Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice (TLRP) Ter...

Author: Heming Yong | Jing Peng

73 downloads 1203 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice (TLRP) Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice aims to provide in-depth studies and background information pertaining to Lexicography and Terminology. General works include philosophical, historical, theoretical, computational and cognitive approaches. Other works focus on structures for purpose- and domain-specific compilation (LSP), dictionary design, and training. The series includes monographs, state-of-the-art volumes and course books in the English language.

Editor Marie-Claude L’ Homme University of Montreal

Consulting Editor Juan C. Sager

Volume 9 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective Heming Yong and Jing Peng


Heming Yong Jing Peng Guangdong University of Business Studies

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yong, Heming. Bilingual lexicography from a communicative perspective / Heming Yong, Jing Peng. p. cm. -- (Terminology and lexicography research and practice ; issn 1388-8455 ; v. 9) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Lexicography. I. Peng, Jing. II. Title. P327.Y66 2007 413'.028--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 2333 3 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007010843

© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Acknowledgments

ix

chapter 1 Towards a communicative model of lexicography 1.1 The nature of the dictionary 1.1.1 The traditional approach: the dictionary as reference 1.1.2 The textual approach: the dictionary as text 1.1.3 The communicative approach: the dictionary as communication 1.2 Lexicography 1.3 Bilingual lexicography 1.3.1 Previous studies in bilingual lexicography: a brief survey 1.3.2 The present study 1.3.2.1 Scope, method and objective 1.3.2.2 Some terms defined

1 1 1 3 6 11 13 13 15 15 16

chapter 2 Bilingual lexicography: A comparative approach 2.1 Compiler aspect: choices of perspectives and purposes 2.1.1 Choices of dictionary designs 2.1.2 Choices of lexicographic perspectives 2.1.3 Choices of lexicographic purposes 2.2 Dictionary context 2.2.1 Choices under “Field” 2.2.1.1 Information coverage 2.2.1.2 Language coverage 2.2.1.3 Lexical coverage 2.2.1.4 Subject coverage 2.2.2 Choices under “Mode” 2.2.2.1 Presentation 2.2.2.2 Direction 2.2.2.3 Defining method 2.2.2.4 Transmission media 2.2.3 Choices under “Tenor” 2.2.3.1 Source language speakers, target language speakers or both

17 18 18 20 22 23 23 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28




2.3

2.2.3.2 Reference-oriented users or active-learning users User aspect: language needs and reference skills 2.3.1 Ownership of dictionaries 2.3.2 Reasons for dictionary use 2.3.3 Dictionary deficiency 2.3.4 Frequency of dictionary use 2.3.5 Reference needs 2.3.6 Definition structuring 2.3.7 Selection of lexical and information items 2.3.8 Grammatical labeling 2.3.9 General image of the dictionary 2.3.10 Summary

29 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 38

chapter 3 Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 3.1 Grammar and bilingual lexicography 3.2 Semantics and bilingual lexicography 3.3 Pragmatics and bilingual lexicography 3.4 Sociolinguistics and bilingual lexicography

41 41 46 54 57

chapter 4 Bilingual dictionaries: A communicative typology 4.1 Previous dictionary typologies: a quick survey 4.2 A communicative typology 4.2.1 Compiler and user aspects 4.2.1.1 Lexicographic perspectives 4.2.1.2 Lexicographic purposes 4.2.2 Dictionary context 4.2.2.1 Field 4.2.2.2 Mode 4.2.2.3 Tenor

61 61 67 69 69 71 72 73 75 78

chapter 5 Bilingual dictionaries: A structural description 5.1 Outside matter structure 5.1.1 Front Matter 5.1.1.1 Title page 5.1.1.2 Acknowledgments 5.1.1.3 Table of contents 5.1.1.4 Preface, foreword and introduction

83 84 84 84 85 85 86

5.2

5.3

5.4

Table of contents 

5.1.1.5 Guide to the use of the dictionary 5.1.1.6 Explanations of abbreviations and symbols 5.1.2 Back matter 5.1.2.1 Linguistic material 5.1.2.2 Encyclopedic material 5.1.2.3 Reference guidance 5.1.3 Outside matter: a comparative survey Macrostructure 5.2.1 Hierarchies of lemma units 5.2.2 Alphabetical approach 5.2.3 Semantic approach 5.2.4 Reference structure Microstructure 5.3.1 Lemmata structure 5.3.2 Definition structure 5.3.3 Structural organization of examples 5.3.4 Structural organization of variants Bidirectionality and reversibility 5.4.1 Bidirectionality 5.4.2 Reversibility

87 88 88 88 88 89 90 92 92 93 97 99 102 102 103 104 105 106 106 108

chapter 6 Bilingual dictionaries: Fundamental principles 6.1 General principles 6.1.1 Descriptive principle 6.1.2 Linguistic principle 6.1.3 Structural principle 6.1.4 Relevance principle 6.1.5 Aesthetic principle 6.2 Bilingual principles 6.2.1 Equivalence principle 6.2.2 Comparative principle

111 112 112 117 120 123 126 128 128 131

chapter 7 Bilingual dictionaries: Problems and reflections 7.1 Anisomorphism 7.2 Equivalence presentation 7.3 Meaning discrimination 7.4 Grammar 7.5 Collocation

135 135 140 143 147 151

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11

Style and register Exemplification Illustration Glossing Etymology Revision

154 156 160 162 164 167

chapter 8 Bilingual dictionaries: Ways of handling idioms 8.1 Idioms: their features 8.2 Idioms: their status 8.3 Idioms: their location 8.4 Idioms: their translation 8.5 Idioms: their grammar and usage

175 176 177 181 186 190

chapter 9 Bilingual dictionaries: Recommendations and samples 9.1 Recommendation one: lexicographic purposes and choices 9.2 Recommendation two: active and passive dictionary designs 9.3 Recommendation three: macrostructural organization 9.4 Recommendation four: lexical classes discriminated 9.5 Recommendation five: equivalence presentation 9.6 Recommendation six: meaning discrimination 9.7 Recommendation seven: grammatical description 9.8 Recommendation eight: lexical combination 9.9 Recommendation nine: labels and glosses 9.10 Recommendation ten: exemplification 9.11 Recommendation eleven: idiom treatment 9.12 Recommendation twelve: word histories

195 196 197 199 200 202 204 206 207 209 210 212 214

Bibliography

215

List of major dictionaries cited

223

Index

227

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our most hearty thanks to David Blair, director of Dictionary Research Centre, chief editor of Australia’s national dictionary – The Macquarie Dictionary and senior research fellow and head of Division of Humanities, Macquarie University, Australia, who shared with us his insightful knowledge of lexicographic theory and his wisdom as a practical lexicographer and helped us to pave the way for this book through enlightening encouragement, suggestions and comments. Our profound thanks go to J H Prynne, senior professor of Cambridge University, for reading, revising and making highly valuable comments on the manuscript, to Judith Coopy, senior teacher of English, for going through the manuscript, smoothing and removing rough spots, and particularly to Juan Sager, professor emeritus of the University of Manchester, whose keen observations and meticulous lists of corrections contribute substantially to the quality of the book. We would also like to express our heartfelt thanks to Huang Jianhua, former president of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China and chairman of the Asian Association for Lexicography, for his helpful comments on the manuscript. We profited greatly from discussing with him a variety of issues regarding EnglishChinese and Chinese-English lexicography. Finally, our thanks are due to Dr R.R.K. Hartmann, Dr Andrew Taylor, and Dr Huang Guowen, whose comments and suggestions for revision added considerably to the value of this book, to Guangdong University of Business Studies, China, who provided partial financial support for this research in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, and to Jonathan Harrington, Christian Matthiessen and David Butt of Department of Linguistics and Psychology, Macquarie University for their help in various ways.

chapter 1

Towards a communicative model of lexicography 1.1 The nature of the dictionary Lexicographers have long been concerned about the nature of the dictionary, i.e. what the dictionary is and what they should intend it to be. So far no consensus seems to have been reached regarding answers to those questions, mainly because lexicographers have followed the ontological pattern which persisted so long for language study and studied the dictionary for its own sake. In other words, until quite recently, dictionary studies were asocial. It is now generally acknowledged that the search for the nature of the dictionary and its relevant studies cannot expect to make substantial advancements unless socio-cultural dimensions are taken into the lexicographic scene, for dictionary making is essentially a socio-cultural behavior and dictionary use is by nature socio-psychological. In fact, a description of the nature of the dictionary will never be complete and well-founded, and lexicographic issues, particularly pragmatic problems involved in dictionary making and use, can never find proper solutions without taking socio-cultural factors into consideration. Dictionary making used to be considered merely a linguistic activity, but it is beginning to assume a socio-cultural look and an interdisciplinary nature as well. 1.1.1 The traditional approach: the dictionary as reference There is a long tradition of treating the dictionary as a word list or a wordbook providing information about orthography, pronunciation and meaning of words in language. As a matter of fact, that is what early dictionaries could offer. Up until now, this has also been the reason why the great majority of dictionaries are made and why lay people keep a dictionary at hand. This narrow interpretation of the dictionary as reference is typically reflected in definitions written by lexicographers themselves. Collins Dictionary of the Eng-


lish Language (2nd Ed., 1986) pinpoints the reference function of the dictionary by defining it as: “a reference book that consists of an alphabetical list of words with their meanings and parts of speech, and often a guide to accepted pronunciation and syllabification, irregular inflections of words, derived words of different parts of speech, and etymologies”.

The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed., Vol. IV, 1989:625) avoids using the expression “reference book”, but its definition clearly manifests that implication: “a book dealing with the individual words of a language (or certain specified classes of them), so as to set forth their orthography, pronunciation, signification, and use, their synonyms, derivation, and history, or at least some of these facts: for convenience of reference, the words are arranged in some stated order, now in most languages, alphabetical; and in larger dictionaries the information given is illustrated by quotations from literature”.

The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Ed., 1997:598), however, makes no mention of the function of the dictionary, thus avoiding both the controversial expression and the implication in its definition: “a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, with explanations of their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, and other information concerning them, expressed either in the same or in another language”.

No comments will be made here as to whether the word “dictionary” is well defined or not in the above quotations, but several remarkable features concerning the dictionary and its compilation have been evidently embodied in them and need further discussion here. First, the dictionary is “a book containing a selection of the words of a language”, which is typical of most of the dictionaries so far compiled. No dictionary can exhaust all the items in the lexicon of a language. Lexicographers will have to formulate their own guidelines for entry selection in the process of dictionary-making to live up to user expectations in their retrieval of lexical information and guarantee the greatest utility and efficiency possible for their work as a reference tool. Second, in terms of entry information, most dictionaries regard as their primary concern the description of orthography, pronunciation, meaning and use of words, which are what the majority of dictionary users expect to consult when they use the dictionary. Third, the dictionary is usually arranged alphabetically, which, again, characterizes most of the dictionaries so far extant. Alphabetization is the most effective means of realizing the macrostructure of the dictionary text. It is the most straight-

Chapter 1. Towards a communicative model of lexicography

forward and most convenient system for both dictionary makers and users to follow in the compilation and use of dictionaries. Finally, in addition to orthographic, phonetic, semantic and grammatical information, lexicographers offer additional information concerning word histories (i.e. etymology), lexical sense relations (i.e. synonymy, antonymy), meaning differentiation, lexical pragmatics and so on. These voluntary actions are taken to enhance the utility and informativity of their work and to cater for extremely varied user needs. All this points to the fact that the reference function is what most lexicographers strive to enable their products to fulfil. A dictionary is compiled mainly for reference. This is the most primitive and most practical function of the dictionary. However, there are far more functions for dictionaries to perform than just that. “The … dictionary is much more than an instrument providing answers to linguistic questions, however complex, even for a fairly well-educated public of users” (Bejoint 1994:115). Scholars have made serious studies of the ways the dictionary is actually used. (see Bejoint 1994:107–9) These actual dictionary uses can be categorized as three kinds of function: descriptive, didactic and ideological. The dictionary may be designed to give an exhaustive description of a dead language like Latin or a selective description of the lexicon of a living language, thus functioning as a storehouse for the vocabulary of a language, a branch of knowledge or even an individual person, i.e. a writer; to perform instrumental and instructional functions, providing guidelines for correct usage, improving intra- and inter-cultural communication, strengthening language unity, and thus enhancing social promotion; and to serve as “an ideological weapon” (Hartmann 1987:124), safeguarding “the moral and ideological values of the society’ (Bejoint 1994:124). Obviously, the reference function of the dictionary presents only part of the picture of dictionary uses, though it is the most fundamental and important. 1.1.2 The textual approach: the dictionary as text Linguists have worked out various ways of looking at language which strive to diverge from the traditional model. Traditional grammar is basically based on early Latin or Greek grammars and is strongly prescriptive in that it stresses the importance of rules for correct usage and focuses on word classes and their combination into meaningful sentences. “The emphasis on such matters as correctness, linguistic purism, literary excellence, the use of Latin models and the priority of the written language characterises this approach, and is in contrast with the concern of linguistics for descriptive accuracy, appropriateness, criteria of analysis, comprehensiveness, explicitness, etc.” (Crystal 1985:312)


Ever since the early 20th century, new models have appeared one after another, notably the structural model, the transformational generative model, and the systemic functional model. Structural grammar stresses the importance of language as a system and the way that linguistic features can be described in terms of structures and systems. Its main focus is on sounds, forms of words and, most importantly, how word order affects sentence meaning. The transformational generative approach attempts to provide a model for the description of all languages. It tries to show, with a system of rules, the knowledge which a native speaker of a language uses in forming grammatical sentences. It claims that any theory of grammar must be able to explain why human beings can produce an infinite number of sentences including those they have never heard or read previously. Productivity becomes its primary concern. Although the structuralists and the transformationalists have extended the limits of traditional grammar and attempted to explain the facts of language from sound to sentence, they have made no further efforts to go beyond the sentence level into connected speech like discourse and text. They confine their attention to sentences and linguistic units smaller than sentences. They do not discuss how one sentence is connected with another in discourse and how sentences mean and how they play their roles in a broader context. That is why these schools of linguistics are sometimes labeled “sentence linguistics” (see Beaugrande and Dressler 1981). Just as the function and meaning of a word need to be determined in the context of a phrase and the function and meaning of a phrase in the context of a sentence, so a broader context is needed to understand the functions and meanings of the sentence. Sentences will make sense only when they are placed and understood in discourse and text. Without context, it is impossible to tell whether “help” is a morpheme, a word, a phrase or a sentence and what it actually means. Once put in a particular context, both its meaning and function will stand out. Systemic functional linguists put language study in a much broader setting – a socio-semiotic framework, which places the observation and analysis of how language works on a socio-cultural foundation. This school of linguistics is typically characterized by its emphasis on the importance of textual and contextual features in language study and proves effective in describing language systems and explaining language functions. The idea of regarding the dictionary as text is an obvious manifestation of how text linguistics has influenced lexicographers’ view of the dictionary. The dictionary is often considered a reference tool. This traditional approach to dictionary analysis ensures that entries in the dictionary are looked at individually and separately and are not treated as an integrated whole. Various kinds of relationships existing between and within lemmata are completely severed. This traditional view has dominated dictionary making for several thousand years. It affected the ways dictionaries were made, used, and assessed. It was never seriously questioned


until the early 1980s, when user role began to draw increasing attention from dictionary makers and researchers. The development of text linguistics has made it theoretically possible and necessary to review and assess the traditional ways of looking at the dictionary and view the dictionary from an entirely different perspective. From a structural point of view, the dictionary bears striking resemblance to text. When examined on the megastructural level, the whole dictionary appears to be constructed in much the same way as any text. It begins with the front matter, which serves as an introduction. This is followed by the body part of the dictionary (i.e. dictionary text), which tells the main story. What comes after the body part is the back matter, which concludes the dictionary with supplementary material to the main story. When examined on the microstructural level, it is even easier to see that the dictionary is actually composed of tiny texts. No matter whether they are dictionary articles or entry articles, they are again organized in much the same manner as any text. These similarities lead metalexicographers to believe that the dictionary can be described in terms of text linguistics. A serious attempt in this connection is made by William Frawley (1989: 231– 248), who puts forward his straightforward proposition “the dictionary as text” in an article under the same title. The goal of his paper is “to consider the dictionary as a kind of text”. He observes the dictionary from the standpoint of text grammar, using De Beaugrande and Dressler’s seven criteria for textuality (i.e. cohesion, coherence, informativity, intentionality, acceptability, situationality and intertextuality) as the basis for his analysis. According to Frawley, the dictionary as text may be looked at from four different positions. The first three criteria rely heavily on the formal properties of text as an autonomous object, from which evolve issues of form and content; from the position of the writer or the producer, the intentionality of the text is considered; from the position of the reader or the receiver, the acceptability of the text is evaluated; and judging from the totality of the above three positions, the situationality and intertextuality of the text are assessed. The above four positions raise a series of interesting lexicographic issues, some of which “have been either neglected or treated superficially in lexicography” (Frawley 1989:231). Though Frawley tried to answer some of the questions in his paper, he nevertheless focused mainly on the information structure of lexicographic text, the prospects for reading the dictionary through the use of schemas and the semantic integration of the dictionary as text. It must be admitted that the idea of treating the dictionary as text gives a fresh impetus to lexicographic studies and provides enlightening insights into how definitions should be handled on textual principles, how dictionary text should be organized, and how dictionary text should be made more accessible and user-friendly. However, too much emphasis has been laid on the organizational principles of dictionary text rather than its functional potentials. Therefore, it sounds more like a structural approach than a


functional one. It must also be pointed out that although mention has been made of the relationship between the compiler and the reader, in particular the cognitive aspect involved in using the dictionary, this approach fails to recognize its true nature and is unable to offer feasible solutions to the problems rising out of the relation. Moreover, it fails to recognize the differences between dictionary types, for example, how a descriptive dictionary differs textually from a didactic one, or how a monolingual dictionary is different from a bilingual one, because, textually, they share essentially the same features. 1.1.3 The communicative approach: the dictionary as communication Communication is defined in most dictionaries as “the process or act of communicating”, “the exchanging or imparting of ideas and information, etc.”. Looked at from a socio-cultural context, this lexicographic definition does seem to be oversimplified and is susceptible to serious challenges. It covers two basic aspects of communication. It treats communication as “process” or “act”, and in this process “ideas and information, etc.” (generally referred to as “message” in communication theory) are exchanged and imparted. However, it fails to indicate the following important aspects: 1. Communication is a socio-cultural behaviour. 2. Communication involves sending and receiving messages. 3. Messages are encoded by senders and intend to be decoded by receivers. 4. Senders and receivers of messages are participants in the process. 5. Participants are socio-cultural beings and share a common code. 6. Messages are sent and received to achieve certain purposes. These aspects of communication have certainly fallen outside the scope of lexicographers’ concerns, but they are essential elements that constitute a theory of communication. It will soon be seen that these basic aspects of communication are fundamental concerns of metalexicographers and lexicographers as well. There are currently two major schools of thought in the study of communication: the process school and the semiotic school. According to Fiske (1990), the process school regards communication as the transmission of messages. It deals with “how senders and receivers encode and decode” (Fiske 1990) and “how transmitters use the channels and media of communication” (Fiske 1990). It also deals with “matters like efficiency and accuracy” (Fiske 1990). It is worth mentioning that socio-cultural factors are also its concerns although it does not specify them. The semiotic school, on the other hand, treats communication as the production and exchange of meanings. It considers “how messages, or texts, interact with people in order to produce meanings; that is, it is concerned with the role of texts in


our culture” (Fiske 1990). For this school, the study of communication is the study of text and culture. It can be reasonably argued that dictionary making is by its very nature a process of transmitting and imparting knowledge and information and that lexicography studies how this process is realized and how it affects the user’s reference behavior and knowledge structure. In the light of such an analysis, the process school will be adopted as the general basis for the establishment of a framework for the communicative theory of lexicography, treating the dictionary as some sort of interactive system between the compiler and the user. Since the publication of Shannon and Weaver’s Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949), which is widely acknowledged as one of the main sources out of which communication theories have developed, various models of communication have been put forward to expound what makes up communication and what makes it possible and effective. Here of particular interest to lexicographic studies are Newcomb’s model and Jakobson’s model. Mention needs to be made of Newcomb’s model (see Fiske 1990:35) because it signifies a new departure from the traditional unidirectional linear model: S(ender) →M(essage) →R(eceiver)

which “treats S and R as asocial, isolated individuals” (Kress 1988:13). Newcomb’s model, for the first time, introduces socio-cultural dimensions in communication studies. In his minimal ABX triangular model, “A” and “B” represent “communicator” and “receiver” respectively and “X” represents “part of their social environment”. This significant feature is inherited by Jakobson, who devises a model sharing some features of both the linear and the triangular models and at the same time takes into consideration “matters like meaning and the internal structure of the message”. Thus it “bridges the gap between the process school and the semiotic school” (Fiske 1990:35):

Addresser

Context message --------contact code

Addressee

(Fiske 1990 :35) In this model, “addresser” and “addressee” approximate “sender” and “receiver” in the traditional model respectively, and “context” refers to “something other than the message itself ”, i.e. the general and/or immediate situation in which the message is produced and transmitted. Under “context” there are three subcategories:


