1946 (Sprachforum Beiheft 1). Bonn: Bouvier. Werlich, Egon (1969) "Die Technik systematischer Wortschatzarbeit im Fremdsprachenunterricht", Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 16,2: 158-174. Werner, Reinhold (1982) "Zur Reihenfolge der Definitionen bzw. Ubersetzungsäquivalente im Wörterbuchartikel", Lebende Sprachen 27, 4: 150-156. Whinnom, Keith (1971) "Linguistic hybridization and the 'special case' of pidgins and Creoles", in Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by D.H. Hymes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91-115. Wiegand, Herbert E. (1977) "Nachdenken über Wörterbücher: Aktuelle Probleme", in Nachdenken über Wörterbücher ed. by G. Drosdowski et al. Mannheim: Dudenverlag Bibliographisches Institut, 51-102. - ed. (1982) Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie II. (Germanistische Linguistik 3-6/80). Hildesheim: G. Olms. - (1984) "On the structure and contents of a general theory of lexicography", in Hertmann (1984), 13-30. - (1985) "Fragen zur Grammatik in Wörterbuchbenutzungsprotokollen", in Bergenholtz & Mugdan (1985), 20-98. - (1987) "Zur handlungstheoretischen Grundlegung der Wörterbuchbenutzungsforschung", Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 3: 178-227. - (1988) "Vorüberlegungen zur Wörterbuchtypologie: Teil Γ', in Symposium on Lexicography III ed. by Κ. Hyldgaard-Jensen & A. Zettersten (Lexicographica. Series Maior 19). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 3-105. - ed. (1993-2001) Studien zur zweisprachigen Lexikographie mit Deutsch I to VII, [thematic issues of] Germanistische Linguistik 114 (1993) to 159-160 (2001). - (1998) Wörterbuchforschung. Untersuchungen zur Wörterbuchbenutzung, zur Theorie, Geschichte, Kritik und Automatisierung der Lexikographie [first of two volumes]. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Williams, Ian (1996) "A translator's reference needs: Dictionaries or parallel texts?", Target 8, 2: 275-299. Wilss, Wolfram (1977) Übersetzungswissenschaft. Stuttgart: E. Klett. Wörterbuch als Fehlerquelle (1970) Eine Untersuchung der bekanntesten englischen Wörterbücher und Dictionaries nach linguistischen Gesichtspunkten [von einem studentischen Autorenkollektiv]. Hamburg: H. Buske. Wu, Dekai (1994) "Aligning a parallel English-Chinese corpus statistically with lexical criteria", in Proceedings of the 32nd ACL Conference at Las Cruces NM, 80-87. Wüster, Eugen (1955-59) Bibliography of Monolingual Scientific and Technical Glossaries [2 volumes], Paris: UNESCO. Yates, W. Edgar (1984-85) "Kann man Nestroy ins Englische übersetzen?", Nestroyana 6, 1/2: 2429. Zaunmüller, Wolfram (1958) Bibliographisches Handbuch der Sprachwörterbücher. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann. Zgusta, Ladislav (1971) Manual of Lexicography. The Hague: Mouton. - (1984a) "Translational equivalence in the bilingual dictionary", in Hartmann (1984), 147-154.

Consolidated Bibliography -

239

(1984b) "Review of 'Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie', Vols. I - IV ed. by H.E. Wiegand (in Germanistische Linguistik 1979 - 1983)", Dictionaries 6: 268-275. - [with Farina, D.M.T.C.] (1988) Lexicography Today. An Annotated Bibliography of the Theory of Lexicography (Lexicographica. Series Maior 18). Tübingen: Μ. Niemeyer. Zhang, Yihua (2004) "An empirical study of electronic dictionaries and translation software", in Translation and Bilingual Dictionaries ed. by Chan S.-W. (Lexicographica. Series Maior 119). Tübingen, Μ. Niemeyer, 89-105. Zimmer, Dieter (1986) "Wörterbuchtest", Die Zeit 16 May 1986, 47-48. Zöfgen, Ekkehard ed. (1985) Wörterbücher und ihre Didaktik (Bielefelder Beiträge zur Sprachlehrforschung 14,1-2). Bad Honnef: E. Keimer and Zürich: Hebsacker. - (1991) "Bilingual learner's dictionaries", [Article 305] in W/D/D, Vol. III: 2888-2903. - (1994) Lernerwörterbücher in Theorie und Praxis (Lexicographica. Series Maior 59). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.

Index

This index displays numbers for (a) all topics discussed in the text, including cross-references to alternative preferred terms (-») as well as to related notions (see also), and (b) authors who have made a significant contribution to the argument in the text. The names of cited authors are listed in full in Section (b) of the Consolidated Bibliography (pp. 222-239).

acceptability 114 activity contexts 109,126, 133,159,169,191, 201 Adamska-Salaciak A. 3 adaptation 35 (see also translation/ procedures of) Al-Besbasi I. 49 Al-Kasimi A. 105,161 anisomorphism 15, 34, 85,172 antonym 65 ApeltW. 135 applied linguistics 11, 30, 57-60, 79,113 approximation (-+ translation) Ard J. 48, 167 Armstrong-Warwick S. 99 ASIALEX 211 AssiM. 102 Atkins & Knowies 143 Atkins B.T.S. 135, 189, 216 Atkins et al. 98 back matter 182, 193, 199 Baker M. 98 BaldeggerM. 134 Barnhart C. 8,165 Bartholomew & Schoenhals 214 basic core vocabulary (-» vocabulary) Battenburg J.D. 142,191 Beattie Ν. 105, 130, 139 Baxter J. 161 Böjoint Η. 106,109,157,161, 189, 191 BeniP. 5 Bergenholtz & Mugdan 135 Berlin & Kay 62 Biber et al. 96-97 bidirectional dictionary (-• directionality) bilingual code-switching 73 bilingual dictionary 2,4-5,18,21,27,32,90-93, 105-107, 121, 135,143, 158, 186, 198,205, 208, 210 English/German 10,90-93,179-182 bilingual learner's dictionary 106,156 bilingual lexicography 21-22,44, 58, 74,90-91,

115,208 bilingual proficiency 31 bilingual text corpora 97-100 bilingualised dictionary 5-6,144, 147,153-155, 186 bilingualised learner's dictionary 141,144—148, 154, 186 bilingualism 42, 60 Bishop G. 189,193 bitexts(s) 96,214 Blum-Kulka& Levenston 19,24 BogaardsP. 189 Braunetal. 208 bridge dictionary (-»bilingualised dictionary) Brownetal. 98 Bühler Η. 122 BujasZ. I l l Butler & Hartmann 68 canonical form 169 CarlsonS. 99 Carstensen & Galinsky 72 case study 48, 135,167 Catford J.C. 13,31 Chafe W.L. 95 Chomsky N. 13 Church & Gale 214 circumlocution 35,179 (see also translation/ procedures of) CloerenJ. 100 Clyne M.G. 41,60,73,137 COBUILD 213 code-switching 31,44, 73,118,124 codification 79,104 coherence 114 cohesion 114 cohyponym 65 Collison R.L. 161,209 collocation 44, 56,101, 115,215 communicative strategies 19-20,24,42,132, 168 comparative discourse analysis (-» contrastive textology)

Index

comparative lexical semantics 24 comparative linguistics 68 comparative rhetoric 75 comparative stylistics 40 comparative-historical linguistics (-• historical-comparative linguistics) compiler perspective 115,125,130-131 complenym 65 componential analysis 54—55 composition 21,109,159,168,200,203 computational lexicology 214 computational linguistics 11 concordance 99,213 confrontative linguistics (-»contrastive linguistics) contact 42,183 content analysis 67 contrastive analysis 13,40,43, 83 contrastive grammar 87 contrastive graphology 86 contrastive lexicology 15,24-25, 53,86, 115-116, 173 German/English 60-63 contrastive linguistics 10,13,15-17,31, 83-85, 89-90,95, 173,183 contrastive phonology 86 contrastive rhetoric 39 contrastive text analysis (-» contrastive textology) contrastive textology 16, 25-26,38-41, 70, 77-78, 87,95-96, 113-114, 173 core vocabulary (-»vocabulary) corpora (-» corpus linguistics) corpus linguistics text corpora 43,96-100,213 correspondence 25,30,173 COSMAS corpus 215 co-text 16 Cowie A.P. 105,135, 156,185 Cowieetal. 99 cultural diversity 91, 173, 177, 182 culture-specific vocabulary 91-92,111, 153, 175, 176-178 De Beaugrande R. A. 98 De Beaugrande & Dressier 16,113-114 decoding 44, 106, 133, 134,168 deep-structure contrastive analysis 69 defining dictionary 2,105 definition 186-187, 193 Delisle J. 97 description 104,156