“message” refers to what is produced and transmitted from the addresser to the addressee, “contact” refers to the physical channel and psychological connections between the addresser and the addressee, and “code” represents a shared meaning system by which the message is structured. So, not only does Jakobson make use of the concept “context”, he also specifies it and subcategorizes it into constitutive factors, which are extremely conducive and illuminating to establishing a communicative theory of lexicography. As Jakobson’s model is designed for human communication, some modifications are necessary for its adaptation to the lexicographic situation. Unlike the traditional model, Jakobson does not employ any signs, i.e. lines and arrows, to indicate how the six factors are related and how they affect each other. These will have to be added to show the relationship between the “addresser” (i.e. the dictionary compiler) and the “addressee” (i.e. the dictionary user) and their relationship with “context”. The functional theory of situational features of context will be borrowed and used as replacements for subcategories of “context” in Jakobson’s model. The reason for such a replacement is obvious. Lexicographical communication and human communication take place against different backgrounds and in different contexts, which encompass different situational features. Again it is important to recognize that the nature of the model is social and cultural. Both “addresser” and “addressee” must not be regarded as isolated individuals; they must be treated as social beings, who share some sort of common code. Consequently, a revised model of the communicative theory of lexicography is arrived at, with more common terms “compiler” and “user” used in place of “addresser” and “addressee”:

compiler

context dictionary -----field mode tenor

user

Some remarks must be made here to specify the terms and the interactive relationships between participants in the model and how the model works in the lexicographic situation. There are three participants in the model, i.e. compiler, context and user. They stand at the three points in the triangle, playing different roles in the process of lexicographic communication. The arrow in the model indicates the direction in which influence flows. The solid line indicates direct influence and the dashed line denotes indirect influence. The situational features of context are already dealt with in great depth in Hallidayan linguistics, but modification and specification are needed for their reference range and implication in this model. In


Hallidayian linguistics, the field of discourse “refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place”; the tenor of discourse “refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their statuses and roles”; and the mode of discourse “refers to what part the language is playing, what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation” (Halliday and Hasan 1986:12). However, in this communicative model of lexicography, context is represented by “dictionary” and is realized through selecting various options under “field”, “mode” and “tenor”. “Field” refers to what is processed, that is the lexicographic message (in its most general and broad sense) which is encoded and transmitted, the range it covers and the subject area it belongs in, etc. “Mode” refers to the way the message is processed, i.e. how it is encoded, organized and presented, through which channel and what medium it is transmitted, etc. “Tenor” refers to interpersonal relations between the compiler and the user and their influence upon the ways these relations are handled and realized in the process, i.e. what kind of users the process is targeted at, what the compiler is expected to do to suit user needs, what role the user expects to play and is expected to play in the process, in what ways the user will affect lexicographic decisions and the process of dictionary making, how the process will affect the user’s reference behavior and knowledge structure, and so on. This communicative model of lexicography establishes a generally unified framework within which the theoretical foundation for lexicography is laid and both theoretical and practical issues of lexicography may be addressed. This model is dynamic rather than static, because under each participant there are a number of options open to lexicographers, who will choose from these options a set of features which will best reflect their policy and perspective and best suit their dictionary purposes and intended users. As such, dictionary making is realized by making a series of choices and putting them into operation. When these choices are united together under one cover, they form the overall nature of the dictionary. This model generates the possibility of observing the dictionary as an entire entity from three different but interdependent standpoints, i.e. from the position of compiler, from the position of user, and from the position of context. From the compiler’s point of view, such macro-level problems as perspective, policy, purpose, methodology, function, etc. can be raised and handled. From the position of the user, such factors as age range, educational background, user expectation, user feedback etc. will be considered and explored. From the position of context in which the process of dictionary making is actualized, a number of problems will be raised and evaluated. For instance, how will field be specified and delimited? What subject area will it deal with? What vocabulary range will it cover? How will the dictionary be structured? How will the information be organized? What code(s) and how many will be involved in encoding and transmitting informa-




tion? By what means will it be transmitted? What about the intended user? These questions must be handled in relation to the other two participants in the model. Early dictionary compilers assumed themselves as users and considered lexicographic problems on behalf of users. These compilers used to make lexicographic choices on an imaginary basis, and the users’ role in dictionary making and their relation with the compiler were not recognized and analyzed until the late 20th century and have become one of the most essential aspects of dictionary research. “The user perspective has always been there, at least implicitly, but in recent years it has slowly gained in status and is beginning to affect the whole field of lexicography” (Hartmann 1987:121, in Richard Bailey). One of the striking features which makes this model different from the traditional model and the textual model is that it gives prominence to the user’s role in lexicographic communication and incorporates the dictionary user into its general configuration, thus treating the dictionary user as one of the participants in the process of dictionary making. This means that lexicographers will have to bear in mind dictionary users’ needs and expectations and their inevitable influence upon decisions concerning dictionary policies and their implementation in the course of dictionary making. Eventually, this model stimulates a series of questions concerning the relationship between “compiler” and “user” and interactions between encoding and decoding, some of which can be crucial to understanding the nature of lexicographic communication and thus promoting the quality of dictionary making and dictionary use. For instance, how the compiler encodes and does it efficiently, what factors need to be considered in the process of encoding, how the message can be transmitted effectively to the user, how the user decodes and in the desired way, in what ways the user may influence the compiler, how the process of dictionary making may be related to the user’s perception of his vocabulary in language acquisition and learning, and what measures may be taken to assess the results. The search for answers to these questions covers a wide range of subjects and naturally makes lexicography an interdisciplinary field of study. Finally, as the nature of a dictionary relies heavily on the set of options lexicographers choose in the process of dictionary making, this model stands a better chance of distinguishing between dictionary types. As a result, monolingual dictionaries differ from bilingual ones, not simply because the number of languages they contain is different, as some lexicographers explain, but because different sets of options for each participant are selected for each type. In this model, the monolingual dictionary is described in terms of intracultural communication and the bilingual dictionary is described in terms of intercultural communication. Consequently, this model offers us a new approach to a comprehensive typology for bilingual dictionaries (see Chapter 4).


1.2 Lexicography In the eyes of most people, lexicography is seen only as “the writing or compiling of dictionaries”. It is true to the extent that dictionary making involves “observing, collecting, selecting, and describing units from the stock of words and word combinations in one or more languages” (Svensen 1993:1). But this is just one aspect – the practical aspect of lexicography. There is the other side – the theoretical generalization about what the dictionary is, how it is made and why it is needed. As Hausmann (1986) rightly points out, “Lexicography also includes the development and description of the theories and methods which are to be the basis of this activity”. In terms of the communicative theory outlined above, lexicography can be defined as the theory and practice of encoding and transmitting, intra-culturally or interculturally, information and knowledge concerning socialized linguistic forms of a given speech community and/or extralinguistic reality from the compiler to the user so as to affect the user’s knowledge structure and perception of the world. This definition covers all the major aspects in the study of communication and all the major activities in dictionary making, encompassing both theoretical and practical aspects of lexicographic communication. The practice of lexicography dates back several thousand years, when the Assyrians in the Middle Eeast and the ancient Chinese began to make attempts at compiling monolingual and specialized dictionaries (see Al-Kasimi 1977; Collison 1982; Snell-Hornby 1986; Bergenholtz and Tarp 1995; Hartmann and James 1998). Although the theoretical study of lexicography is not infrequently considered quite a novelty in the modern linguistic world, it has as long a history as dictionary-making itself, for dictionary-making is normally preceded by some theoretical considerations about certain fundamental issues involved in the process. Whoever decides to embark upon a new dictionary project will have to think, before they actually set to work, about such rudimentary questions as for whom and for what purpose the dictionary is to be compiled, how entry words are to be selected, how dictionary structure is to be organized, how pronunciation is to be transcribed, how words are to be defined, how meanings are to be differentiated, and so on. In the pioneering age, the fruits of this sort of thinking were not collected under a separate cover. Instead they were incorporated into dictionarymaking activities and were contained in the dictionary body. It is no exaggeration to say that language study, in a sense, started with dictionary-making and received impetus and inspiration from it. Dictionaries of earlier periods are gold mines of information for both linguistic and cultural research. They provide unique historical insights into how languages evolve, how words change their forms and meanings, and how cultures are reflected in languages. Through several thousand years’ arduous labor, lexicographers have produced






countless glossaries, wordbooks, vocabularies and dictionaries. They have accumulated exceptionally large bodies of written and/or spoken material for language research and study. However, theoretical generalizations about dictionary making were largely neglected. That is perhaps why the lexicon (dictionary) was given a deplorable status as “an appendix of grammar, a list of basic irregularities” (Bloomfield 1933:274). Lexicographers have often been blamed for their alienation from other related disciplines, especially from the rest of language study (Marckwardt 1963:344; Weinreich 1964:408; Sinclair 1984:3). A general survey of modern English dictionaries will indicate that this criticism was not entirely justified, especially when judged by the positive and painstaking efforts made by lexicographers to apply the latest findings in linguistics to the writing of learners dictionaries in the past two decades. In fact, the introduction of linguistic research findings into dictionary making took place as early as the nineteenth century, when historical and comparative linguistics began to flourish. This aroused lexicographers general interest in word histories (though the actual practice of giving information about etymologies in dictionaries started much earlier) and gave rise to a great many dictionaries compiled on historical principles. The labeling of word origin became the established practice and has come down to the present day. During the early 20th century, the emergence of descriptive linguistics and structural linguistics exerted a considerable influence upon the lexicographical field. The descriptive principle is generally accepted by modern lexicographers as one of the guidelines for contemporary dictionary making. For the past few decades, the latest developments in linguistics and in other related disciplines, like information science and electronic technology, have been exploited to a reasonable extent in the process of dictionary making. The gradual integration of lexicography with the rest of language study and other related disciplines has drastically altered lexicographers’ outlook on dictionary making and on the status of lexicography as an academic discipline. The awareness of establishing lexicography on a solid scientific and theoretical foundation has become increasingly strong. This fundamental change in the idea of what a dictionary should be like and how lexicography can be established as a science has brought about numerous in-depth theoretical exploration in lexicography the world over. Various publications have come out in close succession and in greater numbers; journals of lexicography, international and national, have been published on regular bases; conferences, symposiums and seminars have taken place at a frequency never seen before. Explorations have gone into almost all aspects of lexicography, from micro-level, i.e. the use and meaning of individual words, to macro-level, i.e. the whole system of the dictionary, from practical issues to theoretical considerations, from lexicography to other related subjects. It must be admitted that these findings


are important and insightful. They have contributed enormously toward improving and developing lexicographic communication and laid solid foundations for “the movement to establish lexicography as an academic subject” (Sinclair 1984:12). However, when taken into the general lexicographic scene and assessed from the necessity of a coherent framework to incorporate them for the benefit of establishing lexicography as a subject of academic inquiry, these significant findings do appear to be fragmentary and theoretically unsystematic. Under the circumstances, John M. Sinclair’s (1984:14) statement that “lexicography is not in a proper state to become an academic subject, and will have to be re-shaped, broadened and re-analyzed” does need to be taken seriously. As part of the endeavor towards that goal, the present research, drawing on studies in communication theories and “the rest of language study”, attempts to establish a communicative theory of lexicography. This model will serve its purpose if it provokes more serious thoughts and excites further efforts towards the same goal.

1.3 Bilingual lexicography 1.3.1 Previous studies in bilingual lexicography: a brief survey The systematic study of bilingual dictionaries in the Western world dates back to the nineteenth century, but their fragmentary research started much earlier. The nineteenth-century research on English bilingual lexicography had mainly focused on Latin and English bilingual dictionaries, as Latin was regarded as the supreme language in the West and Latin and English bilingual dictionaries outnumbered their counterparts in other European languages. The pioneering exploration in this field was undertaken by Albert Way, who, from 1843, studied the earliest known English-Latin dictionary Promptorium Parvulorum, Sive Clericorum; a later edition and study of the same work by A. L. Mayhew appeared in 1908. In 1881, S. J. H. Herittage made a study of the only edition of the second English-Latin dictionary Catholicon Anglicum (see Stein 1991). Around the end of the nineteenth century, publications concerning detailed lexicographical characterizations of individual bilingual dictionaries continued. This was followed by more comprehensive and updated studies of specific dictionary species and groups from a coherent historical perspective and more in-depth and systematic studies of problems involving the practical aspect of lexicography. A general survey of researches in English lexicography indicates that studies in Eng-






lish monolingual and bilingual lexicography in the twentieth century do not seem to be balanced, with the former being given an obvious prominence and priority. Although there is a long tradition in the production of such reference works, and in some cultures they are considered the ‘prototypical’ dictionary, the field has lagged behind that of monolingual lexicography in terms of theory formation and professional standards, especially where the language pair in question does not include at least one major world language. (Hartmann and James 1998:15)

The making of monolingual dictionaries in China dates back to around 200 BC, and the practice of bilingual lexicography enjoys a history of about 1250 years, counting from the time when Hui Lin, a monk of the Tang Dynasty (618–907), compiled the first Chinese bilingual dictionary The Meaning and Sound of Tripitaka. Like English bilingual lexicography, Chinese bilingual lexicography has also considerably fallen behind its monolingual counterpart in terms of theory formation and professional standards. Although theoretical studies relevant to bilingual lexicography can be traced back to the establishment of the Translators’ Workshop in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), they discontinued for quite a long time and failed to receive due attention until quite recently. The fact that the number of bilingual dictionaries has drastically increased in the past two decades as a result of extensive international interactions has drawn Chinese lexicographers’ attention to this dictionary genre and has brought about the flourishment of its theoretical studies in China. Bilingual dictionaries produced prior to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 were extremely limited in number, in types and in their social and academic influence. Between 1949 and 1978 the number of bilingual dictionaries published in China was about 260, but this number drastically increased to about 1540 in the past two decades, covering over 30 foreign languages and more than 10 minority languages. English, Russian and Japanese rank top of the list. Among the 1800 or so bilingual dictionaries, over 1230 are English-Chinese and Chinese-English, accounting for almost 70%. Russian and Chinese bilingual dictionaries account for about 9%, and Japanese and Chinese bilingual dictionaries account for about 11%. Combinations of Chinese with German, French, Latin, Spanish and Esperanto add up to about 150, accounting for about 8%. The rapid increase in the number of Chinese bilingual dictionaries from 1979 to 1999 caused a great surge in their theoretical study, which was ignited and guided by the publication of Lexicographical Studies (Cishu Yanjiu) in 1979 and Journal of Dictionary Research in 1980. Before 1979 lexicographical papers dealt almost exclusively with Chinese monolingual lexicography. According to An Index to Lexicographic Papers in China (1911–1989) only six papers pertaining to bilingual lexicography were published over that period, and all of them came out in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. Since 1979, however, nearly 1350 papers dealing with bilin-


gual lexicography have appeared in various journals and conference proceedings published in China. They cover almost all aspects of bilingual lexicography. It must be pointed out that no efforts have been made so far to attempt a systematic study of bilingual lexicography within the covers of a single book, though various collections of papers and conference proceedings have been published. 1.3.2 The present study 1.3.2.1 Scope, method and objective The present study attempts to establish a triangular communicative model of lexicography and views the bilingual dictionary as a system of intercultural communication between the compiler and the user. It starts by setting up a communicative framework for lexicography on the basis of explorations in the nature of the dictionary (Chapter 1), which is followed by a comparative study of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries in regard to lexicographic choices (Chapter 2). It then makes a practical analysis of the influence of modern linguistics upon the development of bilingual lexicography (Chapter 3), discusses its status quo (Chapters 4–8) and probes into its future development (Chapter 9). It deals not only with such theoretical aspects as the nature of the dictionary, the relation of linguistics to bilingual lexicography, typological classification, structural description, and fundamental principles governing intercultural lexicographic communication but also with practical problems regarding the actualization of bilingual dictionary making, revision and supplementation. Throughout the study, focus is laid on English and Chinese bilingual lexicography. Data are mostly drawn from current English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries for general purposes, though a few other bilingual dictionary types written in languages other than English and Chinese are also involved. The present study is undertaken in four steps. First, select and decide upon a reading list for literature review, followed by critical analyses of some interesting relevant points collected from reading. Armed with gains from literature review, the second step is taken to conduct a general survey of major English monolingual and bilingual dictionaries and Chinese bilingual dictionaries. A great deal of data is amassed and many more theoretical and practical issues pop up during the survey. All this forms the basis for this study. Questionnaires are conducted in the third step to elicit data regarding bilingual dictionary users’ language needs and reference skills, which help to work out solutions to some of the problems raised during literature review and the general survey. Finally, a general framework for this presentation is formulated and a step-by-step plan for writing this book is decided and carried out.






The present study intends to achieve the following objectives:

(1) to establish a communicative theory of lexicography on the basis of an exploration concerning the nature of the dictionary;

(2) to work out solutions to problems concerning theoretical and practical aspects of bilingual lexicography within this communicative model;

(3) to predict the trend of future bilingual dictionary designs and conjure up practical images of future bilingual dictionaries.

1.3.2.2 Some terms defined Bidirectional: of a bilingual dictionary consisting of two parts going from L1 (the source language) to L2 (the target language) and from L2 to L1 Bilingual: of a dictionary in which the language of entry words is different from the language used to provide translation equivalents Macrostructure: the way in which entry words are arranged and organized in dictionary text Megastructure: the way in which all the components (i.e. front matter, middle matter, back matter and dictionary text) in a dictionary are arranged and organized Microstructure: the way in which the information in an entry is organized and presented Monodirectional: of a bilingual dictionary going from L1 (the source language) to L2 (the target language) Monolingual: of a dictionary in which the language of entry words and the defining language are the same English-Chinese dictionary: a dictionary whose source language is English and target language is Chinese. Similarly, a English-Latin dictionary is one whose source language is English and target language is Latin Chinese-English dictionary: a dictionary whose source language is Chinese and target language is English. Similarly, a Latin-English dictionary is one whose source language is Latin and target language is English English and Chinese bilingual dictionary: a general term which is used to refer to monodirectional English-Chinese and Chinese-English dictionaries or to refer to a bidirectional bilingual dictionary, which consists of two parts in one of which English is the source language and Chinese the target language and in the other of which Chinese is the source language and English the target language. Similarly, French and English bilingual dictionary refers to monodirectional French-English and English-French dictionaries or to a bidirectional bilingual dictionary, which consists of two parts in one of which English is the source language and French the target language and in the other of which French is the source language and English the target language.

chapter 2

Bilingual lexicography A comparative approach

The communicative model of lexicography treats the dictionary as an interactive system and dictionary making as a dynamic process realized through a series of choices made in the course of lexicographic communication. Different sets of choices categorize dictionaries into different types. The classification of dictionaries into monolingual and bilingual types is established on the basic choice of whether to define lemmata in the language of entry words or to relate “the vocabularies of two languages together by means of translation equivalents” (Hartmann and James 1998:14). Though sharing some common features in megastructural configuration (see Chapter 5) and some common principles in compilation (see Chapter 6), bilingual dictionaries differ from their monolingual counterparts in several other fundamental aspects. This chapter will examine the major options bilingual lexicographers select under each of the three participants within the communicative model of lexicography. It will show by comparison how bilingual dictionaries vary systematically in lexicographic choices from their monolingual counterparts, how dictionary users’ language needs and reference skills vary from monolingual users to bilingual users, and how these variations may affect lexicographers’ choices in intra-cultural and intercultural lexicographic communication. Communicative activities are always performed for certain purposes or functions. Likewise, lexicographic communication also has its specific purposes and functions. A considerable number of studies have been made in the past few decades concerning the lexicographic functions dictionaries are intended for. These studies have been conducted through questionnaires, observation and surveys either from the compiler position or from the position of dictionary context. They have been limited to either monolingual or bilingual dictionaries. Compared with monolingual dictionaries, studies in bilingual dictionaries have fallen far behind, and comparative studies of these two dictionary types seem to be extremely scarce, especially when viewed from the user aspect, which is “still a relatively underdeveloped specialization in lexicography” (Hartmann and James 1998:152). This is




why a great proportion of the present chapter is devoted to the “user aspect” in the communicative model. In 1.1.1, dictionary functions are categorized into three kinds – descriptive, didactic and ideological – which, when fused into the communicative model of lexicography, may be observed and analyzed from three different and yet interrelated perspectives, i.e. “compiler aspect”, “dictionary context” and “user aspect”. Even at this initial point, bilingual dictionaries can be differentiated from monolingual ones in that the former, in normal cases, are chiefly designed for didactic purposes (though they can also be descriptive in a few cases where vernacular languages are involved and the main objective is to record these languages and provide information about them), while the latter may be intended to perform one of the three functions or integrate all three functions into one body: Function

Descriptive

Monolingual Dictionary Bilingual Dictionary

√ √ (?)

Didactic √ √

Ideological √ × (?)

Both dictionary types are endowed with didactic function, which appears to be the only reliable common ground for comparison. It must be made clear at the very outset that monolingual and bilingual dictionaries perform their didactic function by different means. Generally speaking, monolingual dictionaries provide definitions and explanations of words in a language by means of that same language while bilingual ones “coordinate with the lexical units of one language those lexical units of another language which are equivalent in their lexical meaning” (Zgusta 1971:294). This fundamental difference generates a series of contrasts. The following comparison, using the fundamental difference as the starting point, is mainly restricted to the didactic function and will show how bilingual dictionaries contrast with their monolingual counterparts in lexicographic choices and dictionary uses and how these contrasts affect lexicographers’ policies and choices.