241

desiderata (-»research priorities) design features 152-153,193 DiabT. 48,185 diahyponym 65 diary (-»protocol) dictionaries in examinations 206 dictionary awareness 137, 171,185, 190,194, 203, 205 dictionary consultation 107-109, 136, 140,166, 193,201 dictionary criticism 5,22, 50, 131,143, 153 dictionary entry (-• entry) dictionary genre 5-7,9 (see also hybrid genre) dictionary history 4-5, 51,122-125,129,153, 178-182 dictionary IT 8 dictionary-making 57,114-115,122-125,156 (see also compiler perspective) dictionary of idioms 160 dictionary of technical terms 160 dictionary ownership 196 dictionary profile 47 dictionary research 4, 10,47-51,153,208, 210 dictionary review 47-48,167 dictionary structure 7, 119,126 (see also entry) dictionary typology 5-6, 50,142, 153,166, 187-188, 197-198 dictionary use 8,106-111,143,190,204 (see also user perspective) dictionary workbook 52, 144, 194,205 differential linguistics (-» contrastive linguistics) DiPietroR.J. 61,115 directionality 28,34-35,117, 122, 143,176, 179, 182, 215 disambiguation 101 discourse analysis 16,40,67,96 (see also contrastive textology) Dolezal & McCreary 169,189,211 Dressler W. 82 DuffA. 214 Durmu§ogluG. 96 electronic dictionary 138,197,198, 205 EllegärdA. 106,161 Ellis &Ure 72,76 encoding 44,105-106, 133, 134,168 encyclopedia 198 encyclopedic information 111,201 English learners' dictionaries 5,134-135, 142 entry 21-22,34-36, 85-86, 118-119,138, 145, 154, 160, 169, 179,181, 186-187, 198,213

242

equivalence lexical equivalence 7,16, 116-117 multivergent 34,175-176,215 (see also anisomorphism) translation equivalence 9,15-17,22,24,30,42 equivalent lexical equivalent 7,26,29,61,92,115, 127, 169,176,183,215 translation equivalent 2, 7,100-102,154,210 types of 24-25,91 error analysis 18, 59,69 etymology 63,153 EURALEX 215 example 153, 161, 186-187,201, 209 exegesis 67 Exeter University Survey 189 experimental test 49,167 Faber & Lauridsen 100 false friends 65,155 Farina D. 211 FilipovidR. 39,98 FisiakJ. 39,95 floating dictionary 216 Flowerdew & Tong 99 foreign-language learning 59-60,73,107,186 foreign-language teaching 105,129, 137 foreign student 195,199,202 Fox et al. 138 Frawley W. 214 Friesetal. 97 front matter 182,193,199-200 Galisson R. 185 Gellerstam M. 214 general dictionary 198, 205 generative semantics 56-57 genre (-»dictionary genre) Gipper & Schwarz 54 GipperH. 71 Gleason H.A. 39,76 glossed dictionary (-» bilingualised dictionary) Gold D.L. 208 grammar 84,110-111, 152,160,201 Granger et al. 99 graphology 84 Grauberg W. 165 Greenbaum et al. 189,192 Griffin P.J. 137 Grootaers W.A. 80

Index

Haas M. 7,176,216 HafizAl-T. 211 Hagerty & Bowen 90 haiku 69-70 Hall R.A. 55 Halliday M.A.K. 13,69 Harris Β. 96 Hartmann & James 1,208 Hartmann R.R.K. 3,9,32,39,48,63, 87, 89, 95-96, 101,115, 121,127, 132,135,142,152, 161, 166,185,209,212,214 HatakeyamaT. 192 HatherallG. 167 Hatim & Mason 44,99 Hausmann & Cop 122,133 Hausmann et al. 2, 51,211 Hausmann F.J. 4, 105,118,209 Hawkins J. A. 88 Hayakawa I. 4,209 Heath & Herbst 134,137 Henne Η. 57 Herbst Τ. 134,142,151 Hemändez Η. 153 heteronym 64 HeubergerR. 5 HiddemannH. 138 hierarchical levels (-»linguistic levels) HietschO. 172 historical-comparative linguistics 83 HjelmslevL. 15 HockeyS. 100 Hoffmann et al. 66 Hoffmann L. 13 Hoffmann W. 189 homoionym 65 Honig H.G. 124 Hornby A.S. 2, 191 Hornung & Wolff 136 Houghton & Hoey 39 Householder & Saporta 57,106,157 Howatt A.P.R. 130,153 Human Relations Area Files 174 hybrid genfe 7,142 hyperonym 64 hyponym 64 Iannucci J.E. 5 idiom 66, 87,202 IlsonR. 123,185 information categories 7,110,126,131,159,165, 193, 201

Index

information explosion 181 informativity 114 instruction (-»training of dictionary users) integration 72 intentionality 114 interdisciplinary collaboration 4,41,169,212 interference 13, 42, 60,135 interlanguage 41,99 interlingual activities 4 (see also activity contexts) interlingual contact (-»contact) interlingual dictionary 1, 10,1SS, 208 (see also bilingual dictionary, bilingualised dictionary, multilingual dictionary) interlingual lexicography 1,3,85,214 internationalism 208 intertext(s) 96,209 intertextuality 114 interview 48, 145-147,167,204-206 intralingual lexicography 1 James C. 87 James et al. 97,213 James G.C.A. 141 Johansson & Hofland 98 KachruB.B. 101 Kaplan R.B. 38 Kelly L.G. 80 Kernerman L. 154 kinship terms 64 KoldeG. 137 Klings H.P. 36,42,49,124,126, 135-136,211 Kromann et al. 29,34,87 Kufiier H.L. 13 Kühlwein et al. 98 Kühn P. 136 Kytöetal. 97 Lado R. 59,61,65, 76,173 Laffling J. 44,93,96,100-101,212,216 Lambert W. 73 LandauS. 3,209 language planning 74 Larson M.L. 174 Laufer AMelamed 143,189 learner's dictionary 2,106, 134, 139, 142, 151, 152-153,186, 191, 213 (see also design features) learning dictionary 2,105 Leech & Fligelstone 97 Lehrer A. J. 55

243

LeisiE. 15,61,62 Lenders W. 97 lexical equivalence (-• equivalence) lexical equivalent (-»equivalent) lexical field 54, 56,62, 116, 210 lexical gap 17,56,117 lexical hierarchy 62 lexical interference 18 lexical semantics 89 Lexicographica. Series Maior 211 lexicography 3, 57,208 (see also bilingual lexicography, interlingual lexicography) 1. as practice (-» dictionary-making) 1. as theory (-» metalexicography) lexicology 84 lexico-semantic relationship 64-65,87 lexis 13 LiL. 189,193 LindquistH. 98 linguistic levels 78,89,123 linguistics 12,40,53,71 loan translation 36 (see also translation/ procedures of) location (-»entry) LSP dictionary (-» special-subject lexicography) LSP teaching 125,214 machine translation 11,214 macrostructure 52,119,169 Mair & Markus 43 Marchand Η. 63 Marello C. 3,153,209,213 MauranenA. 98 McArthur T. 136 McCreary & Dolezal 189 meaning 57-58,123, 126,201 meaning discrimination 21,28,34, 57-58, 86, 117, 152, 179, 180,215 MearaP. 161 MeijsW. 213 Melby A.K. 216 Mentrup W. 122 metalexicography 4,141,153,208,213 (see also dictionary research) metaphrase 33,36,176 Meyer I. 46 microstructure 52, 119, 169 modulation 35 (see also translation/ procedures of) monoglot lexicography 1 monolingual dictionary 1,91,106,151,159,161, 205,208