2.1 Compiler aspect: choices of perspectives and purposes 2.1.1 Choices of dictionary designs Dictionary function is in the first place embodied in dictionary design. In the historical development of dictionary making, three distinct and yet interrelated models of dictionary designs (the traditional model, the transitional model and the pedagogical model, see Dubois 1981) have emerged, representing three stages of

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

development, the hard word-oriented stage, the descriptively-oriented stage and the user-oriented stage. As the name suggests, the hard-word-oriented stage is assumed to have started from “hard-word” traditions and continued until Webster’s time. Early lexicographers concentrated purely on the linguistic (or, to be more exact, lexical) aspect of their work. They were preoccupied with “hard words”, which were treated essentially from the semantic perspective. Monolingual dictionaries provided definitions and explanations of these hard words, and bilingual dictionaries matched source language hard words with their target language equivalents. Indications as to their pronunciations and grammatical categories were not given until a much later time. This tradition of providing the spelling, pronunciation, part of speech and, most important of all, definitions (or target language equivalents) dominated dictionary making for several centuries without observable changes and has become the most fundamental basis for both monolingual and bilingual dictionary design. The publication of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary shed a great deal of new light upon dictionary making and brought about significant changes in dictionary design, now characterized by descriptivism – the dominant feature of the descriptively-oriented stage. “Hard-word” lexicographers were keen on what words meant and how they should be used, not how they were actually used. The development of modern linguistics, especially descriptive linguistics, has radically altered lexicographers’ view of language and intended functions for dictionaries and has provided penetrating insights into the nature of dictionary making. Dictionaries are no longer thought of as judges prescribing rules for correct usage and deciding do’s and don’ts. Lexicographers are expected to describe the words of a language as they are actually used, not as they are believed to be used. Descriptivism was consistently practised for the first time in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary – a landmark in American lexicography. This dictionary adopts a descriptive approach to the English lexicon, dealing with English words not only from the linguistic dimension but also from the social and cultural dimensions. This approach, though evoking much controversy among lexicographers, linguists and readers at the time (see Sledd and Ebbitt 1962), is now universally acknowledged as one of the fundamental principles for both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. The user-oriented stage started with the appearance of the first English learners dictionary –The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1963). The learners dictionary, which was “designed originally for the English-as-a-foreignlanguage (EFL) market and is now also demanded by teachers and attempted by lexicographers working on languages other than English” (Hartmann 1987:121, in Bailey), did not flourish until the late 1970s, when various editions of Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978), Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the Eng-




lish Language (1987), etc. appeared in close succession. This stage, inheriting the descriptive spirit, is heavily concentrated on learners’ language needs and reference skills. Focus was not merely on the passive use of the dictionary; its active use received even greater attention. Dictionaries should tell not only what words mean individually but also how they mean in connected speech, in the language system, and in real context. Words are not viewed as isolated items; instead they are seen and defined as being intricately interrelated and as constituent parts of the lexical system of language. Words should be described in connection with their potential linguistic and socio-cultural contexts so as to facilitate text production, which takes precedence over text comprehension in the eyes of learners dictionary compilers. The evolution of monolingual dictionary design is a clear manifestation of the profound influence of modern linguistics upon lexicography (see Chapter 3). It has been extremely slow and gradual, but bilingual lexicographers have been quick to react and follow suit. They have even gone so far as to bilingualize some timetested monolingual dictionaries. Bilingualization is a short-cut bilingual lexicographers like to take. This is why learners dictionaries have been bilingualized and imitated from time to time once they are time-tested and become popular. In China, at least four different editions of the English learners dictionary type, for instance the 1984 edition of Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, and the 1988 edition of Longman English-Chinese Dictionary of Contemporary English, have been bilingualized into English-Chinese dictionaries and they have been received with equally wide acclamation. 2.1.2 Choices of lexicographic perspectives Dictionary design is the primary step in initiating and carrying out lexicographic communication. In the course of designing a dictionary, lexicographers are faced with various sets of choices and will make different sets of choices to suit their intended purposes and users. Monolingual and bilingual lexicographers will certainly differ to some extent in the choices they make owing to the inherently different nature of the two dictionary types. The following table gives a sketch of the differences in choices of perspectives between monolingual and bilingual dictionaries:

Choice of perspectives Diachronic Synchronic Descriptive Prescriptive Active Passive

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

Monolingual √ √ √ √ √(?) √

Bilingual × (?) √ √ √ (?) √ √

The overlap in choices of perspective between the two dictionary types is more superficial than real, because the degree of overlap between them varies considerably. Several points deserve our attention. Monolingual and bilingual dictionaries can be synchronic, but the former may be of a lesser degree of synchronicity to cater for a wider range of interests and needs. Therefore it may include more outdated or even obsolete words and meanings of words, if the dictionary aims to serve a larger readership and if its space is not so limited. On the other hand, bilingual dictionaries may attempt to guarantee a greater degree of synchronicity to focus more on the current state of the source language, e.g. contemporary English or Chinese. Their users are more often non-native learners than native speakers of the source language, and they have more practical interests and concerns and expect to fulfil more pragmatic purposes. Monolingual dictionaries can be made on historical principles, but “bi- and pluri-lingual dictionaries are very seldom diachronic” (Malkiel 1967:24). Second, both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries are shown in the table as being descriptive, but the actual situation is such that bilingual lexicographers usually base their work on one or more time-tested monolingual dictionaries, and descriptivism is “borrowed” and transmitted from the monolingual base to the bilingual product. Monolingual dictionaries tend to be more of a prescriptive nature in some special cases. For example, they may be designed to record an already dead language such as Latin and Greek or a dying language; and they may be special-aspect dictionaries (see 4.2.2.1c) such as a pronunciation dictionary or an orthographic dictionary. These dictionaries are not normally written bilingually. They are intended to serve a very limited readership or to perform very restricted functions. Finally, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries can be both active and passive. But in the case of general purpose monolingual dictionaries, there does not seem to be a clear distinction between active and passive types, except when they are designed for foreign learners, like Longman and Cobuild learners dictionaries. General monolingual dictionaries are most often more inclined towards the passive type. When it comes to bilingual dictionaries, there is an absolute necessity to distinguish between active and passive types. Text production and comprehension




are two different learning activities and two different types of bilingual dictionary must be made to meet encoding and decoding needs. 2.1.3 Choices of lexicographic purposes The overlap between the two dictionary types is even more surprising in choices of purposes. The following table shows that they almost completely overlap in this aspect except that, with major world languages, bilingual dictionaries generally are not commonly compiled for purely academic research purposes, though academic purposes may not be uncommon with bilingual dictionaries of less widely used languages. Choice of purposes General Special Encoding Decoding Academic Didactic

Monolingual √ √ √ √ √ √

Bilingual √ √ √ √ √ (?) √

But again, this overlapping between them varies in degree and orientation. For instance, both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries can be differentiated according to purpose, but a monolingual dictionary may be oriented more towards general purposes rather than towards one specific (encoding or decoding) purpose with the exception of learners dictionaries intended for non-native users. Bilingual lexicographers generally believe in a clear distinction between encoding and decoding purposes. A dictionary for all purposes is a dictionary for none. This statement applies more to bilingual dictionaries than to monolingual ones. It is true to some extent that a monolingual dictionary covers a wider range of functions and meets the more varied needs of its users. However, it is quite a different case with a bilingual dictionary. Different types of bilingual dictionaries and different user groups will have to be distinguished. A bilingual dictionary can never serve all purposes and all types of users. A bilingual dictionary for “encoding” will have to be different from one for “decoding” in lexicographic choices. Similarly, a bilingual dictionary for foreign use will in some aspects have to be different from one for native use. Bilingual lexicographers will have to vary their choices to intend their dictionaries for different purposes and cater to different user groups.

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

2.2 Dictionary context Dictionary context is the bridge linking the compiler and the user. It is the situation in which the lexicographic message (i.e. the dictionary) is conceived and the medium through which lexicographic communication is carried out. Dictionary context encompasses three subcategories: field, mode and tenor (see 1.1.3). The following comparison will show how monolingual dictionaries differ from bilingual ones in their choices of major factors constituting each of the three subcategories. 2.2.1 Choices under “Field” “Field” refers to the lexicographic message conceived in the process of dictionary making, the range it covers and the subject area it belongs to. Its major factors include information coverage, language coverage, lexical coverage and subject coverage (see 4.2.2). 2.2.1.1 Information coverage It goes without saying that both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries intended for general purposes are linguistic in nature. They generally provide alphabetical lists of words with their spellings, pronunciations, meanings, parts of speech, etymologies, etc. But in addition to words, monolingual dictionaries can also provide a broader range of information concerning other aspects of human life and knowledge. Some have gone to such an extent as to be called encyclopedic dictionaries. Most monolingual dictionary series include the encyclopedic type. On the other hand, although bilingual dictionaries may contain encyclopedic entries, which are usually most common proper nouns, they are not sufficient to change the nature of the dictionary. Any dictionary survey will show that bilingual encyclopedic dictionaries are not nearly so common as monolingual ones, though monolingual and bilingual dictionaries for special purposes can be equally common. Information coverage Linguistic Encyclopedic Special

Monolingual √ √ √

Bilingual √ √(?) √

2.2.1.2 Language coverage Dictionaries may differ in the number of languages in which they are written, which is often used as a classificatory criterion for dictionary types. The dictionary is monolingual if the source language and the defining language are the same and




bilingual if the source and the defining language are different. However, these two types of dictionaries differ not only in the number of languages in which they are written, but more importantly, in their way of handling the kind of information they present and their intended objectives. A monolingual dictionary explains elements by providing “periphrastic definitions in the same language” (Landau 1989:8) and “thus helps to achieve a more complete command of the language, and naturally is “primarily intended for native speakers” (Garvin 1947). A bilingual dictionary, on the other hand, helps to obtain a more active use of the source language and a better understanding of source language texts by providing target language equivalents. In some dictionaries, more than two languages are involved in the compilation. They are called “multilingual or plurilingual dictionaries.” Some metalexicographers treat them under the “bilingual” category. Language Coverage One language Two or more languages

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ ×

× √

2.2.1.3 Lexical coverage The inclusion of “all the words, locutions, circumlocutions, and idioms that any user might want to look up” in a bilingual dictionary is regarded by Mary R. Haas (1967:45–46) as one of the twelve desiderata of an ideal bilingual dictionary. However, doubt arises as to whether there are any dictionaries that can really come up to this expectation. In comparing monolingual and bilingual learners dictionaries, Atkins (1985:16) comes to this conclusion: In a monolingual, no attempt is made to cover the whole vocabulary, the assumption being that having mastered the most frequent words in the language the learner will graduate to a native speakers’ dictionary. Bilinguals have generally a much more flexible approach to the wordlist, which may vary from the few thousand most frequent items (in a beginners’ dictionary) to coverage as full as that of any native speakers’ monolingual.

Entry selection is determined by a variety of factors, such as the intended purpose, user and size. Both monolingual and bilingual dictionary types may focus on the core part of the language – standard national language, and they do not differ much in the selection of entries in this part of language. But when it comes to other aspects of the lexicon, they show systematic variations. In the selection of dialectal, regional, technical, proper and social and cultural terms, monolingual dictionaries are generally more comprehensive and less restricted than bilingual ones. In unabridged monolingual dictionaries outdated and obsolete words can be

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

constituent items in macrostructure, but these words are generally ousted out of their bilingual counterparts. Nearly all bilingual dictionaries are smaller than monolingual ones, they omit less frequent, obsolete, too technical senses etc., which results in a reduction of the multiple meaning as presented in the dictionary. (Zgusta 1971:327) Lexical Coverage Standard national Dialectal Regional Technical Proper Social and cultural Outdated or obsolete

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ √ √ √ √ √ √(?)

√ √(?) √(?) √(?) √(?) √(?) × (?)

2.2.1.4 Subject coverage Both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries can choose to deal with one specific field of human life and knowledge, such as law, medicine, or computers. They may also choose to deal with one specific aspect of language, like spelling, pronunciation, usage, collocations, and so on. Whether special-field dictionaries should be monolingual or bilingual depends on their intended readership and purposes. However, in the case of special-aspect dictionaries, it is not simply the intended readership and purposes that count. Their subjects and contents can be decisive. It is obvious that an English dictionary designed for spelling or orthographic guidance does not need to be bilingual, but a dictionary of English collocation or usage can be monolingual or bilingual. Subject coverage Special-field Special-aspect

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ √

√ √(?)

2.2.2 Choices under “Mode” “Mode” refers to the way lexicographic message is composed, presented and transmitted. To establish and maintain effective and efficient communication, lexicographers need to make appropriate choices to guarantee that the lexicographic message is conceived, presented and transmitted in the right mode. Such factors as presentation, direction, method and media are all subsumed under “mode”.




2.2.2.1 Presentation There are four basic ways of presenting information in a dictionary: alphabetical, morphemic, semantic and pictorial. Alphabetical presentation is the most common method of setting up macrostructure and organizing information in both dictionary types. Morphemic arrangement would be of interest mainly to linguists. Therefore, it may be used in monolingual dictionaries only occasionally, and under limited special circumstances, but it would be extremely unusual in bilingual dictionaries. Semantic arrangement is chiefly employed in thesauruses, which are mostly written monolingually. Bilingual thesauruses are still rare. Partial presence of pictorial illustration is more frequent in monolingual than in bilingual dictionaries. Illustrated monolingual dictionaries are still quite limited in number and are not in wide use, except for children. Bilingual dictionaries of this type seem to be even more scarce. In Chinese-English dictionaries, word entries are often arranged according to radicals in Chinese characters. This method of arranging Chinese characters is always supplemented by an index of English words arranged in alphabetical order at the back of the book. Chinese headwords in such dictionaries can also be arranged on the basis of the Pinyin system (the romanization system), as in John DeFrancis’ ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (see 5.2.2). Presentation

Monolingual

Bilingual

Alphabetical Morphemic Semantic Pictorial

√ √(?) √ √

√ × (?) √ (?) √ (?)

2.2.2.2 Direction In terms of directionality, monolingual dictionaries can only be monodirectional due to their monolingual nature, but bilingual dictionaries can be monodirectional or bidirectional (see 5.4.1). A bilingual dictionary will have to consist of two parts and be bidirectional if it is intended for major world language speakers of both foreign-to-native use and native-to-foreign use, though some vernacularEnglish bilingual dictionaries could be a combination of a monodirectional dictionary plus a word finder. Direction Monodirectional Bidirectional

Monolingual

bilingual

√ ×

√ √

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

2.2.2.3 Defining method Both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries can be written according to different lexicographic principles and policies. However, their entry words are defined by different methods. Monolingual dictionaries define words by providing explanations in the language of the entry word, but bilingual dictionaries can employ the techniques of “translation equivalent” and “bilingualization” (see James 1998, in Huang & Chen [eds]). Bilingual lexicographers have to accommodate lexical items of both the source and target languages in their dictionary. They may establish equivalence between the language pair and explain source language lexical items by means of translation equivalents. They can translate definitions in monolingual dictionaries to make them bilingual. Bilingualization is now one of the quickest methods for producing bilingual dictionaries. It is being practiced in China, India, and some other parts of the world. The base for bilingualization is usually a time-tested monolingual dictionary. Method Explanation Translation equivalent, Bilingualization

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ × (?)

√ √

2.2.2.4 Transmission media The dictionary is conceived as a system for communication between the compiler and the user. The medium through which lexicographic message (i.e. the dictionary text) is transmitted has become an important factor to consider. As far as the medium for lexicographic communication is concerned, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries do not display any differences. In modern times, both dictionary types employ printing and multimedia technology. Multimedia dictionaries have several advantages over printed dictionaries. Electronic dictionaries, for example, have the features of being information-compact, multifunctional, user-friendly and easy to carry. Internet dictionaries are highly commended for their dynamism of the medium, which is represented by its flexibility in editing the text and in encouraging the user to feel free to add and revise. Paper dictionaries, once printed, are impossible to correct and revise, unless a new edition is planned, but that requires time, sometimes so much as to make the revised edition out of date again when it comes out. In the case of internet dictionaries, the compiler may edit, add, delete, modify and update any part of the text any time he feels it appropriate to do so, and the user, “the Internet’s most valuable resource” (Carr 1997:214), is supposed to revise or make suggestions for revisions if he does not feel satisfied with certain items. “This ‘bottom-up’ editing




may prove to be the most significant transformation of cyberlexicography” (Carr 1997:214) and may turn out to be the perfect means of achieving smooth and successful communication between the compiler and the user. Media Print Multimedia

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ √

√ √

2.2.3 Choices under “Tenor” “Tenor” refers to interpersonal relations between the compiler and the user and their possible effect upon lexicographic choices and the course of dictionary making. In the eyes of dictionary users, compilers usually assume the same role, i.e. that of a language authority, but users are extremely varied. Different groups of users have different needs and expectations. In lexicographic communication, lexicographers will vary their policies and methods to suit the needs and expectations of different user groups, just as one uses different tones and different language to talk to different people. A dictionary for adults is definitely different from one for children in affectivity, to say nothing of other basic distinctions. The users’ role in dictionary making and their influence upon compilers are indirect and were overlooked in past lexicographic studies, but now they are receiving due attention in the communicative approach to lexicography. Dictionary making is becoming a mutual communication between lexicographers and their intended users. 2.2.3.1 Source language speakers, target language speakers or both “Tenor” is not so much a problem for monolingual lexicographers as their bilingual counterparts. A primary problem in the composition of a bilingual dictionary is to decide whether the work is intended principally for the speakers of X-language or the speakers of Y-language. It is clearly impossible to pay equal attention to both Xspeakers and Y-speakers in one and the same work. (Harrell 1967:51)

Harrell also points out that “to speak of composing a bilingual dictionary of X language and Y language is a misapprehension. There are various possible varieties of bilingual dictionaries of X and Y languages.” Harrell’s remarks are relevant to most bilingual dictionaries, but lexicographers will have different concerns and considerations when they target their projects at different user groups. Bilingual dictionaries aiming at speakers of both languages should at least be bidirectional to meet the minimum standard, so that one book actually comprises two dictionaries.

Intended user Source language speakers Target language speakers Both SL and TL speakers

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ × × (?)

√ √ √(?)

2.2.3.2 Reference-oriented users or active-learning users Under the superficial overlapping shown in the following table lie a number of dissimilarities between the two dictionary types, resulting from differences in user types. Different needs, expectations and purposes for dictionary use identify reference-oriented users from active-learning users. Active language learners form a special group of dictionary users. They differ from reference-oriented users because they concentrate more on the active use of language. Among language learners, native learners may differ from non-native learners in what they expect of their dictionaries. It deserves more extensive exploration how active language learners are different from general users and native learners from non-native learners, and in what specific aspects. Studies in these differences will provide remarkable insights into how these differences will affect lexicographic choices and eventually the effect of communication between lexicographers and their users and how bilingual dictionaries aimed at reference-oriented users and active learning users should be made differently to satisfy their respective needs. “User aspect” in the following section (2.3) will reveal some inclinations on the part of dictionary users and serve as a stimulus for further studies.

Reference-oriented audience Active-learning audience

Monolingual

Bilingual

√ √(?)