244

monolingual lexicography 1, 208 monolingual text corpora 97 morphology 63, 87 Morris C. 40 Moulton W.G. 13 multilingual dictionary 1, 6,208 multilingual text corpora 100 multivergent (-» equivalence) MundayJ. 211 Mufioz-Martin & Sänchez Trigo 96, 99 NagashimaD. 142 NakamotoK. 50 national styles 71 native speaker 173,195 native-speaker dictionary 191 natural language processing 98,214 needs analysis 134,166 (see also user perspective) Nemser & Vincenz 18, 60 Nestroy J.N. 175 Neubach & Cohen 170 Neuland E. 132 new rhetoric 67 NFL 211 NidaE. 14,31,211 Noel J. 99 onomasiological format 6, 168 (see also semasiological format) ontogenetic histoiy 132 OpitzK. I l l Osselton N.E. 105 Osswald P. 59,62 Ostler N. 97 paired text(s) 96,214 paradigmatics 78, 84 parallel text analysis 36,93,215 parallel text(s) 16,22, 33, 44, 77,95-96,212, 214 paraphrase 33,36,176 Paulovsky L.H. 18 pedagogical lexicography 151,185 Peirce C.S. 40 Perl & Winter 65 Piry-Woodley M.-P. 38,95 philology (-• historical-comparative linguistics) phonology 84 phylogenetic history 129 Picchi et al. 99,100

Index

pictorial illustration 137,153 Pike K.L. 151 PiotrowskiT. 4,153 Platt & Piatt 80 Politzer R.L. 73-74 polyglot dictionary 6 polysemous headword 154,187 pragma-lexicology 90 pragmatics 78, 84 predictive contrastive analysis 68 presentation 104,156 print dictionary 205 proficiency range(s) 82,130,134,169 pronunciation 86, 152, 201 protocol 27, 36, 42,49,124,126,167,170 purpose of transfer 118 QuemadaB. 57 questionnaire survey 48,107,135,137,157,165, 167,190-191 Quirk R. 106,192 reading comprehension 109-110,147, 159,168, 200,203 receding 44 recording 104,156 reference needs 8,168,205,216 reference science 208 reference skills 51, 108, 127,132, 143,147,165, 167-169,170, 189-190 (see also user profile) reference work 1, 177,190,192,205 register ranges 56, 72, 76,79,96, 156 Reiff J. 141 ReissK. 73 Remarque E.M. 17,26 remediation 80 research deficits (-• research priorities) research priorities 9,132, 135,149,161, 166-170 restricted vocabulary (-»vocabulary) RettigW. 34,87 ReuningK. 62 rhetoric 67,122 RieglK. 175 Riley P. 95 Ripfel M. 48, 191 Roberts R. 214 Rundell & Stock 212 Rundell M. 154, 191

245

Index

SalkieR. 206 Schäffiier & Adab 214 ScherferP. 136 Scholfield P.JL 51 Schröder K. 136 Seiler H. 62 self-confidence 201 semantic field (-» lexical field) semantics 54-56, 87 semasiological format 168 (see also onomasiological format) semi-bilingual dictionary (-» bilingualised dictionary) semiotic dimensions 78,84, 89, 123 semiotics 40, 67,122 semotactics 90 sense 92,119, 155,169, 180,186-187,210 (see also meaning discrimination) sense relation (-»lexico-semantic relationship) Siegrist L. 83 Sinclair J. 98,213,216 situationality 114 skill(s) analysis 133-134, 166 skill profile 47 (see also reference skills) Snell-Homby M. 25, 31-32,87,93,122, 135, 211,215 source language 31, 133,142,170 special-subject dictionary 197-198,205 specialised dictionary (-»special-subject dictionary) speech act theory 67 spelling 86,126,201 StandopE. 131 Stark, M.P. 54,144,194 Stein G. 121,129 Steiner R. J. 4, 21,118, 153, 209 Straubinger O.P. 175 structural semantics 55-56 style of individuals 72 stylistics 76 (see also comparative stylistics) Suarez T.M. 134 sub-entry 119 (see also meaning discrimination) substitution 35 (see also translation/ procedures of) surrogation 80 Svens