√ √

2.3 User aspect: language needs and reference skills In some parts of the world, dictionary making can be traced back several millennia, but the users’ role in this process and their image of the dictionary did not attract the attention of dictionary makers until the 1970s. The pioneering study in this connection was undertaken by Barnhart (1967) in the USA, Quirk (1972a, in McDavid and Duckert, 1973) in England and was followed by Bejoint (1981), Greenbaum (1984) and some others. Their studies concentrate on the use of monolingual English dictionaries by native speakers or by non-native students. A few others like Baxter (1980) and Snell-Hornby (1984, 1986), however, conducted




some research into the use of bilingual dictionaries by students of foreign languages, especially English. These studies may not be coherent, extensive, or thoroughgoing, and the validity of some of their findings may still be open to question. Nevertheless, they are significant in that they have brought the dictionary user into the lexicographic scene and have drawn lexicographers’ attention to their possible effect on the choices and decisions to be made in lexicographic communication. As a result, lexicographic communication is becoming more user-driven, user- oriented and user-friendly. This section reports the findings of a survey conducted in South China universities to elicit responses concerning reference skills and language needs on the part of Chinese bilingual dictionary users and constructed to facilitate comparison with Quirk’s (1972a:70–88, in McDavid and Duckert 1973) and Greenbaum’s (1984:31– 51) findings. 195 students sent back their responses, which furnish the basis for the formation of conclusions concerning how dictionary uses may vary from monolingual users to bilingual users and how these variations may affect lexicographers’ choices in intracultural and intercultural lexicographic communication. 2.3.1 Ownership of dictionaries All subjects of this questionnaire are university students of English, among them 44 freshmen, 46 sophomores, 51 juniors and 54 seniors. They represent the great majority of both monolingual and bilingual dictionary users in China. In their responses to family ownership of dictionaries, all of them claim to possess dictionaries. 68% of the subjects claim to have more than three dictionaries, 16% have three, 13% have two, 3% have only one. Number of dictionary Subject percentage

One

Two

Three

More than three

3

13

16

68

Among the dictionaries they claim to possess, 94% claim to have English-Chinese (E-C) dictionaries, 73% have Chinese-English (C-E) dictionaries, 71% have English-English (E-E) dictionaries, and 68% have Chinese dictionaries. (There is considerable overlap in the statistics calculation, as subjects were allowed to make more than one choice where appropriate.) Dictionary type Subject percentage

E-C

C-E

E-E

Chinese

94

73

71

68

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography

Among the 195 subjects, 72% claim to have one English-English dictionaries, 21% have two, 4% have three, and only 3% have more than three; and in the case of English-Chinese and Chinese-English dictionaries, 20% claim to have one, 32% have two, 25% have three, and 23% have more than three. Number of Dictionary

One

Two

Three

More than three

E-E E-C and C-E

72% 20%

21% 32%

4% 25%

3% 23%

These statistics show at this initial stage that subjects have an obvious preference for bilingual dictionaries as 80% of them have two or more English-Chinese and Chinese-English dictionaries and only 28% have two or more English-English dictionaries. The number and type of dictionaries owned by the subjects are determined by frequency of use, which is in agreement with Quirk’s findings. Among the 195 students, 65% report using English-Chinese dictionaries every day, 8% once or twice a week, 21% more than twice a week, and only 4% once or twice a month. 2.3.2 Reasons for dictionary use The need to consult word meanings is the dominant reason for dictionary use by Chinese students, which echoes Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s findings. Again, 77% of the 195 subjects report using English-Chinese dictionaries to find meanings, 10% to find pronunciation, 7% to find spellings, and 6% to find usage. This list is only slightly different from Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s, which lists spelling immediately after meaning and pronunciation far behind other reasons. This shows meaning, spelling, pronunciation and usage are the primary reasons for dictionary use by Chinese students, though the subjects in Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s questionnaires may not find pronunciation and usage such great problems as their Chinese counterparts do. Except for meaning, pronunciation, spelling and usage, there are other reasons for consulting the dictionary, which fall into the following minor categories:

Word classes Word origins Synonyms and antonyms Linguistic and stylistic varieties Word collocations

Yes

Sometimes

Very rarely

No

33% 6% 11% 13% 56%

42% 29% 52% 35% 34%

21% 41% 29% 34% 7%

4% 4% 8% 18% 3%






The responses concerning the above minor categories have borne out some of our predictions. Among the minor categories word collocations are expected to be the most frequently consulted, as they are believed to be one of the main obstacles to text production, and word origins to be the least frequently consulted. Surprisingly, some of the subjects failed to realize that English-Chinese dictionaries might contain etymological information. The frequent use of the dictionary for word finding (e.g. synonyms) accounts for a tiny percentage in Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s questionnaire, 8% and 14% respectively. Their survey participants turn to a more specialized work – a thesaurus or a word finder – for this purpose. However, 68% of our subjects claim to have used their dictionary for this purpose, and 52% with much higher frequency. Only 8% have reported never using their dictionary for this purpose and 24% very rarely. It is saddening to find 52% of the subjects report having never or very rarely consulted information about linguistic and stylistic varieties like “American English” and “formal”. Native speakers may not be sensitive to it, but the inclusion of such information can substantially increase linguistic and cultural awareness of bilingual dictionary users, and it is an invaluable guidance to the appropriate use of language. As to word classes, in Quirk’s questionnaire 27 out of 217 subjects say they are in the habit of looking up words to get information on word classes. Only 25 (10%) of Greenbaum’s subjects report that they consult a dictionary frequently for information on parts of speech, 105 (44%) report they do it occasionally, and nearly half of the subjects (46%) say “rarely” or “never”. However, the percentage was found to be much higher in our survey. 75% of the subjects claim to have consulted information about word classes in English-Chinese dictionaries, 4% disclaim any interest in it, and 21% show very rare interest. This has to do with the fact that some English words can be used in the form of several word classes and are a problem to foreign students of English, but not to native speakers. Dictionary users are sometimes blamed for not making full use of their dictionaries. One of the supposed reasons for this is that they fail to read the front and back matter in their dictionaries. Responses in this regard show that 44% of the subjects report having read Guide to the Use of the Dictionary at the front of the dictionary, but more than half of the subjects (56%) have never or very rarely done it. This suggests that dictionary users should be urged or taught to read the front matter in the dictionary. On the other hand, such matter should not be written in a highly technical language. With regard to the back matter, 57% report having consulted information like tables and appendices at the back of the dictionary and 43% admit having never or very rarely done so. It is clear from the questionnaire that the most frequently consulted information in the back matter is personal and place names (64%), followed by geographical and historical information (31%), a table of irregular verbs (24%) and tables of measurements (11%). (Overlapping

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

occurs here again due to the fact that subjects are allowed to make more than one choice where suitable.) The survey in 5.1.3 indicates that the most frequently consulted information in back matter is unfortunately missing in all the four bilingual dictionaries consulted. Although only 12% report having difficulty in understanding the labels and codes in English-Chinese dictionaries and 1% having great difficulty, it is not difficult to understand dictionary users’ reluctance to go to the front and back matter for information they expect to find. Lexicographers must make a careful study of the kind of information to be included in the front and back matter, design more readily intelligible codes and labels to represent it and enhance dictionary users’ awareness of the importance of those parts of the dictionary in order to make most efficient use of the dictionary. One last reason for dictionary use is closely linked to the activities students engage in when they learn a foreign language. Just as expected, English-Chinese dictionaries are most often used for reading (66%), and for this activity subjects most probably use dictionaries to find meanings and pronunciations of new words. The frequency of dictionary use for translating (36%) is higher than that for writing (29%). (Here again, overlapping occurs for the same reason as above). Translation from English into Chinese demands the use of English-Chinese dictionaries, but in the case of translation from Chinese to English, Chinese-English dictionaries are used, together with English-Chinese dictionaries. Translators may easily find English equivalents (usually more than one) for Chinese words and expressions, but they still need to turn to English-Chinese or English-English dictionaries from time to time to decide the right candidates and make sure about the idiomatic use of those translation equivalents. Owing to the spontaneous nature of “listening” and “speaking”, only a tiny 5% of the subjects report using the dictionary for these activities. 2.3.3 Dictionary deficiency No dictionary can always meet all expectations of dictionary users. What should be done is to find out what deficiencies exist in the dictionary and how they can be removed, remedied or avoided. In our survey 83% of the subjects report having experienced disappointment in using their English-Chinese dictionary, only 7% report “no” and 10% report “very rarely”. The causes for their disappointment include “unsatisfactory usage guidance” (48%), “words missing” (47%), “unsatisfactory definitions” (26%) and “difficulty in understanding the codes or difficult words” (26%). Chinese students of English express stronger dissatisfaction about word usage and vocabulary coverage than about definitions, while in Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s




surveys, dissatisfaction with word definitions appears to be greater than with word usage. In Quirk’s questionnaire “an overwhelming majority of university students apparently experience difficulty in understanding the metalanguage in which definition is expressed” (Quirk 1972a, in McDavid and Duckert 1973). In Greenbaum’s survey, “of the 96 specifications of deficiencies, the largest categories were shortcomings in definitions and absence of words”. “Over half of the students reported at least occasional difficulty in understanding definitions” which “gave them less information about the meaning of a word than they already knew” (Greenbaum 1984). In Quirk’s questionnaire, this number rose to nearly 80% (175 out of 220 subjects). This is especially true of science subjects. Other deficiencies mentioned more than once in Greenbaum’s investigation are failures to find spellings and etymologies, which do not appear in our questionnaire. 2.3.4 Frequency of dictionary use Among the 195 subjects, 65% use English-Chinese dictionaries every day, 10% once or twice a week, 21% more than twice a week, and 4% once or twice a month. Apparently, 96% of the subjects use English-Chinese dictionaries daily or weekly. This high frequency of dictionary use indicates that Chinese students of English rely more on the dictionary to solve problems than their American and British counterparts. In Greenbaum’s investigation, 159 out of 235 subjects (about 67%) report using a dictionary daily or at least once a week and 63 (about 26%) monthly. Quirk’s survey shows that 74 out of 220 subjects (about 34%) use the dictionary weekly, 82 monthly, and 64 infrequently. The less strong dependency of American and British users on monolingual English dictionaries is evidenced by the fact that they consult the dictionary much less frequently than Chinese bilingual dictionary users. Responses to whether English-Chinese dictionaries should be consulted more often reveal a lack of confidence in such dictionaries. Only a slim majority (57%) answer “yes”. 33% express their reservations and only partly agree. 5% express their disagreement and another 5% say they have no idea. Comparative studies show that Greenbaum’s subjects share this lack of confidence with Chinese students. Only 54% (130 of 239) of Greenbaum’s subjects think they should consult a dictionary more often. The important reasons are to look up meanings, to check spelling and to increase vocabulary. Even so, they still cherish high expectations of English-Chinese dictionaries, which are considered by 65% of the subjects more helpful for learning English than English-English dictionaries. On the other hand, English-English dictionaries are thought to be more helpful in getting rid of native language interference (86%) and in understanding English cultural words (55%). Obviously, Chinese students of English use English-Chinese dictionaries and English-English diction-

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

aries for different purposes. Users will find English-Chinese dictionaries more satisfactory and user-friendly if English-Chinese lexicographers make a careful study of how English-English dictionaries help users get rid of native language interference, understand English cultural words and improve their strategies and techniques in dictionary making. 2.3.5 Reference needs Dictionaries contain different kinds of words. Some of them are common, and some are uncommon. Some of them are technical and some are not. Some of them are functional, and some are lexical. Frequency of reference to entry words varies with their kinds and users’ reference needs. According to our investigation, the most frequently visited word entries are difficult words (67%), followed by slang and colloquial words (28%), common words (25%), cultural words (24%) and structural words like prepositions and conjunctions (20%). Proper words are the least frequently consulted. The activity of “reading” is the most important reason for dictionary use, and the meaning of words is the most often consulted kind of information. It follows that difficult words are the most frequently visited word entries because they are most likely to be encountered in the course of reading. The frequency of reference to structural words is surprisingly low, which is quite contrary to our expectation. When asked whether they often consult functional words, only 20% of the subjects give a positive answer, 49% report doing it sometimes, 27% very rarely, and 5% never. This situation is conditioned by whether subjects are more often engaged in encoding or decoding. Encoding requires more frequent consultation of structural words than decoding. English has almost completed its transition from the synthetic language type to the analytical language type. As a result, structural words like conjunctions and prepositions play an increasingly significant role in meaning formation. One of the common occasions on which users turn to the dictionary is when they come across a new word in their reading. Responses to the questionnaire show that an overwhelming majority of users try to find both meaning and pronunciation of the new word that is encountered. 19% only consult meaning, 12% try to find information about usage, and 7% only want to know its pronunciation. Though readers are encouraged to guess the meanings of new words from context, they still cannot do away with the dictionary. Even when new idioms are encountered in reading, 71% of the subjects report looking them up in dictionaries, only 7% say “no” and 22% say “very rarely”. No statistical evidence in this aspect is provided in Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s studies, but frequency of reference to these items should be relatively low, and native learners’ dependency upon dictionaries




for the meanings of words and idioms should not be so strong as that of their Chinese counterparts. 2.3.6 Definition structuring Definitions form the nucleus of dictionary messages and the minimal prerequisite for lexicographic communication. Examples and illustrations are continuations and extensions of definitions. Like spelling and pronunciation, they are supporting factors in lexicographic communication. They supplement and reinforce definitions. Definitions may be written with or without any restrictions on the defining vocabulary. Definitions written in limited simple words are most popular in English monolingual learners dictionaries. Academics expressed more disapproval than approval (see Fox 1989, in Tickoo), but most Chinese students of English show a strong preference for them. 76% of the subjects favor definitions written in simple words and think they were more helpful for understanding English words. 24% believe definitions without any restrictions on the defining vocabulary are more helpful. As to whether English-Chinese dictionaries should give definitions only or give definitions and examples, 99% of the subjects choose the latter, and only 1% say “definitions only”. Examples help students understand the meaning of the word and learn its usage in context, though they may be truncated in some way. Definition deficiency is one of the common complaints British and American students make in Quirk’s and Greenbaum’s research. The reason is that “the definitions occasionally gave them less information about the meaning of a word than they already knew.” Should English-Chinese dictionaries then give complete definitions of every word? 61% of our subjects are in the affirmative, and 39% hold a negative attitude. This statistic figure echoes their complaints to some extent. Polysemy is one of the complicated problems lexicographers have to deal with in dictionary making. It is also a big headache to Chinese students of English. 94% of the subjects find “words with a lot of meanings difficult” in their learning of English. Only 2% do not have such an experience and 5% say “very rarely”. As for the utility of examples and pictorial illustrations, the majority of our subjects (94% for examples and 80% for pictorial illustrations) agree that they were very helpful, which further testifies to their preference of “definitions and examples” over “definitions only” in English-Chinese dictionaries. 2.3.7 Selection of lexical and information items It has been quite controversial whether dictionaries should contain such very common words as water, air and dog. For almost all lexicographers the answer is

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

not easy. They must be included in the dictionary, because they represent the most common elements of human life and form an essential part of the macrostructure of the dictionary. But dictionary users seem to differ much in this aspect. 78% of our subjects support the inclusion of those words in English-Chinese dictionaries while 22% oppose their inclusion. But only 53 out of 220 subjects in Quirk’s studies favor the omission of the “easy” matter, to which 164 subjects are opposed. Actually, what really matters is not their inclusion: the real problem is what other information about those lexical items should be provided beside their conceptual meaning and how it should be processed in an intelligible way. However, there is almost unanimous agreement among the subjects regarding the selection of information about usage, slang and taboo words, encyclopedic entries and pronunciation. Over 90% of the subjects adopt a positive attitude towards the inclusion of usage essays, slang and taboo words and more than one pronunciation. 85% support the inclusion of encyclopedic entries in English-Chinese dictionaries. This percentage is much higher than that (63%) in Greenbaum’s investigation and that (43%) in Quirk’s. 123 out of 219 subjects in Quirk’s studies reject the inclusion of encyclopedic entries in dictionaries. This wide gap between Chinese subjects and British and American subjects in percentage results from a strong interest in the cultural aspect of the English vocabulary on the part of Chinese subjects and their strong dependency on encyclopedic entries for cultural information and an inherent awareness of this aspect of English life and a less strong dependency on the part of British and American subjects. 2.3.8 Grammatical labeling The treatment of the grammar of words is one of the causes of disappointment experienced by users of English-Chinese dictionaries. Putting aside the inadequacy of grammatical information, the way to label word grammar may also be a cause of confusion. There are mainly four ways to label the grammar of a word in English monolingual dictionaries: glosses or notes, specially-designed codes, specially-written essays, and simple language. Our investigation indicates that 59% of the subjects think English-Chinese dictionaries should use glosses or notes to explain the grammar of a word. 19% prefer simple language, and 17% specially-written essays. Only 5% say specially-designed codes should be used. Glosses and notes have the advantage of being conspicuous, succinct and easily understandable. Though 87% claim to have no or little difficulty in understanding the labels and codes in English-Chinese dictionaries and only 1% say they have great difficulty, only 5% hold the view that specially-designed codes should be used. The system of grammatical labeling in existing English-Chinese dictionaries is not so complicated as that in English monolingual dictionaries. Most such dictionaries




do not have a system at all. It is not surprising that English-Chinese dictionary users report negatively on labels and codes because they are not many in number and do not contain much information. One may even wonder whether dictionary users actually take notice of their presence in the dictionary. 2.3.9 General image of the dictionary There are numerous editions of English and Chinese dictionaries on the book market. In order to find out what kind of English-Chinese dictionary the user will prefer to buy, the questionnaire provides four choices: (a) one which fully deals with both words and other aspects of human life and knowledge, (b) one which only deals with words fully, (c) one which deals fully with words but other aspects of human life and knowledge only briefly, and (d) one which briefly deals with both words and other aspects. 48% of our subjects chose (a), 32% choose (c), 13% chose (d), and 7% chose (b). In the minds of Quirk’s subjects, the criterion of absolute completeness for the general image of the dictionary is strongly supported. This sentiment is not so apparent in our survey, but it is easy to see most Chinese students’ wish for a comprehensive treatment of words and other aspects of human life and knowledge, at least a complete treatment of lexical items. 2.3.10 Summary This brief contrastive analysis of the questionnaire results has rich and significant implications for lexicographers, dictionary users and publishers. It provides illuminating and inspiring insights into how intercultural lexicographic communication can be made more effective, more efficient and more innovative. First, from this survey bilingual lexicographers should gain more confidence from their work, because our subjects show an obvious preference for bilingual dictionaries, though they use them alongside monolingual ones. That indicates that the bilingual dictionary is an indispensable tool for learning foreign languages and should not be undervalued, as some claim. Second, bilingual dictionaries must be improved and elevated to a higher level. The above analysis reveals serious deficiencies in exisiting bilingual dictionary designs. “Unsatisfactory usage guidance”, “words missing”, “unsatisfactory definitions” and “difficulty in understanding the codes and difficult words” are the most common shortcomings and, therefore, are the common causes of disappointment in using the bilingual dictionary. It is not surprising that the percentage of our subjects’ consultation of “usage” is only 6%. There is no satisfactory information about “usage” for them to consult. This deficiency raises the fundamental issue of whether one bilingual dictionary can perform both “decoding” and “encoding”

Chapter 2. Bilingual lexicography 

functions or whether there should be a division of labor between bilingual dictionaries focusing on “lexical meaning” (passive) and bilingual dictionaries focusing on “lexical usage” (active). Third, this survey reveals a great deal about users’ language needs and reference skills and the justifications for the use of bilingual dictionaries, which sheds a flood of light upon how future bilingual dictionary design can be improved. Fourth, this survey portrays a promising picture of what a bilingual dictionary can be like and what should be done to make this promising picture realistic. All this provides much food for further thought and exploration in the succeeding chapters. The user aspect used to be overlooked in previous studies of lexicographic communication. The users’ role in the process of dictionary making and their possible influence upon lexicographic choices did not receive due attention. Lexicographers can benefit immensely from user feedback through questionnaires, surveys and discussions and their participation in lexicographic communication. In fact, direct user involvement in lexicographic communication occurred in the early 1900s, as in the case of The Oxford English Dictionary, and is strongly encouraged by modern lexicographers carrying out internet dictionary projects. It helps lexicographers to know more about user needs and expectations, to modify their policies and choices and to incorporate their findings into their work. It makes lexicographic communication truly interactive between the compiler and the user, signifying the advent of new trends in lexicographic practice and research and new conceptions about the nature and the function of the dictionary. In the following four chapters (chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6), we will concentrate on such general aspects as the relation of modern linguistics to bilingual lexicography, bilingual dictionary typology and structural description, and fundamental principles governing intra- and intercultural lexicographic communication. These chapters will serve as the transitional background for dealing with specific problems in Chapters 7 and 8 and for working towards ideal bilingual dictionary design in Chapter 9.

chapter 3

Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography

In the history of language studies, the twentieth century is definitely the most noteworthy period in terms of its dimensions, depth and width, pace of development and interdisciplinary inquiries. As a result of continuous challenges to existing schools of thought, this century has witnessed the birth of several competing schools of linguistics, notably structural linguistics, transformational generative linguistics, systemic functional linguistics, not to mention case grammar, stratificational grammar and others. Language studies in this century have gone beyond the traditional ontological model and have integrated sociocultural and psychological aspects into their framework, which has substantially pushed language studies to a higher level of theoretical integration and sophistication. The development of various schools of linguistics has contributed a great deal to its self-perfection and the study of relevant disciplines. It has brought about the flourishing of various branches of linguistics as well – sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, semantics, language variety theories, and so on. Lexicography, which used to be considered a special branch of linguistics, or according to some of lexicology, has benefited immensely from the development of linguistics and its various branches. That explains why both theoretical and practical aspects of lexicography have undergone unprecedented advances in the past three decades. Based on successful experience in compiling English monolingual dictionaries, this chapter will examine how modern linguistics (mainly grammar, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, etc.) has affected various aspects of intracultural lexicographic communication and how its influence will be extended to intercultural lexicographic communication, in particular English and Chinese bilingual dictionary making.

3.1 Grammar and bilingual lexicography Knowing a language does not mean merely knowing its sounds and how their sequences signify different concepts. An essential part of knowing a language is knowing how these sequences are combined into connected speech. It is not




enough to know the meaning and sound of words in a language. It is essentail to know the rules governing the combination of words into larger linguistic units, e. g. sentences and texts. Lexicographers’ primary concern is to present the sounds, spellings and meanings of words in their communication with the user. However, the question of whether the information about the grammar of words should be conveyed to the user perplexed several generations of lexicographers. It is universally acknowledged that word grammar is an indispensable part of linguistic competence. No dictionaries for non-native speakers can afford to omit this part of dictionary information. Even for native users, it sometimes proves to be particularly necessary and helpful. Word grammar, which enhances the active use of language, should undoubtedly become part of the message lexicographers transmit to their intended users. Standardization is one of the social needs out of which dictionaries arise. It is also one of the social functions dictionaries are supposed to fulfil. The eighteenthcentury British scholars felt the need to standardize and regulate the English language. They seriously endeavoured to reduce the English language to rules and set up standards of correct usage, to refine it and to fix it permanently in the desired form, which turned out to be “expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify” (Johnson 1755: Preface). The most far-reaching outcome was Dr. Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1755). It grew out of the need to establish a generally accepted orthographic system for the English language and to remove defects in it and purify it. It is understandable why the problem of orthography and purification and the description of conceptual meaning of the entry word became the number one concern in his dictionary while the grammar of the word was almost totally ignored. Things have changed radically since the beginning of the twentieth century. The introduction of the grammar of words into the dictionary text is one of the most striking features that make twentieth century dictionaries different from previous ones, reflecting the great impact of grammatical research in the previous century upon dictionary making. The seminal idea of including word grammar in the dictionary originated from the awareness that non-native learners of foreign languages may have different reference needs. It was first expressed in Henry Sweet’s A Practical Study of Languages (1972). Sweet believed that a thoroughly useful dictionary…ought to give full information about those grammatical constructions which characterize individual words, and cannot be deduced with certainty and ease from a simple grammatical rule. (Sweet 1972)

Sweet’s idea was not put into practice until 1938, when Harold Palmer published A Grammar of English Words, a combination of an English dictionary and grammar

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

which partly echoed Sweet’s early call. This book was later developed into A Grammatical Dictionary of English Words, a cornerstone of all learners’ dictionaries that came after it. Palmer was the first to introduce verb patterns into the dictionary. He summarized different verb uses into 27 verb patterns and at each verb entry provided information about which verb pattern the verb belongs to. This practice was inherited and extensively reinforced by A. S. Hornby, author of the first English learners dictionary The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1963). As a teacher of English to Japanese students for over two decades, Hornby strongly felt the need for a different type of dictionary, which could facilitate not only text comprehension but also text production. The result was Idiomatic and Syntactic English Dictionary, which came out in Japan in 1942 and was re-titled The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English when published by the Oxford University Press in 1963. It was not prefixed with the title “Oxford” until the third Oxford edition came out in 1974. Obviously, the pioneering work the nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century grammarians did in the field of English grammar paved the way for Hornby’s systematic introduction of word grammar into his dictionary. Nouns and verbs are major word classes in the English language. They play an especially important role in the learning of English. Function words like prepositions and articles, though limited in number, also present constant problems to learners of English. After teaching English in Japan for over two decades, Hornby knew better than any native scholars of English how non-native learners of English differed from native learners in reference needs and what their reference needs were. It is not at all surprising that Hornby concentrated on nouns and verbs and gave unusual attention to collocations of these content words with function words like prepositions and articles. Hornby was the first English scholar to make a distinction between countable and uncountable nouns and give labels like countability and uncountability before definitions of each noun entry. As for verbs, Hornby made a careful study of Palmer’s verb patterns and introduced many modifications and improvements. He summarized verb uses into 25 major types and a number of subtypes and provided corresponding labels before definitions of each verb entry. In Hornby’s dictionary the grammar of words included not only morphological and syntactical information but also a description of co-occurrence between lexical items. A great deal of space was devoted to collocations of nouns and verbs with prepositions. Hornby’s work set a precedent for subsequent dictionaries to integrate word grammar into the dictionary text. The year 1978 witnessed the birth of another important learners dictionary – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. In the front matter of this dictionary there is a section Grammar in the Dictionary, which states the compilers’ policy of handling word grammar in the dictionary.




The section title reflects the compilers’ perception of the role of grammar in the dictionary, which is viewed as nothing but an appendage to the dictionary text, a view held by a great majority of lexicographers until then. It is interesting to note that this section title was changed to Grammar and the Dictionary in the 1987 edition. The coordinating construction in the section title manifests a radical change of compilers’ attitude towards grammar in the dictionary. The grammar is regarded as a neighbouring discipline of lexicography and the grammar of words is an indispensable part of the dictionary text, not an appendage of it. Longman’s way of handling word grammar in the dictionary is a great advancement and improvement upon Hornby’s work and has set up an excellent example for future lexicographers to follow. A survey of English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries will show that the description of word grammar is still a serious problem in such dictionaries, especially in Chinese-English dictionaries. English and Chinese bilingual lexicographers will have to draw on successful experiences in the compilation of English monolingual dictionaries in order to enrich the content of their own work and increase its quality so as to promote intercultural lexicographic communication. Three problems demand immediate attention in dealing with the word grammar in English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries: entry arrangement, grammatical labeling, and selection of grammatical information. Alphabetical arrangement of word entries is a common practice in conventional dictionaries. Disagreement may arise among linguists and lexicographers over whether a derivative, a compound or a set phrase should be regarded as a single grammatical unit and whether it should be entered as a main entry or a run-on in the dictionary. In On Specifying Grammatical Form and Function, Cowie (1983:99–107, in Hartmann) discussed various cases of treatment of these items and the motivations for such treatment in British and American monolingual English dictionaries. The stem from which the lexical item is derived, the grammatical class to which it belongs, and the semantic relation it has to the stem can all affect its positioning in the monolingual dictionary structure. In bilingual dictionaries, however, different methods of treatment should be used for different types. The straight word-by-word alphabetic arrangement (see 5.2.2) of entry words should be adopted for the passive type, and derivatives and compounds should be positioned as main entries if their meaning structure is relatively independent of the stem. But for the active type, the morphological form and the semantic relation, which may easily excite morphological and semantic associations with the stem to which it is related, should take precedence over the grammatical classification. Therefore, the nest alphabetic arrangement of entry words should always be favored over the straight alphabetic method, and derivatives and compounds should be treated in the nest under the headword.

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

Word grammar may affect the arrangement of word entries in bilingual dictionaries. More importantly, it may also affect their utility, especially when they are intended for “encoding” purposes. So the proper labeling of word grammar should be an essential part of bilingual lexicographers’ work. Grammatical labeling in bilingual dictionaries is usually given to open-class words, and closed-class words do not need such labeling. Closed-class words usually carry syntactic and structural markers themselves. These markers are made explicit in their functional explanations, which are phrased in the target language in the bilingual dictionary entry. Grammatical labeling of open-class words is usually achieved by means of “code systems”, but in some bilingual dictionaries, specially-written essays, specially-designed tables, diagrams, notes and glosses are also possible. Different word classes will require different code systems to reflect their respective structural and syntactic features. Abbreviations and symbols used in the code systems must be shortened from common grammatical terms in popular grammar books. They must be clear, succinct and easily intelligible. Take English nouns for example. The following code system can be devised for an English-Chinese dictionary, either using English abbreviations or explicit Chinese expressions:

[n]→ noun [c]→ countable noun [u]→ uncountable noun [pl.]→ noun or one of its senses used in the plural form [usu. pl.]→ noun or one of its senses usually used in the plural form [sing.]→ noun or one of its senses used in the singular form [usu. sing.] → noun or one of its senses used in the singular form [sl./pl.]→ noun whose singular and plural form are the same [n + pl. v]→ noun followed by the plural form of the verb [n + sl. v]→ noun followed by the singular form of the verb [n +sl./pl. v]→ noun followed by either the singular or the plural form of the verb [the + n]→ noun preceded by the definite article [n + to do]→ noun followed by the infinitive [n + for, etc.]→ noun followed by the preposition “for”, etc. [n + that]→ noun followed by that-clause

Now some remarks will be made in relation to the third problem raised above. The selection of grammatical information in bilingual dictionaries largely depends on dictionary types, their intended user and purpose. Bilingual dictionaries for children are not usually based on grammatical classifications. Word entries are not usually marked by parts of speech. Neither is sense division of each entry. No other grammatical information than labels of parts of speech at each entry is found in most simplified pocket and desk dictionaries of the bilingual type. Unabridged




bilingual dictionaries like Lu Gusun’s The English-Chinese Dictionary (1989–1991) tend to be as sparing as pocket dictionaries in providing information concerning word grammar. It is supposed that bilingual dictionaries for learners should be consistently and systematically furnished with such information, but in most cases they are found to be stripped of leaves and twigs, with only the trunk remaining in the dictionary macrostructural organization. To meet basic requirements, active bilingual dictionaries should include all or most of the following items, though several items here listed may be optional for the passive type: (a) parts of speech of the word entry and their subcategories (b) morphological forms like inflections and derivations (c) syntactic patterns like verb patterns, e.g. v + o, v + to do, v + doing, etc. (d) syntactic features like “used in the plural form”, “used with the article”, “usually used in the passive / progressive / negative form” etc. (e) collocation guide, in particular prepositions with nouns, verbs, and adjectives, etc. (f) special usage notes Compared with the phonetics and semantics of words, the grammar of words is still a quite late arrival in the dictionary. English monolingual lexicographers have done a great deal of work in this respect, and with remarkable success. Except for indications of word classes and a few other items of grammatical information, the grammar of words is almost a blank in most English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries, more notably in Chinese-English dictionaries. There remains much to be done before the distance between monolingual and bilingual dictionaries in this respect is overcome.

3.2 Semantics and bilingual lexicography The term semantics is “a recent addition to the English language” and “does not occur until it was introduced in a paper read to the American Philological Association in 1894 entitled ‘Reflected meanings: a point in semantics’” (Palmer 1983:1). Nevertheless, as a flourishing member of the linguistics family, semantics has contributed enormously to the development of linguistic theories and exercised tremendous influence upon language study itself and lexicography as well. Definition (or the semantic specification of a word, as Leech calls it) is universally assumed to be central to any dictionary making process. Definitions of words form the nucleus of lexicographical work and the basis for lexicographical communication. Other dictionary elements, like word spelling, pronunciation, grammar and history, are supposed to be supporting factors in lexicographical com-

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

munication. Our understanding of word definitions has deepened with the progress of semantics. In Semantics, Geoffrey Leech (1983) distinguished seven types of meaning: conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning, and thematic meaning, which “all fit into the total composite effect of linguistic communication” (Leech 1983:9). Leech’s classification of word meaning into seven types has not only furnished theoretical foundations for defining words but also suggested a great step forward in enriching and improving word definitions in dictionaries. For convenience sake, these seven types of meaning will be subsumed under two headings: conceptual meaning and nonconceptual meaning. The former has the same reference range as Leech’s term, and the latter covers all the other six types of meaning in Leech’s classification. Conceptual meaning is generally considered “the central factor in linguistic communication” and “can be shown to be integral to the essential functioning of language in a way that other types of meaning are not” (Leech 1983:9). It is a generalization and manifestation of the actual state of the material and spiritual world. It is the common basis on which human beings establish and maintain communication. That is why early lexicographers concentrated on the conceptual meaning of words and overlooked their non-conceptual meaning. Although conceptual meaning is the foundation and the starting-point for the semantic specification of words, it does not mean all there is to defining the word. Numerous cases point to the fact that dictionary users do not have to struggle with conceptual meanings of words and can understand them surprisingly well even if they are vague, ambiguous or even nonsense. For example, “horse” is defined as “a large animal which people ride for enjoyment or for getting from one place to another, and use for pulling ploughs, carts, etc.” (Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language, 1987) and as “a large strong four-legged animal with hard feet (HOOVES), which people ride on and use for pulling heavy things” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition, 1987). Except for the little suggestion derived from the bracketed word “hooves” in the Longman definition, both definitions may as well be construed as indicating “cow”, “donkey”, “mule” or some other similar animal, because in some cultures people ride on these animals and use them for pulling ploughs and heavy things. In A Simplified Dictionary (Airne 1981), “cat” is defined as “a common domestic animal” and “dog” as “a domestic animal”. It follows from the definitions that a cat differs from a dog in that the former is “common” and the latter is not. Airne’s definitions actually do not tell anything about the defined animals. Dictionary users do not normally look up such simple words in their dictionaries for meanings like this. But in case they do need to consult these words, what will happen to




those poor curious readers? Can they get the right picture of the animal the definition describes? More amazingly, bilingual lexicographers will, without any exception, give the right word in the target language for the animal described in the source language definition, no matter how vague or equivocal those definitions turn out to be. In such cases, bilingual lexicographers simply cannot translate monolingual dictionary definitions (conceptual meaning). The more precise the translation, the more puzzled the reader will feel, the more uncertain he will become about the meaning of the word he is looking up. So, on what evidence and basis do they rely to conjure up the semantic image of the word and match the vague definition with the right object the entry word denotes? Dictionary users do not usually have trouble with conceptual meanings of words. More often than not, misunderstandings, deviations and errors of interpretation of non-conceptual meanings occur in their semantic configuration, though these meanings may be written with great care and in great detail. That is particularly typical of learners of foreign languages. Two factors are responsible for such a situation. Foreign language learners are normally brought up in a cultural and linguistic environment quite different from that of the foreign language. When they are taught the foreign language, the native language and culture are already deeply rooted in their minds. Consequently they exert influence upon whatever is alien to their own culture and language and tend to use their own norms to pass judgments and distort what is foreign to conform to their own customs and habits. “工人” (gong ren, worker) usually refers to those people who do manual labor in factories in the Chinese culture. This Chinese expression is often associated with “heavy work” and “low pay”. But in English the word worker can denote anyone who “works, esp. in the stated job” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1987). They have expressions like unskilled worker, office worker and farm worker. In referring to the latter two categories, Chinese students would probably use “office staff ” and “farmers or peasants” instead, because the Chinese expression does not include the latter two in its categorization. The other factor arises from the work of lexicographers and foreign language teachers. Early lexicographers used to focus on conceptual meaning only. Nonconceptual meanings were generally not recognized or reflected in the dictionary text. As a result of cultural studies and the increasing awareness of their relations to language learning and teaching, lexicographers came to realize the important ties between culture and language learning and began to introduce non-conceptual meanings into their work so as to encourage and promote cultural awareness. This has happened not only in monolingual dictionaries but in bilingual dictionaries and foreign language classrooms as well. Cultural awareness is much more important to non-native learners than native learners. Native learners learn

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

the culture of their language without being conscious of it, but non-native learners will have to pick up the culture of the foreign language bit by bit and do it consciously. To be bilingual, one has to be bicultural simultaneously. It goes without saying that bilingual lexicographers and foreign language teachers should devote equal, if not greater, attention to non-conceptual meanings. Lu Gusun’s The English-Chinese Dictionary is widely acclaimed as being far superior to its predecessor A New English-Chinese Dictionary, mainly because it gives far greater prominence to the description of non-conceptual meanings than its predecessor. Componential analysis – the method of “reducing a word’s meaning to its ultimate contrastive elements” – is one of the important aspects of semantics. As a distinctive technique, componential analysis first evolved in anthropological linguistics as a means of studying relations between kinship terms, but it has since proved its usefulness in many spheres of meaning. (Leech 1983:91)

Lexicography is one of the many areas where this distinctive technique has been applied. Componential analysis presupposes that there exist features (sememes) common to all human cognitive structures, and words, as basic linguistic units, are where these common features hide themselves. Every lexical unit embodies a number of these features, which combine to form the meaning of this word. From breaking down the meaning of a word into its minimal components a set of distinctive features is derived. The variance in compilers’ life experiences, academic and educational backgrounds often leads to discrepancies in many details of dictionary definitions. These features can be used to analyze lexical items of similar kind and nature and help lexicographers to write dictionary definitions on a more scientific and consistent basis. Componential analysis can push dictionary definitions towards a higher level of standardization and precision and put them on a more scientific footing. It offers a set of norms for lexicographers with different life experiences, different tastes and different preferences to conform to in writing dictionary definitions and a yardstick for them to measure how precise, how standard and how scientific their definitions are. Though doubt persists as to the feasibility of using component analysis for analyzing word meanings, and so far no dictionary is written entirely on the basis of distinctive features derived from componential analysis, it is undeniable that this distinctive technique has been involved in dictionary compilation, consciously or unconsciously. It has proved powerful in defining lexical items, in discriminating between synonyms and in tracing semantic changes of lexical items in the synchronic perspective. Componential analysis has proved its usefulness in monolingual dictionary making. Will it contribute in some way to compiling bilingual dictionaries? The




answer is in the affirmative. Bilingual lexicographers can benefit from componential analysis mainly in two ways. By undertaking componential analysis, bilingual lexicographers will have a better and fuller understanding of how the conceptual meaning of the source language word is composed. This will make it easier for them to compare the source language word and its prospective target language equivalent, detect the semantic distance between them, and narrow it down so that the closest equivalent (or expression) is found to match the source language word. For example, the following words denote different ways of “move”: move barge forward heedlessly, clumsily or ungracefully blunder awkwardly or unsteadily, as if blind bounce suddenly or noisily, with a springing movement bound forward quickly by jumping or leaping movements budge slightly or a little chug laboriously and noisily crawl slowly with the body close to the ground or on the hands and knees creep slowly and quietly so as not to attract attention dart suddenly and rapidly dash hurriedly with a sudden burst of speed dogtrot at a quick, easy gait, like a dog flit swiftly and lightly in irregular motion flurry in an excited, confused manner flutter in a quick and irregular way glide smoothly and effortlessly hop in short, bounding leaps, like a rabbit inch slowly, bit by bit jounce joltingly in an up-and-down manner lope easily and quite fast with springing steps lounge idly or lazily lumber slowly with heavy feet and drooping shoulder march with a regular, measured gait prance quickly by springing forward prowl about stealthily, nervously scramble quickly, using hands and feet, esp. over a steep or rough surface scuttle with short and hasty steps, so as to escape skitter quickly and lightly over a surface slide easily and smoothly over a surface slink stealthily or furtively, as in fear or shame stride vigorously with long, measured steps trot in a quick, steady, bouncy gait waddle with slow, short steps, like ducks waltz easily, successfully or confidently whisk lightly and rapidly with a sweeping movement zip quickly and forcefully

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography

Through componential analysis (i.e. specification of gait, manner, speed, direction, etc.) and contrastive analysis, bilingual lexicographers can arrive at the closest equivalent for each source language word with greater ease and precision. It must be pointed out that “not all semantic contrasts are binary” (Leech 1983:90) and that “the number of semantic oppositions potentially available may be very large, and any attempt to list them exhaustively is likely to be incomplete (Leech 1983:91). Bilingual lexicographers will then have to sort out conspicuous distinctive features (i.e. main sememes) of lexical units and use them for comparison with potential target language equivalents. In the case of lexical units denoting different ways of “move”, major semantic specifications of contrastive value should include “gait”, “speed”, “manner”, and “direction.” Less important specifications may be listed selectively according to the circumstances. For instance, “location” may be listed to specify whether the action is done on the ground, over a surface or over a steep. “Subject” may be listed to specify whether the subject of the verb is human or non-human, and if non-human, further specification is needed as to whether they are used of animals like birds or animals like dogs and tigers. Componential analysis can also help bilingual lexicographers to examine nonconceptual meanings and non-conceptual meaning differences between the source language word and the target language equivalent. Let us cite social meaning as an instance. Social meaning is what is conveyed about the social circumstances of the use of a word and is decoded “through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of style within the same language” (Leech 1983:14). That accounts for the observation that no true synonyms exist. But when the term “synonymy” is restricted to equivalence of conceptual meaning, then conceptual synonyms may be compared and found to be different non-conceptually from one another, e.g. stylistically, regionally, and in other aspects. “Horse”, “steed”, “nag” and “gee-gee” all have the conceptual meaning of “large domesticated mammal used for transportation and work”, but they vary in stylistic overtones: conceptual stylistic TL equivalent

horse horse general 马

steed horse poetic 骏马

nag horse informal 老马，驽马

gee-gee horse child language 马儿

“Politician” and “statesman” both have the conceptual meaning of “a political or government leader”, but differ in affective meaning: conceptual affective TL equivalent

politician political figure often derogatory 政客；政治家

statesman political figure often appreciative 政治家






The English language is uncommonly abundant in synonyms and synonymous expressions. In deciding translation equivalents for source language words, lexicographers need to study both the conceptual meaning and the non-conceptual meaning of the source language word, find out their semantic nuances and present them faithfully and unambiguously in the target language. Completely equivalent words and expressions are difficult and, sometimes, impossible to find, but they should be as close to source language words as possible, both conceptually and non-conceptually. As suggested above, componential analysis can be of great help in discriminating between synonyms and synonymous expressions. A look at the “field” diagram below will reveal major semantic differences among the items in the “field”, using “laugh” and “smile” as the frame of reference. chortle

laugh loudly + gleefully quietly + half suppressed foolishly + childishly + uncontrollably + shrilly quietly + foolishly + mockingly quietly + nervously + derisively (often derogatory)

chuckle giggle snigger titter beam grin simper smirk

smile brightly + happily broadly + showing the teeth foolishly + unnaturally foolishly + smugly + suppressedly + affectedly

By closely examining the distinctive features each lexical item displays, one can easily recognize essential distinctions between lexical items in the “laugh” group and the “smile” group and match them with target language equivalents. Lexicographical practice always precedes theoretical generalizations. The first Chinese monolingual dictionary (or the first Chinese thesaurus if it may be so called) – The Ready Guide (《尔雅》，Erya) – appeared anonymously around 230 BC. Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases was first published in 1852 and has frequently been revised and augmented ever since. Both dictionaries are compiled on the basis of the main principles of the theory of semantic fields. This theory, however, did not receive systematic treatment until 1934, the year the German scholar J. Trier published his paper entitled Das sprachliche Feld. Eine Auseinandersetzung. And its real significance to dictionary making was not realized and appreciated until the latter half of the twentieth century. Throughout that period thesauruses and dictionaries based on the theory of semantic fields turned out in close succession on both sides of the Atlantic, most

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

notably various editions of Roget’s International Thesaurus, Random House Word Menu (Glazier 1992), The Word Finder (J. I. Rodale 1976) and many others. Almost every major English monolingual dictionary series (e.g. the Webster series, the Collins series, the Macquarie series) includes a thesaurus and/or different editions of thesaurus. Some dictionary series have even launched combinations of dictionary and thesaurus (sometimes called dictionaurus or dictaurus), like Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (Marian Makins 1993). Unfortunately, this encouraging development has not presented itself on the scene of English and Chinese bilingual lexicography. So far no English-Chinese thesaurus or combinations of dictionary and thesaurus have been compiled. Nor have Chinese-English thesauruses, though a contemporary Chinese thesaurus – A Thesaurus of the Chinese Language – made its first appearance in 1983. The theory of semantic fields will certainly provide a great deal of guidance and open up broad prospects for the compilation of such lexicographical work. Onomasiological dictionaries like thesauruses and dictionauruses are not the only dictionary genres to which the theory of semantic fields can be applied. Semasiological special-aspect dictionaries can also draw on the main principles of this theory. Attempts were made in this direction in the course of compiling A Comprehensive Dictionary of English Prepositions (Yong Heming 1997, Tianjin People’s Publishing House, its revised version A Contemporary Dictionary of English Prepositions, 2007, Shanghai Yiwen Press). This is a medium-sized EnglishChinese dictionary of English prepositions, characterized by semantic categorization and semantic grouping. Before this dictionary project was started, a survey of major reference works of English prepositions was carried out. This survey shows that almost all such references list prepositions alphabetically and introduce them one by one. This method of arrangement may make reference easier, but runs counter to characteristics of prepositions as function words. Unlike nouns and verbs, prepositions cannot stand alone in a sentence and must go together with other word classes. It will not be of much use if the introduction of prepositions is made without mentioning other word classes that go with them. This is the natural consequence of English undergoing transition from the synthetic type to the analytical type. A Comprehensive Dictionary of English Prepositions comprises five parts. Except for the fifth part (Error Correction), the remaining parts are all written on the semantic basis. Prepositions are all introduced against a much broader background, that is in connection with other word classes accompanying prepositions. The first part (Usage) divides 189 simple, compound and complex prepositions into 45 semantic groups (e.g. prepositions of time, prepositions of place, etc.) and then puts the prepositions in each group in the alphabetical order and discusses their uses accordingly.




The second part (Collocation) puts all content words pertaining to one semantic category (e.g. absolve, debar, deter, discourage, dissuade, hinder, keep, prevent, relieve, restrain, save, stop, etc.) that can go with a certain preposition (in this case, with from) alphabetically in one semantic group and illustrate their uses with examples. The third part (Idioms) groups English idioms containing prepositions on both structural and semantic bases so that comparison can be made between idioms within the same semantic category and with similar structures. The fourth part (Comparison) compares over 220 pairs of meaning- or usagerelated prepositions and prepositional idioms. Prepositions are “little words, big problems” and are one of the most difficult word classes in the English language. By means of semantic categorization and grouping, this dictionary puts conspicuous emphasis on the way the prepositions are used rather than the way they mean, because it is not so much the meaning of those little words that causes problems; it is the ways in which they are used. And through lexical comparison and association, English prepositions do not seem to be so troublesome as they used to be, because dictionary users can readily infer other examples of usage from one simple instance. The instance of depend on can give users inferences such as bank on, bargain on, build on, calculate on, count on, figure on, reckon on, rely on. The collocation of to with disappointment can give users similar associations of collocations with such nouns as amazement, amusement, annoyance, astonishment, delight, discomfort, disgust, disillusionment, dismay, distress, entertainment, gratification, horror, joy, satisfaction, surprise. The theory of semantic fields has turned the traditional passive bilingual dictionary of prepositions into the active learners type, which compilers of other special-aspect dictionaries can learn by analogy.

3.3 Pragmatics and bilingual lexicography Prescriptive traditions sowed in people’s mind the seeds of linguistic norms and correct usage, leading to the conclusion that conformity to linguistic norms and correct usage is what language learners should acquire and is all there is to language learning. Modern linguistics indicates that using the language correctly is not the only skill that should be acquired by language learners. The American linguist Noam Chomsky distinguished between linguistic competence and linguistic performance. The former refers to one’s knowledge of language, and the latter to the actual utterances of speech. A more relevant distinction is made between linguistic competence and communicative competence. Communicative competence “focuses on the native-speaker’s ability to produce and understand sentences which are appropriate to the context in which they occur – what he

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

needs to know in order to communicate effectively in socially distinct settings” (Crystal 1985:59). This distinction is particularly important to cross-cultural communication. Communication failure or misinterpretation seldom occurs between people with the same cultural background, but is fairly commonplace between people with different cultural backgrounds. Grammatically correct sentences from the addresser may not always be appropriate or convey the right message to the addressee. It is the usual practice to ask “Have you had your lunch/supper?” when two Chinese meet. But the foreign teacher will be puzzled when he or she is asked that question in the same situation. The question itself is perfectly correct, but the way the Chinese use it as a form of greeting is not familiar to the foreign teacher, who will misconstrue the question as some sort of invitation to dinner. There is obviously no connection between “sentence meaning” and “speakermeaning”, which suggests that it is not adequate for language learners to have only linguistic knowledge like grammatical rules. They should also be armed with knowledge of how to use language appropriately, i.e. to know what to say in what circumstances, at what time and in what manner. Pragmatics is called forth to deal with these constraints encountered in using language in social interaction and the effects the constraints have upon participants involved in an act of communication. Pragmatics was defined by Charles Morris (1938) as “the study of the relation of signs to interpreters” (“interpreters” was afterwards modified and generalized to “their users”). It was proposed one year later that pragmatics be called “the field of all those investigations which take into consideration …the action, state, and environment of a man who speaks or hears [a linguistic sign]” (Rudolf Carnap 1939; see Akmajian et al 1984:391). Nowadays, this term is generally used to “cover the study of language use in relation to context, and in particular the study of linguistic communication” (Akmajian et al 1984:391). The rise of pragmatics puts forward a new subject and poses a serious challenge to lexicographers, especially bilingual lexicographers. They are faced with the question of how to present pragmatic information in their work. The first attempt in this direction was made by the authors of Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987). It is interesting to note that the 1978 edition of this dictionary devoted nearly 12 pages to “Grammar in the dictionary”, but made no mention of pragmatics. Nine years later, the 1987 edition of the dictionary inserted a two-page discussion of “Pragmatics and the Dictionary” into its valuable dictionary space. This addition clearly shows the recognition of the special status of pragmatics in the dictionary and its significant role in lexicographical communication. Pragmatics is still a quite recent addition to the linguistics family. “At present, no coherent pragmatic theory has been achieved, mainly because of the variety of topics it has to account for” and its boundaries are “as yet incapable of precise




definition” (Crystal 1985:240). Therefore, pragmatics is not so fully developed as grammar, and no set of pragmatic rules can be formulated for a systematic treatment of pragmatic information in the dictionary. Nevertheless, the editors of Longman Dictionary (1987) devised a practical set of techniques which was employed systematically throughout the dictionary for a consistent treatment of word pragmatics. These techniques include: (1) Usage notes: Usage notes mainly deal with pragmatically sensitive words and expressions and immediately follow the relevant entry in a new paragraph. Such notes are found following entries like “actually”, “afraid”, “all right”, “mean”, “please”, “surely” and so on. (2) Language notes: Language notes are designed in the form of boxes for easy reference and quick reading. Unlike usage notes dealing with individual words, language notes aim to formulate rules for word pragmatics from the position of communicative functions and the grammar of words as well. Language notes in this dictionary include: Addressing people, Apologies, Criticism and praise, Invitations and offers, Politeness, Questions, Requests, Tentativeness, Thanks, etc. (3) Glosses: Glosses in this dictionary are usually given inside the entry article. When they appear in definitions, they are often marked by usu. (usually), esp. (especially) or brackets. Glosses may also occur in examples, in which case they are also bracketed. This is the most thorough-going and useful way of glossing words with pragmatic suggestions and explanations. In English-Chinese dictionaries, only glossing for word pragmatics is employed to some extent in some dictionaries. The other two methods are not yet found in them except for a few so-called learners dictionaries. Most English-Chinese dictionaries are still barren of such information, which greatly reduces their utility and quality. English and Chinese bilingual dictionary compilers still have a long way to go before something is done to treat word pragmatics systematically and in a unified way. If Longman Dictionary (1987) is only dotted with bits of information about word pragmatics and its picture of word pragmatics appears to be fragmentary and inadequate, then a more encouraging picture of word pragmatics is presented in Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language (Sinclair 1987). It is no exaggeration to say that pragmatic principles are utilized to the fullest extent in this particular dictionary. Every entry article, even every definition in the entry article, is the best exemplification of the pragmatics of the word. It demonstrates how pragmatic principles can be best applied to dictionary making and how dictionaries can be made to facilitate and strengthen both comprehension and production.

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

From the communicative point of view, Cobuild Dictionary (1987) differs from dictionaries of a similar kind mainly in three aspects: information genre, information quality and information transmission, which typify the pragmatic spirit involved in dictionary making. As indicated above, early dictionaries and dictionaries prior to Cobuild Dictionary (1987) concentrated heavily on conceptual meaning of the entry word, and conceptual meaning is abstracted from the use of the entry word in actual context. When the entry is consulted, what meets the user’s eyes is certainly the decontextualized conceptual meaning. To ensure a correct understanding of the word in a certain context, the user will have to put the word or a certain meaning of it back in the context and try to decode what is conveyed in the word. Cobuild Dictionary (1987) explains word meanings in paragraphs and links them directly to the context of usage. Consequently, conceptual meaning is not the only type of meaning Cobuild Dictionary (1987) presents to its readers. What it provides is a coherent and complete picture of both conceptual and non-conceptual meanings embodied in the word. This unified presentation of word meanings shortens – in some cases even eliminates – the distance between sentence meaning and speaker meaning and therefore overcomes to the greatest extent possible linguistic and cultural barriers to communication, particularly in intercultural communication. Cobuild Dictionary (1987) demonstrates word meanings in real paragraphs rather than in traditionally numbered definitions, which are highly condensed, abstract and obscure. This method of defining words in paragraphs puts the user in the actual situation of word use. Unlike numbered definitions in traditional dictionaries, paragraph explanations combine word meaning and its context into an integrated unity, hence avoiding disconnection between word meaning and its context. The semantic and contextual integrity of each entry word in Cobuild Dictionary (1987) enables it to provide the user with a quite different kind of information, which is characterized by abstractness, completeness, objectivity and intelligibility. The way in which Cobuild Dictionary (1987) and Longman Dictionary (1987) make use of the pragmatic principles in lexicographic communication provides penetrating insights into English and Chinese bilingual dictionary making. It may also shed new light on the making of Chinese dictionaries for foreign learners. How to devise a practical set of rules for the systematic introduction of word pragmatics into English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries is not just a serious challenge but a pressing problem for English and Chinese bilingual lexicographers.

3.4 Sociolinguistics and bilingual lexicography As suggested at the beginning of this chapter, one of the reasons why the twentieth century is perhaps the most noteworthy period in the history of language studies is the




integration of sociocultural and psychological aspects into the theoretical framework for language studies. This integration has placed language studies in a much broader setting and enabled linguists to approach language problems from new angles. “Languages are part of the history of the peoples who use them, intimately bound up with the changing patterns of the societies they serve” (Spencer in Leith 1983:vi). Language varies because of the wide range of functions it is assumed to fulfil and because of the different backgrounds of region and class from which its speakers come. Different varieties and variations often acquire different social values and function as markers of group identity. They locate people in their social space. Therefore, “it is a matter of common experience that we speak and write differently in different situations” (Leith 1983:2). Some differences may be ascribed to individual factors such as age, sex, personality, emotional state, and personal idiosyncrasies. The others are due to “larger” factors like social, economic, cultural, religious, and regional factors. The use of varieties and variations is the best evidence for showing the appropriate use of language in society. To help the user achieve the right use of language and choose the right word for the suitable occasion, dictionaries must provide information about style and register – the sociocultural aspect of language use, and lexicographers must devise a system of labels indicating the use of words in certain styles in their work. Traditional general language dictionaries were only concerned with what words mean. They overlooked or paid little attention to how these words mean and are used. The problem of word style and register did not arouse lexicographers’ wide-spread interest until a new type of dictionary – learners dictionary – was called into existence. Now information about word style and register has become essential and indispensable in all types of English language dictionaries. It must be admitted that though a great deal of work has been done, English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries still remain far behind their monolingual counterparts in this regard. Bilingual lexicographers are faced with several key problems in labeling the style and register of the entry word. These problems will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7. The influence of modern linguistics on lexicography is manifold and is mainly reflected in monolingual dictionary making and research. Bilingual lexicographers can benefit enormously from studying how monolingual dictionaries are made, why they are made so and how bilingual dictionary compilation and research can draw on modern linguistics. In order to produce dictionaries users find really informative and useful, bilingual lexicographers need to draw on successful experience in monolingual dictionary making and keep abreast of the latest developments of modern linguistics. Traditionally, the absorption of linguistic studies into dictionary making was incredibly slow, but the steps have quickened in the past few decades, which is especially prominent. Bilingual lexicography will certainly

Chapter 3. Modern linguistics and bilingual lexicography 

be enriched and bilingual dictionaries are bound to improve as a result of more penetrating studies of modern linguistics and the rational utilization of the fruits gained from these studies. There is a great deal that modern linguistics can contribute towards a more solid theoretical foundation for bilingual lexicography.

chapter 4

Bilingual dictionaries A communicative typology The making of dictionaries, notably bilingual wordbooks and vocabularies, has had a history of around 3000 years, but the total number of dictionaries compiled over the last one hundred years is far greater than those produced in the preceding three millennia. The surprisingly large number of dictionaries in the past century, together with their great varieties, has set linguists and lexicographers thinking about categorizing them into various types. Earnest and continuous efforts have been made to classify dictionaries from different perspectives and in different typologies since the 1940s, but the result has not been encouraging (see Bejoint 1984:33) due to the heterogeneous nature of lexicographical work. There still remain both theoretical and practical problems confronting linguists and lexicographers. This chapter will make a general critical review of the best-known typological classifications of dictionaries attempted so far, discuss their merits and demerits, and provide a tentative typology for bilingual dictionaries on the basis of the communicative framework for lexicography outlined in Chapter 1.

4.1 Previous dictionary typologies: a quick survey Serious studies in dictionary typologies started in the 1940s. L.V. Shcherba, the Russian linguist, was among the first to classify dictionaries into different types. In the monograph Opyt obščej teorii leksikografii (1940), he attempted to classify existing and ideal dictionaries on a contrastive basis and established six sets of contrasts between what he considered possible dictionary types on the basis of their most important structural characteristics: a. a normative dictionary vs. a reference dictionary b. an encyclopedia vs. a general dictionary c. a normal dictionary vs. a general concordance d. a normal dictionary vs. an ideological dictionary e. a defining dictionary vs. a translating dictionary f. a historical dictionary vs. a non-historical dictionary




Although Shcherba established six contrasting dictionary types, his classification covers and “identifies very limited types of dictionaries, seven in number” (AlKasimi 1977:13). There is a great deal of overlapping among the types of dictionaries he distinguished, as the boundaries between each of the types tend to be extremely vague. It is difficult, for example, to tell how a reference dictionary differs from a general dictionary, and a general dictionary from a normal dictionary. Besides, there does not seem to be a consistent frame of reference against which all types of dictionaries can be measured and located in his classificatory system. In dealing with the first contrasting pair, he neglects the crucial problem of speech style. “A unified lexical system would have to be limited to a single speech style; in most languages, existing dictionaries approaching the ‘normative’ type are based on literary standard speech” (Garvin 1947). However, Shcherba’s classification was the first of its kind ever attempted and has shed much light on and served as the basis for further research by later linguists and lexicographers. His idea of contrasting dictionary types has exerted far-reaching influence discernible in similar endeavors by scholars like Zgusta and Landau. About twenty years after the publication of Shcherba’s typology, Yakov Malkiel (1967:3–24, in Householder and Saporta) put forward his “most extensive and most influential” (Al-Kasimi 1977:14) typology. Inspired by the model of “the separation of a speech sound into a number of distinctive features”, Malkiel established three classificatory criteria, i.e. by range, by perspective and by presentation, each subject to further subdivision. The first criterion, range, may be subdivided according to the variable emphasis on (1) density of entries, (2) number of languages covered or resorted to and (3) degree of concentration on purely lexical data. The second criterion, perspective, involves essentially three basic perspectives: (1) the fundamental dimension (diachronism versus synchronism), (2) the basic arrangement of entries (conventional, semantic, or arbitrary), (3) three levels of tone (detached, preceptive, or facetious). In his third criterion, presentation, Malkiel focuses mainly on four salient points: (1) definition, (2) exemplification, (3) graphic illustrations (including maps), and (4) special features (localization in territorial terms, on the social scale, or along the axis of “affectivity”, marking of pronunciation). Malkiel’s typology has the merit of being based not entirely on theoretical constructs, but also on the detailed examination of hundreds of actual works. It is “of prime importance because it does not try to give a categorical classification, but explicitly proposes a factorial analysis” (Geeraerts 1984:38). Moreover, it may include all possible types of dictionaries within an integrated frame of reference, thus suggesting inter- and intra-relationships between dictionary types and bringing out various sets of contrasting dictionary types. However, his typology also meets serious challenges. The first serious challenge comes from his intricate clas-

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

sificatory system. “Malkiel’s system, while elegant, is not very serviceable as a teaching tool” (Landau 1989:7). “One wonders…whether such a typology might not prove more valuable in the library cataloguing room than in the office of the lexicographer” (Worth 1967). Secondly, his three classificatory criteria are weakly defined. Take the basic arrangement of entries for example. The method of arranging entries is more one of presentation than of perspective. Thirdly, his presentation involves style rather than criterion. With the exception of “definition” in this category, all other points might as well be thought of as contributory factors rather than decisive criteria in classifying dictionaries. No dictionary types can be distinguished from one another simply through the examination of the examples, illustrations and sociolinguistic features they contain. The next typological attempt was made by Thomas A. Sebeok, who based his analysis chiefly on “an ad hoc survey” of a limited number of dictionaries and wordlists of the Cheremis language (“a sample of sixteen”). His typology was constructed with a set of seventeen “distinctive and verifiable” defining features, which can be categorized into three subsets. The first subset reveals “the relationship of the lists to the vocabulary intended to be presented,” “the manner of selection from within the source” and “the characteristics of the source itself.” The second subset pertains to syntagmatic representation, paradigmatic organization and reference structuring on the basis of a binary distinction between form and meaning. The third subset is either “most closely interrelated with the source features” or “less intimately involved in the definition of the dictionary as a type”. Sebeok’s study was limited to a sample of sixteen dictionaries and one language only. This naturally gives rise to limitations. First, Sebeok focused mainly on those features characterizing the lexicographical works he collected as data source. He disregarded other possible properties that might show themselves in dictionary types he did not avail himself of. Second, he proposed seventeen defining features, but most of them deal with internal lexicographical relationships between dictionary components (i.e. the intra-relationship within entries and interrelationship between entries) rather than interrelationships between various dictionary types. It is the analysis of the latter type of relationships that should form the foundation for a feasible lexicographical typology. Third, several of the defining features do not define at all. They can hardly be considered distinguishing one dictionary type from another. They are “less intimately involved in the definition of the dictionary as a type”, just as Sebeok himself recognizes. Finally, although he claimed to have “found two typological studies useful as points of departure” (i.e. Shcherba’s typology and that of Malkiel’s), his typology can to some extent only be thought of as an extension of one of the aspects in Malkiel’s typological studies:




classification by presentation. Judging from the general framework of his typology, Sebeok made no more substantial advances than his predecessors. Using C.C.Berg’s definition as the basis and the differentiation between encyclopedic dictionaries and linguistic dictionaries as the starting-point, Ladislav Zgusta (1971) distinguishes only the “most important types of dictionaries” in the light of the following frames of reference: a. time span: diachronic and synchronic dictionaries b. extent of involvement: general and restricted (or special) dictionaries c. language representation: monolingual and bilingual dictionaries d. dictionary purpose: (no contrasting dictionary types listed) e. dictionary size: big, medium and small dictionaries Zgusta’s differentiation between encyclopedic dictionaries and linguistic dictionaries proves quite enlightening for later classifications. The dictionary purpose is used for the first time as one of the parameters for classifying dictionaries. However, on the whole, Zgusta’s classification does not seem to be systematic or comprehensive. The number of dictionaries and dictionary types covered in his classification is somewhat limited. Several rare types were discussed, but some common types were overlooked. And it is open to debate whether some of the dictionaries in one or two of his dictionary types are actually grouped into the right categories. For instance, reversing dictionaries and dictionaries of word frequency counts are grouped in the “pedagogical dictionary” type, but it is questionable whether they are used more often for pedagogical purposes than for academic purposes. In “Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography”, Landau (1989:7–34) provided a comprehensive survey of the factors which may have roles to play in dictionary classification. He discussed the following parameters: a. the number of languages b. the manner of financing c. the age of users d. the size of dictionaries e. the scope of coverage by subject f. limitations in the aspects of language covered g. the lexical unit h. the primary language of the market i. the period of time covered j. the linguistic approach chosen k. the means of access Extensive and tangible as it is, Landau’s typology has not drawn wide attention from among linguists and lexicographers, probably due to the fact that it fails to

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

provide a coherent framework into which all possible dictionary types can be incorporated. His classification seems to lack systematization and does not look so “elegant” (in Landau’s own words). Furthermore, parameters of different classes and levels are put on the same footing and discussed in the same breath. Several such parameters in his list are not capable of fulfilling their position at all. For instance, does “the manner of financing” matter much in determining what type of dictionary is to be made as long as money is there to keep the ball rolling? Moreover, whether the size of the lexical unit can be used as a frame of reference is open to question. Different sizes of lexical units do not represent significant differences in nature and kind. Quotations and proverbs must not be described in terms of lexical units, though they may be thought of as being lexicalized. When discussing some of his categories, Landau overlooked some of the important factors that should have been given careful thought. When he discussed the dictionary user, he focused on age. This is not an insignificant consideration, but there are more important factors to take into account, such as the user’s level of language proficiency and level of education. Landau admitted that his classification “is not intended to be a formal typology but merely a convenient way to highlight significant differences among dictionaries. The categories are not exclusive. This arrangement will give the opportunity to explain in what ways types of dictionaries differ and are alike” (Landau 1989). This last remark is only partially justified, as suggested in the above discussion. In addition to the attempts discussed above, there have been other serious endeavours, notably Alain Rey’s “genetic” typology and Geeraert’s classification. Alain Rey (1970:48–68), the French linguist, established his “genetic” typology upon seven categorical criteria, that is (1) données linguistiques, (2) unités de traitement, (3) ensemble des données a traiter, (4) ordre des éléments, (5) analyse sémio-fonctionnelle des unités, (6) informations non sémantiques, and (7) explicitation des données. Each of these criteria is divided into subcategories, which can in turn be subdivided into further subcategories. These categories and subcategories form a set of “more or less chronologically ordered choices that lexicographers have to make when designing and compiling a dictionary” (Bejoint 1994:36). It is, in this sense, a “genetic” typology. Rey’s typology shows “that the making of a dictionary is the result of a series of choices, and that many of those choices are linked: many of the decisions that lexicographers make restrict their freedom for the following stages” (Bejoint 1994:37). Rey’s typology has been considered by some the most detailed that has ever been produced. It is, nonetheless, “unnecessarily cumbersome with its multilevel hierarchy of consistently binary oppositions” (Geeraerts 1984:40). When assessing his own typology, Rey points out that it is “too narrow to make room for all the types of dictionaries that have been published, and too loose to maintain the coherence of the concept” (Bejoint 1994:37).




In “Dictionary Classification and the Foundation of Lexicography” (1984), D. Geeraerts partly echoes Rey’s typology, stating that the process of dictionary making is realized through a series of choices that lexicographers consciously and unconsciously make to achieve lexicographical goals. These choices represent the lexicographer’s own understanding of how his dictionary should be. They characterize the dictionary he compiles and form the overall nature of his dictionary. It follows that dictionary types should be established on the basis of the factorial analysis of relevant choices and characteristics selected by lexicographers in the process of dictionary making. Geeraerts provided a very comprehensive list of features characterizing both the macrostructure and the microstructure of the dictionary. These characteristics would best serve as the foundations of lexicography, as he claimed. Regrettably, Geeraerts failed to draw up a feasible framework to integrate these features into a coherent system, owing to his concentration on the foundations of lexicography rather than a proper typology for dictionaries. Apart from the above-discussed typologies targeting at dictionaries in general, scholars (see Al-Kasimi 1977:12–31; Huang Jianhua 1987:179–189; James 1998:29– 46) have also attempted to set up typologies specifically for bilingual dictionaries. Huang’s typology starts with the classification of bilingual dictionaries into three types: the language type, the mixed type and the encyclopedic type. A close examination of subdivisions under each type and the example dictionaries he put into each type shows this typology to be scientifically unsound and lacking in theoretical justification. James’ typology aims at one bilingual dictionary type – bilingualised dictionaries. Based on a thorough analysis of this dictionary genre, he divided bilingualised dictionaries into three kinds: the learners’ dictionary, the teaching dictionary and the learning dictionary. In Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries (1977:17), Al-Kasimi proposes “a new typology of dictionaries, presenting differences in (a) source, (b) scope, and (c) purpose”. He claims that his typology is “entirely based on the linguists’ views of lexicography and their criticisms of the existing dictionaries, i.e. how a dictionary should be” (Al-Kasimi 1977:19). In the analysis that follows, he, however, restricts himself to “purpose” only. He proposes seven contrasts for the classification of bilingual dictionaries:

(1) dictionaries for the speakers of the source language vs. dictionaries for the speakers of the target language (2) dictionaries of the literary language vs. dictionaries of the spoken language (3) dictionaries for production vs. dictionaries for comprehension (4) dictionaries for the human user vs. dictionaries for machine translation (5) historical dictionaries vs. descriptive dictionaries

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

(6) lexical dictionaries vs. encyclopedic dictionaries (7) general dictionaries vs. special dictionaries

Except for the third and fourth sets, none of the other contrasting dictionary types are really based on “purpose”. The first contrast, for example, is oriented towards dictionary users rather than dictionary purpose. Either of the two types can be designed to serve “decoding” or “encoding” purpose (see Kromann, Riiber, and Rosbach 1989). The second and fifth sets can hardly form a contrast, and the last two sets display a contrast in the extension of inclusion and choices of selection rather than in dictionary purposes. The fifth criterion does not seem to have any realistic application to bilingual dictionaries. When commenting on Rey’s typology, Al-Kasimi (1977:16–17) states that “it presents nothing new (in methodology or content) that has not been dealt with in the typologies of Shcherba, Malkiel, and Sebeok”. The same statement, unfortunately, applies to his own classification.

4.2 A communicative typology Before any dictionary typology is attempted, lexicographers should answer the question why a typological classification of dictionaries is needed. Quite surprisingly, not much thought has gone into this question in previous studies. To the best of my knowledge, the necessity of a dictionary typology arises out of several considerations. First, a proper typology will contribute to the establishment of lexicography as an academic discipline, which normally considers typology part of its foundation. The theoretical description of dictionaries cannot be said to be complete and wellestablished without a sound typology for their classification. Second, a proper typology will locate dictionaries of different types in their right positions, so that special attention will be devoted to those distinctive features of an individual type which single it out from other types. This shift of attention from common features of general types to specific properties of individual ones will help improve the quality of dictionary making and enhance studies in both the theoretical and practical aspects of lexicography. Third, a proper typology will help clarify the lexicographic functions each type of dictionary is supposed to fulfil. By specifying dictionary functions, lexicographers will have a better understanding of the dictionary under construction and will be in a better position to make their lexicographic choices and arrive at the right decisions. Eventually, lexicographic communication will be greatly enhanced as a result of the refinement of dictionary information.




Finally, a proper typology will benefit linguists, publishers, users and librarians. With the help of a sound typology, linguists will understand better lexicographers’ work and their problems with writing the dictionary; publishers will find it easier to make decisions respecting their publishing policies; dictionary users will be able to make optimal choices in the selection of dictionaries; and librarians will not need to rack their brains to determine how to catalogue particular dictionary types. A sound typology for dictionaries should meet the following criteria: (1) it should be open-ended. Dictionary designs undergo constant evolution as a result of increasingly penetrating studies of theoretical and practical issues in lexicography. Consequently, existing dictionary types are innovative as new types are developed and created. An open-ended typology should not only take existing dictionary types into account. It should also foresee other potential dictionary types and incorporate them into its framework; (2) It should consider the compilers’ perspectives, the dictionary itself and the users’ expectations within a unified framework; (3) it should highlight those distinctive characteristics which distinguish one dictionary type from another; (4) it should avoid too much overlapping between dictionary types. It is impossible to draw clear-cut demarcation lines between dictionary types while too much overlap tends to blur distinctions between types. In the light of the discussions above, a tentative typology for bilingual dictionaries is put forward on the basis of the triangular communicative model of lexicography. As indicated in 1.3, this model consists of three participants, i.e. compiler, dictionary context and user. Under each participant there are open-ended options for lexicographers to choose. These options suggest features common to all dictionary types and/or features applicable only to specific types. Lexicographers’ choices will shape the overall nature of the dictionary to be compiled and its location in this typology. As such, options under each participant in this model will form the foundation for this tentative typology and the set of choices lexicographers make will specify the type of the dictionary in question and locate it in the right position in the typology. A dictionary type may be determined by only one binary set of choices (i.e., a general-purpose dictionary vs. a special-purpose dictionary) or by a combination of sets of choices (i.e. a general-purpose bilingual dictionary vs. a special-purpose bilingual dictionary). That depends on how detailed and specific the classification is expected to be. The user’s part in lexicographic communication was overlooked in previous studies. “Until comparatively recently lexicographers had scarcely looked beyond one type of users – persons of cultivated literary tastes, sharing the same educational and linguistic background as themselves” (Dubois 1981:236). However, within the communicative framework of lexicography, the user’s part has become one of the key elements that posit constraints on lexicographic choices. The following typological analysis of bilingual dictionaries will focus on the three par-

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

ticipants in the model. It is important to note that “compiler aspect” and “user aspect” will be considered together rather than separately, as the latter will be reflected in lexicographic policies and choices and eventually be integrated into the former in the process of lexicographic communication. As a result, the communicative typological classification of bilingual dictionaries will unfold from two different but interdependent positions: “compiler and user aspect” and “dictionary context”. Only major options under each “participant” will be considered in the present taxonomy and special attention will be paid to how the making of bilingual dictionaries is affected by these options. 4.2.1 Compiler and user aspects Dictionaries may be classified from “compiler and user” points of view, in which case such macrolevel issues as perspectives and purposes can be raised and observed. These issues form the basis for the selection of lexicographic choices and the formulation of general policies lexicographers are supposed to pursue in lexicographic communication. Before starting a dictionary project, lexicographers will have to decide which of the following perspectives are to be adopted and what purposes the project is to serve. These two dimensions will determine the overall nature of the dictionary to be made. Perspectives determine the basic tone in which lexicographic communication is to be carried out. Purposes define what it is conducted for. Three major binary sets of choices are considered most relevant to bilingual dictionaries and are used as the basis for classifying them. 4.2.1.1 Lexicographic perspectives The lexicographers’ task is to give an objective and optimally accurate description of the lexicon of a language. In doing so, they can choose to describe the lexicon of the language as used at a given stage (synchronically) or over a longer period of time (diachronically). Although monolingual dictionaries may adopt either a diachronic or a synchronic approach, bilingual dictionaries normally adopt the latter, as they are usually designed to serve practical pedagogical purposes. Early bilingual dictionaries were almost without exception prescriptive in nature. They prescribed subjective rules for linguistic usage. However, modern bilingual lexicographers follow the principles of descriptive linguistics. They adopt a fundamentally different attitude towards linguistic usage and describe linguistic phenomena as they actually are. The descriptive principle has become one of the fundamental principles in lexicographic communication. (see 6.1.1) Even so, the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive must not be pressed too hard in lexicographic practice, because no dictionary can claim to be entirely descriptive.




A bit of prescriptivism for special and controversial usage seems to be inevitable in bilingual dictionaries and fortunately proves to be worthwhile and welcome. As present-day bilingual dictionaries are basically synchronic and descriptive, only one contrasting type is distinguished by the active vs. passive perspective. a. active vs. passive bilingual dictionaries Previous typological studies did not seem to take much notice of the distinction between active and passive dictionary types, but they are important dimensions, especially when considered from the position of the dictionary user and in bilingual circumstances. Most traditional bilingual dictionaries were intended for decoding purpose, that is to help the user find a correct and precise understanding of so-called “hard words” in his reading of the foreign language texts. The need for an active bilingual dictionary intended to aid encoding and the distinction between active and passive bilingual types grew out of the increasing awareness that no bilingual dictionary can serve all purposes equally well. Generally speaking, active bilingual dictionaries are designed for encoding. They intend to help such linguistic activities as writing, speaking and translating. In active dictionaries, efforts are often made towards helping the user to achieve an active use of the source language, especially in producing new texts. Great importance is attached to the description of how words behave grammatically, pragmatically and culturally. Thus information concerning grammar, collocation, usage, pragmatics and cultural implication of lexical items is treated almost on a par with semantic information. Passive bilingual dictionaries, on the other hand, are intended for decoding. They are of more effective assistance in such linguistic activities as listening and reading, as they focus more on the semantic aspect of the source language lexicon, i.e. lexical equivalents between the language pair. This is why active bilingual dictionaries are regarded as dictionaries for production and passive ones as dictionaries for comprehension It is suggested that a rigorous distinction should be maintained between dictionaries aiming to facilitate translation from the native language to the foreign language and those conceived as an aid to decoding foreign language texts. Therefore, the ideal model will be for four bilingual dictionaries to be compiled for any language pair, for example Chinese and English: active type Chinese-English English-Chinese

from native to foreign language for Chinese users for English users

passive type English-Chinese Chinese-English

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

from foreign to native language for Chinese users for English users

4.2.1.2 Lexicographic purposes a. general-purpose vs. special-purpose bilingual dictionaries Bilingual dictionaries may be differentiated according to the purpose they serve. A general-purpose bilingual dictionary is designed for the general public of the source and/or the target language and meets the general purpose of consulting for information concerning the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of the vocabulary involved. It attempts to cover as wide a range as possible of the general vocabulary of the source language. The general vocabulary should not be interpreted as the whole lexicon of the source language, which is impossible for any bilingual dictionary to cover and describe. It should be understood as that part of the vocabulary that proves to be of more practical utility to the bilingual dictionary user than the remainder of the lexicon. A special-purpose bilingual dictionary is compiled to meet the special needs of specific user groups. One such dictionary can serve only one purpose or a limited set of specific purposes. It may provide the user with the signification and sometimes the use of only scientific and technical terms of the source language in a special field such as business or commerce (special-field bilingual dictionaries), or it may choose to focus on the description of only one aspect of the source language, such as grammar or collocation (special-aspect bilingual dictionaries). It does not seem to be very difficult for bilingual lexicographers to keep special-field bilingual dictionaries within the defined vocabulary boundary, but it would be totally impossible, if not a serious mistake, to make the same demand on general-purpose bilingual dictionaries. Faced with the enormous increase of specialized vocabularies of science and technology, bilingual lexicographers tend to increase the proportion of the entries devoted to scientific and technical terms in their dictionaries to meet the needs of a wider range of users. However, this does not mean eliminating the distinction between general-purpose and special-purpose bilingual dictionaries, because they differ not only in scope of coverage and entry selection but more significantly, in purpose, in method of information presentation and description, and as well as in their general nature. b. academic vs. didactic bilingual dictionaries Dictionaries differ according to whether they are made for academic or didactic purposes. This distinction is exhibited in several ways. First, the academic type normally adopts the diachronic approach; it tends to cover a very broad time span and strives to include everything that will turn out to




be of scholarly value. The didactic type almost always adopts the synchronic approach, as it aims at instructing the user to use the language and helping them in solving practical problems with words in language. Second, the academic type tends to be comprehensive and exhaustive in collecting data. It aims at presenting a complete picture of the language within the specified period of time or the language of a given author or a dead language. The didactic type tends to be selective and pragmatic regarding the collection of data. More often, obsolete words and expressions and outdated meanings and uses of words are excluded. They will concentrate on the basic word stock of the lexicon rather than on the language of a given author, to say nothing of a dead language. Third, the sources of academic dictionaries are usually written material or records that belong to a past period of language development. For example, a dictionary of Old English will be limited to the written literature of the Anglo-Saxon period, and a dictionary of Middle English will be confined to the period between 1150 and 1550. Didactic dictionaries, on the other hand, will rely heavily on contemporary data collected from both written and spoken sources. Obviously academic dictionaries are more likely to be monolingual, compiled for a limited readership of scholars conducting socio-linguistic and cultural researches, whereas didactic dictionaries may be either monolingual or bilingual and intended to serve the general public and large communities of language learners. Academic bilingual dictionaries are a rare species in dictionary typology, but didactic bilingual dictionaries are as common as their monolingual counterparts. Modern bilingual dictionaries tend to be descriptive in nature, though the term didactic has a strong traditional flavor of prescriptivism. Fortunately, some prescription seems to be inevitable, worthwhile and welcome to the dictionary user. 4.2.2 Dictionary context Understanding language means understanding not only the nature of the text but also the discursive processes by which text is produced and interpreted. Hallidayan linguistics categorizes this context of situation into three contextual categories of field, tenor and mode, which are realized by means of three metafunctions – ideational, interpersonal and textual. These situational features of context form one of the aspects that distinguishes Hallidayan linguistics from other schools. The communicative model of lexicography introduced in 1.1.3 uses Halliday’s contextual categories of field, mode and tenor to form a unified dictionary context, with some modification and specification of their reference range and implication. In this approach, context embodies all the lexicographic choices that form the dictionary in its entirety and characterize the situation in which the dictionary is brought into being and the dictionary message is built up.

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

4.2.2.1 Field In this model, field means quite the same as range in Malkiel’s typology. In the case of bilingual dictionaries, it indicates the general scope of the dictionary contents. Here such major options as information range, lexical density, and subject coverage will be considered. a. information coverage: linguistic and encyclopedic bilingual dictionaries The bilingual dictionary can choose to cover lexical information only or to cover both lexical and encyclopedic information. There are two basic considerations about the distinction between linguistic and encyclopedic bilingual dictionaries. First, what makes linguistic dictionaries different from encyclopedic ones? The answer to this question has not seemed easy to find, and its quest dates back to the Renaissance period, when Latin and English bilingual lexicography flourished. The Renaissance debate seemed to concentrate on the inclusion or exclusion of encyclopedic information in hard-word dictionaries. Renaissance Latin and English bilingual lexicographers experimented with three methods. They either gave proper nouns individual entries or omitted them from their dictionaries, or assembled them into a separate part, usually an appendix at the end of their work. All three methods seemed to have found followers among modern lexicographers. The first method seems to have eased its way into most modern lexicographic work and has begun to gain more and more support and understanding from linguists, metalexicographers, and dictionary compilers and users. As for the second method, the complete exclusion of proper terms from dictionaries is still typical of some linguistic dictionaries made in the United Kingdom, but meets some resistance from both academics and readers. The third method can still be found in some encyclopedic dictionaries, but it is more often used in combination with the first method. Since the exclusion of encyclopedic information makes linguistic dictionaries basically different from encyclopedic dictionaries, and the former are very often employed as the bases for the latter, such questions naturally surface as what counts as encyclopedic information and what suffices to change the nature of the linguistic dictionary, i.e. to make it encyclopedic. With regard to the first question, there are some obvious norms to measure against. But the second question is a little harder. As early as 1889, Whitney characterized the encyclopedic dictionary as inclusion of names of persons, places and literary works, coverage of all branches of knowledge and extensive treatment of facts. Assessed according to these three criteria, very few encyclopedic dictionaries can live up to the title, though the encyclopedic dictionary type is developed and published as part of almost all major new series of monolingual English dictionaries. Encyclopedic bilingual dictionaries are still very scarce. So far, no such titles can really be attached to any extant English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries,




though a few Chinese bilingual lexicographers claim their dictionaries to be encyclopedic. As bilingual lexicographers tend to expand their dictionary functions, which is a move welcome to users, there is a great prospect for encyclopedic bilingual dictionaries to be developed and launched in the bilingual dictionary series just as in monolingual dictionary series. b. lexical coverage: bilingual dictionaries in national languages vs. regional dialects To what extent the bilingual dictionary covers the lexicon of a language (“lexical density” in Malkiel’s term) depends largely upon its size, intended purpose and users. The decision regarding whether to cover the vocabulary of the standard national source language or only the vocabulary of one of its dialects gives rise to the differentiation between national language and regional dialect bilingual dictionaries. The former overlap extensively with general-purpose bilingual dictionaries, as both types are concerned mainly with the standard national language as generally used. Bilingual dictionaries are usually based on the standard national languages like English and Chinese (Mandarin), as in The English-Chinese Dictionary. Bilingual dictionaries in regional dialects, which used to be associated with missionaries, are also becoming more and more popular nowadays as a result of increasingly penetrating global interactions. Of the two languages represented in such dictionaries, one of them is usually the standard national or official language, and the other is a regional dialect, as in R.S.Maclay and C.C.Baldwin’s An Alphabetic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Foochow Dialect (1898) and Parker Pofei Huang’s Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese (1970). Bilingual dictionaries are very rarely written in two regional dialects, which may result from their limited social importance and restricted use. Further bilingual dictionary types can be identified when other aspects of lexical coverage are taken into account. Bilingual lexicographers can vary their lexical concentration so as to deal with different parts or different aspects of the lexicon of the source language. For example, they can choose to concentrate on words belonging to one part of speech of the English vocabulary in an EnglishChinese dictionary, hence an English-Chinese dictionary of English verbs, an English-Chinese dictionary of English prepositions, and so on. Usually only important and difficult word classes deserve such treatment. They may also select morphologically, semantically, etymologically or otherwise related lexical items for inclusion in their dictionaries, hence an English-Chinese dictionary of synonyms / antonyms / homonyms / homophones / slang / colloquialisms / new words, etc. These dictionaries fall under the special-aspect category (see 4.2.2.1c). The lexical density may offer another possibility of dividing bilingual dictionaries into subtypes. Landau distinguishes five monolingual types on the basis of

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

the lexical density, ranging from unabridged to semi-unabridged type, college, desk and finally to pocket dictionaries. This differentiation also applies to bilingual dictionary classification. c. subject coverage: general reference vs. special-field/aspect bilingual dictionaries Bilingual dictionaries may cover a wide range of subjects as in the case of general reference dictionaries, or they may choose to deal with only one specific field or only one particular subject. In 4.2.2.1b, a distinction was made between “special-field dictionaries”, which cover the lexicon of a specific field like law or medicine, and “special-aspect dictionaries”, which cover a particular aspect of language, language study or language use. The special-field dictionary is not discussed here due to the concentration of this study on bilingual language dictionaries. The special-aspect dictionary type comprises a greater variety, such as spelling dictionary, pronouncing dictionary, word-division dictionary, reverse dictionary, rhyming dictionary, dictionary of collocations, dictionary of usage, and so on, which are sorted out according to which aspect of language or language use it deals with. Some of these dictionaries, especially those of a more prescriptive nature like pronouncing and spelling dictionaries, are usually monolingual, because there is no need to translate a dictionary for spelling or pronunciation. But dictionaries dealing with collocations and usage should be bilingual when their intended user is the speaker of the target language rather than the speaker of the source language. (see also 4.2.2.1b) 4.2.2.2 Mode In the communicative model of lexicography, mode refers to the way the lexicographic information is processed, i.e. how it is presented, organized, and transmitted. The answers to these questions furnish the basis for classificatory criteria from the angle of mode. a. presentation: alphabetical, semantic vs. pictorial bilingual dictionaries There are three common approaches to the presentation of the information in the bilingual dictionary: alphabetically, semantically and pictorially. In Chinese-English dictionaries the information is also presented by means of radicals. The alphabetical, semantic and radical presentation will be discussed in 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Here focus will be on the pictorial presentation of the information in the bilingual dictionary. Pictorial presentation should be broadly understood as including all forms of non-linear and non-verbal presentations of information in the dictionary. They may be a dot, a line, a table, a diagram, a drawing or a photograph. They may also be “such borderline cases as number lines, geometric figures, structural chemical formulas, curves, graphs, and time lines” (Al-Kasimi 1977:96). What is illustrated may be a single object, a group of objects, etc. Although it is most often used of concrete




things, it is also found effective in representing certain types of abstract concepts or abstract relations, like spatial, temporal, functional, or various other relations. The extent of pictorial presence in the bilingual dictionary varies with different types. In most bilingual dictionaries, illustrations are very little used. They appear only where verbal explanations seem feeble and unable to convey the meaning content of lexical items involved with adequacy, precision and brevity. Pictorial presence is less common in passive bilingual dictionaries than in their active counterparts. Bilingual dictionaries with some pictures are called illustrated dictionaries. In some dictionaries, however, pictorial presentation is employed as the only means of providing information. Such dictionaries are then called picture (or pictorial) dictionaries. Pictorial dictionaries are often designed for children, but they can also be directed at adult users, like The Oxford-Duden Pictorial GermanEnglish Dictionary (1980) and English / Chinese Visual Dictionary (1988). b. direction: monodirectional vs. bidirectional bilingual dictionaries The problem of directionality in the dictionary originated from lexicographers’ awareness of the need to create bilingual dictionaries for both “comprehension” and “production”. In form, a bidirectional bilingual dictionary is a two-in-one dictionary, but in substance, it does not mean it is made simply by reversing the order of the monodirectional bilingual dictionary (see 5.4.2). Problems concerning dictionary users and purposes must be considered simultaneously. Therefore, once a bilingual dictionary project is started, lexicographers will be confronted with two fundamental questions: for whom is the dictionary to be made? What purpose does it intend to serve? Answers to these questions will affect bilingual lexicographers’ decisions concerning the selection of options under each participant in the communicative model. They will not only affect the selection of dictionary entries, the kind of translational equivalents to be provided and the inclusion or exclusion of other kinds of information but more importantly the decision as to whether the dictionary should be monodirectional or bidirectional. Though bidirectional bilingual dictionaries can serve both “comprehension” and “production”, they are usually bulky, inconvenient to use and expensive to buy. In cases where the dictionary size is restricted, there will have to be fewer entries and the amount of information included under each entry, which will greatly reduce its practical utility. This is why monodirecitonal bilingual dictionaries are much more popular than their bidirectional counterparts. c. defining method: bilingual dictionaries with translational equivalents vs. with bilingualized definitions Just as monolingual dictionary compilers can employ previous lexicographic work as the basis for their work, so bilingual lexicographers can capitalize on existing

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

monolingual dictionaries. Before embarking upon a bilingual dictionary, compilers will study a number of monolingual dictionaries and make critical comparisons between them. They will decide on one or several of them as the base for the dictionary to be compiled. Lu Gusun’s The English-Chinese Dictionary mainly employed The World Book Dictionary as its base while The Imperial Dictionary of Kang Xi, compiled by Chang Yushu and a team of other leading scholars at the request of Emperor Kang Xi (1654–1722), was adopted as the base for several missionary Chinese-English dictionaries. The method of defining source language lexical items in these bilingual dictionaries is by means of creating translational equivalents rather than by translating monolingual definitions. In the past several decades, however, there has appeared quite a different type of bilingual dictionary, which is actually a translated or bilingualized version of a popular and time-tested monolingual dictionary. As far as translation is concerned, the resultant dictionary is simply made by replacing source language definitions and explanations with their corresponding target language translation, and in the case of bilingualization, source language definitions and explanations are retained and side by side with them are their corresponding target language translations. Thus, a bilingualized dictionary contains entries defined and explained in two languages, one being the source and the other the target language. Insofar as bilingualized dictionaries rely exclusively on the monolingual base, the compiler (the translator in this case) is completely put at its mercy and is left with no freedom to make his own choices, let alone necessary adjustments. Thus, he translates entry by entry and word by word from the source language to the target language. The monolingual base usually aims at a definite user group in the source language and bilingualized dictionaries should have the same corresponding user group in the target language (though the two groups have different expectations). By comparison, bilingual lexicographers who compile rather than translate or bilingualize a dictionary are allowed as much liberty as necessary to create the dictionary according to the intended purpose and user group, as the monolingual dictionary is merely used as the starting-point. Bilingual compilers may have entirely different user groups from those who use monolingual dictionaries and enjoy a great deal of freedom to make necessary adaptations and formulate appropriate policies accordingly. d. transmission media: print vs. multimedia bilingual dictionaries The media through which lexicographic communication is transmitted divides dictionaries into two more types: print (or paper) dictionaries and multimedia dictionaries. The latter type has not been included here nor has it been treated in any previous typological study. Considering the rapid development of multimedia dictionaries there is a need for studying their evolution.




Early glossaries and wordbooks were handwritten. They could only be produced on a limited scale; they were precious treasures available to only a few lucky, wealthy and highly intelligent people. The printing technology, which made it possible to produce books, and of course dictionaries, in large quantities and at greatly reduced prices, brought about a tremendous revolution in the dissemination of human knowledge. The emergence of print dictionaries has greatly enhanced the development of lexicography and promoted lexicographic communication between the compiler and the user. Print dictionaries are now faced with a formidable challenge from multimedia dictionaries, which have mushroomed everywhere in the world due to the rapid development of computer technology. Multimedia dictionaries mainly include three kinds: electronic dictionaries (also known as PC electronic pocket dictionaries), dictionaries on CD-ROM (also known as CD dictionaries) and internet dictionaries (variously known as online dictionaries, e-dictionaries and cyberdictionaries). According to an estimate by Huang & Chen (eds., 1998:269), there are already more than 100 internet dictionaries, ranging from general to special type, from monolingual to bilingual type. The Yahoo! subject index alone includes 91 cyberdictionaries. “They accurately represent the expanding sphere of cyberlexicography” (Carr 1997:212). 4.2.2.3 Tenor In the communicative model of lexicography, “tenor” refers to interpersonal relations between the compiler and the user and their likely influence upon the ways these relations are handled and reflected in lexicographic choices. This aspect of lexicographic practice was of little interest to early dictionary makers. Dictionary users’ needs and expectations were almost entirely beyond their concern. a. general users: bilingual dictionaries for speakers of the source language vs. speakers of the target language “Tenor” in lexicographic communication does not seem to cause as much serious concern for monolingual lexicographers as for their bilingual counterparts. General-purpose monolingual dictionaries are normally intended for speakers of the language of entry words. Though different sorts of monolingual dictionaries may be designed to suit different native user groups, as in some well-known monolingual English dictionary series, the case seems to be much less intricate. As far as bilingual dictionaries are concerned, lexicographers encounter a more difficult situation: they have at least two general types of users to cater for and many more if these two types are subdivided. They will have to decide whether their dictionary is designed for speakers of the source language or for speakers of the target language, and for which subtype if the situation requires it to be differentiated.

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

Different intended user groups and subgroups will generate different types of relationships between compilers and users, which will in turn lead to different lexicographic choices and decisions in dictionary making. Most of the early English and Latin bilingual dictionaries from the 16th century onward aimed at a very large general public, and the kind of user they sometimes specified on the title page could be anyone who needed a dictionary, regardless of whether they were native speakers or foreigners. They were considered “Verie profitable and necessarie for Scholers, Courtiers, Lawyers and their Clarkes, Apprentices of London, Traveliers, Factors for Merchants, and briefly for all Discontinuers within her Maiesties Realmes of England and Ireland” (Starnes 1954:218). Though user groups were specified on the title page, they were too general to affect the compiler’s choices and principles implemented in the process of dictionary making. No evidence is found of special measures being taken to adapt their work to the needs of particular user groups. Thus, lexicographic communication in these early bilingual dictionaries was unidirectional. Although the user’s part in lexicographic communication was almost totally ignored in those early bilingual works, great importance has been attached to it in modern lexicographic activities. Lexicographers’ choices will have to vary with the user’s needs and expectations, which can be reflected in lexicographic works as dictionary making is now becoming a mutual communication process between compiler and user. b. language learners: bilingual dictionaries for reference-oriented users vs. activelearning users Dictionary users may be divided into the reference-oriented users and the activelearning group. For the reference-oriented user, bilingual dictionaries should shift their focus on to lexicographic information that meets the need for decoding text. For active-learning users, bilingual dictionaries should focus on the active use of language, thus concentrating more on their encoding function than on their decoding function. This basic distinction leads to essential differences in entry selection, lexical coverage and density, methods of defining words, information range, and so on. In entry selection, for example, a Chinese-English dictionary for active learners will mainly be concerned with the basic vocabulary stock of the source language, with neologisms, regionalisms and technical terms accounting for a small proportion of the wordlist. But a Chinese-English dictionary for referenceoriented users is liekly to include a higher percentage of neologisms, regionalisms, technical terms, which are generally excluded from the vocabulary list of bilingual dictionaries for active learning. Language learners make up a special and active type of dictionary users. Active learners may be grouped according to their levels of language proficiency and




knowledge, and their age. Active learners with different levels of language proficiency and knowledge may have different expectations and language needs for their dictionaries. Bilingual lexicographers will have to vary their choices and decisions and develop different dictionary types and series to meet their specific needs. Based on their language proficiency levels, these series and types may range from elementary, intermediate to advanced, and according to levels of knowledge, they may range from junior (for primary school pupils), senior (for secondary or high school students) to tertiary (for college and university students). Though these series and types share the same pedagogical purpose, they differ in criteria for entry selection, in extent of information inclusion, in organizational structure, in exemplification, in methods of explaining and defining words and so on. In addition to levels of language proficiency and knowledge, the age range is also an important parameter that generates the contrasting type of bilingual dictionaries for adult use vs. for child use. Whether consciously or unconsciously, this parameter was recognized as early as Renaissance. But there did not seem to be well-established principles for the making of this contrasting type. Bilingual dictionaries regarding young schoolboys as their intended users did not display methodological differences or contain distinctive features that could set them apart from those for adults. They maintained the “hard word” tradition, which lingered until the early part of the 20th century, when Edward L. Thorndike gave careful thought to the special needs of schoolchildren and applied the principles of the psychology of learning to dictionary making. On the basis of word frequency counts, Thorndike edited a monolingual dictionary series especially for children. This series was later developed into three tiers: elementary school (grades three-eight), middle school (grades six-ten), which are the most popular, and secondary school (grades nine-twelve). The word lists and the monolingual series were used as the reliable foundation for making bilingual dictionaries for child use. As a result, bilingual dictionaries for children are characterized by well-selected and graded vocabularies, large type, simple and effective explanations, and fascinating pictorial illustration. Most importantly, categorical organization of the dictionary text often proves to be more helpful and effective than alphabetical arrangement in suggesting semantic association and thus enhancing lexical memorization and language learning.

Chapter 4. Bilingual dictionaries: a communicative typology 

The following table is a summary of the major options that have been considered as dimensions for bilingual dictionary classification under “dictionary context”: Dictionary Context Field Information coverage Lexical coverage Subject coverage

Mode Presentation Direction Method Media

Tenor General users Language learners

To make bilingual dictionaries available to as many users as possible and suitable for specific user needs is part of the process of completing and promoting intercultural lexicographic communication and making it achieve its intended goals.

chapter 5

Bilingual dictionaries A structural description

As indicated in Chapter 1, the dictionary can be described as a system of communication between the compiler and the user. Monolingual dictionaries, which are intended for those sharing a common language and a common cultural background, are thus described in terms of intra-cultural communication. Bilingual dictionaries, which are designed for those whose language and culture are different, though sometimes related to some extent as in Indo-European languages, are described in terms of intercultural communication. Whatever type of communication it is, the essence of a lexicographic message transmitted from the compiler to the user resides in the dictionary text, which is composed in such an intricate manner that the user must be introduced to the information item that is expected to be found. This requires an introductory part to precede the dictionary body to provide the setting for it. More additional information may be appended at the end of the dictionary body for reinforcement and supplementation. Effective lexicographic communication requires the communicative system and its subsystems to be coordinated and structured in such ways as to facilitate interaction between the compiler and the user and to enhance ready access to different parts of the dictionary where the required information is located. The general configuration (i.e. megastrucutre) of the dictionary, whether monolingual or bilingual, normally follows somewhat same regularly structured pattern. The dictionary bears striking resemblance to a discourse text. Like a normal text, the dictionary is usually composed of three parts: front matter (the beginning), dictionary text (the main body) and back matter (the end), as is shown in the following scheme:

English monolingual dictionary Front Matter Dictionary Text:English-English Back Matter

English bilingual dictionary Front Matter Dictionary Text: English-Chinese Back Matter

However, when directionality and reversibility are taken into account, the differences in megastructure become essential. Bidirectionality and reversibility are structural features unique to bilingual dictionaries. Monolingual dictionaries are




never bidirectional or reversible for lack of a contrasting counterpart. Supposing the English bilingual dictionary is bidirectional, i.e. containing not only the English-Chinese part but also the Chinese-English part, then the structural pattern of the dictionary text in the two dictionaries would appear as follows: English monolingual dictionary Front Matter Dictionary Text: English-English Back Matter

English bilingual dictionary Front Matter Dictionary Text: English-Chinese Chinese-English Back Matter

Thus, in terms of megastructural configuration, almost all dictionaries can be described at four different levels, with the dictionary text serving as the pivot: before the dictionary text, inside the dictionary text, after the dictionary text, and beyond the dictionary text. The first three levels of description apply to all types of dictionaries, while the last one applies only to the bilingual type. “Before the dictionary text (front matter)” and “after the dictionary text (back matter)” will be subsumed under the general heading “outside matter structure” while the paradigmatic and syntagmatic structures “inside the dictionary text” will be discussed in “macrostructure” and “microstructure”. Directionality and reversibility will be considered as structural features “beyond the dictionary text”.

5.1 Outside matter structure 5.1.1 Front Matter What goes before the dictionary text is generally referred to as the front matter of the dictionary. The front matter normally includes the title page, table of contents, articles written by editors and authorities, guide to the use of the dictionary, principles of pronunciation, explanation of abbreviations, and some other materials. 5.1.1.1 Title page The title page gives the title of the dictionary, its author(s) or editor(s), its publisher and the date of publication. However, most of the ancient bilingual glossaries and wordbooks contained no title pages, as the authorship, the date of completion (or publication) and the printer (or publisher) were not usually indicated. For instance, the four earliest extant English bilingual glossaries (The Leiden Glossary, The Epinal Glossary, The Erfurt Glossary, The Corpus Glossary) were all works of unknown authorship and date. The title page was not found even in the earliest known English-Latin dictionary Promptorium parvulorum, sive clericorum

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

(c.1440). Not until The Dictionary of Syr Thomas Eliot (1538) came into being did the bilingual dictionary, for the first time, acquire a modern-looking title page, and when Thomas Cooper revised and augmented Eliot’s dictionary, he gave it a more informative title (see Starnes 1954:69). The practice of providing an informative title page continued and developed to include some strong and unique features of the dictionary, which were succinctly summarized and highlighted on the title page in bilingual dictionaries compiled in English and other modern European languages. The title page of John Minsheu’s A Dictionarie in Spanish and English (1599) is a very good case in point (see Steiner 1970:38–9). This title page approximates to a compact introduction of the dictionary. As bilingual dictionaries developed to include more information than previously, the limited space of the title page could no longer meet the needs, and new items had to be created and inserted in the front matter to fully elaborate those points which prior to this were only briefly mentioned on the title page. Eventually much of the information originally contained on the title page was relegated to new items of specific functions added to the front matter. By the end of the nineteenth century, compact title pages had begun to be replaced by clear and more luxuriously illustrated title pages in bilingual dictionaries. The title page in the bilingual dictionary is in most cases printed in both the source and target languages. Today’s title pages of bilingual dictionaries normally carry only the title of the book, its author(s), its publisher and, sometimes the date of publication. 5.1.1.2 Acknowledgments The Acknowledgments section (if there is one) usually comes after the title page, stating the indebtedness of the present author(s) to persons who offer help, advice and suggestions contributing directly or indirectly to the project during the preparatory and compiling stages of the work, to organizations which provide support to ensure the smooth progress of the project, and/or to publishers which grant permission to make use of data and printed matter necessary for the construction of the project. In some dictionaries, the Acknowledgments page does not take up a separate space. It may be included at the end of the Preface or Introduction, if the Preface or Introduction is written by the author(s) of the dictionary. Acknowledgments in bilingual dictionaries are usually written in the defining language, but sometimes it may be bilingual. 5.1.1.3 Table of contents What follows the title page (or Acknowledgments, if there happens to be any) is the Table of Contents, which may be “considered some kind of survey article summarizing the entire dictionary structure” as “it is probably the only component to contain references to all the other components in the dictionary” (Nielsen 1995:168). The




Table of Contents arises out of the need to clarify the mapping of all the essential components in the dictionary and offers ready directions for quick access to where the required component and information are located. Most of the early bilingual glossaries and wordbooks were, however, simple in structure. They followed categorical and topical sequences, in which case no indication or guidance was needed in following the thread of information. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that there was no table of contents in these early glossaries and wordbooks, and in medieval and Renaissance bilingual dictionaries. English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries did not include a Table of Contents in the front matter until the turn of the nineteenth century. Adam Grainger’s Western Mandarin, or the Spoken Language of Western China (1900) was perhaps the first Chinese and English bilingual lexicon to include a Table of Contents in its front matter. Ever since the Table of Contents has become an indispensable part of bilingual dictionaries. 5.1.1.4 Preface, foreword and introduction Following the Table of Contents are the Preface, Foreword and Introduction. Preface and/or Foreword are usually composed by the chief editor(s) or in the name of editorial board. It must make clear such points as dictionary purposes, intended users, lexicon coverage, compiling methodologies, access modes, and so on. Preface and/or Foreword may also be of a persuasive nature and be written by an authority in the field who may recommend the work or comment on it. In explaining the motivation of having Preface and/or Foreword written by an authority, Landau (1989:116) states: compared to the overall effort of producing a dictionary, front-matter articles are of negligible importance. The attention given them by reviewers, however, makes them of considerable commercial importance. Thus, front-matter articles are often written by prominent scholars or educators in an attempt to establish the authority of the work and lend it prestige.

It follows that dictionary buyers should make careful comparisons of different dictionaries and have confidence in their own judgments rather than be misled by the words of those authorities. Introduction may be thought of as an expansion of the information provided in Preface. Thus it contains a more detailed elaboration of the editor(s)’ goal, consideration, methods, policies and philosophy adopted in the process of dictionary making. It was traditional for early bilingual dictionary makers to prefix the dictionary text with a detailed description of the grammar of the language(s) (including its pronunciation) and/or a brief history of the language(s). Herbert A. Giles’ A Chinese-English Dictionary (1892), for example, is one of the few dictionaries in the bilingual category which contain both a most wide-ranging Preface and a most

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

meticulously-composed Philological Essay. The Preface gives a nine-page description of all aspects of the dictionary contents and methods of access to them. The Philological Essay provides a full treatment of the evolution of the Chinese language, the Chinese characters and their relationship with and influence upon neighboring languages. It is perhaps the longest essay on the target language written in the source language in a bilingual dictionary. Though brain-racking efforts had gone into the composition of all this highly precious introductory matter, it is doubtful whether the general public would spend their time reading it and whether they would be scholarly enough to find such technical writings interesting and beneficial and take pains to understand them. Probably owing to this, modern bilingual dictionaries seldom contain long scholarly essays. Rather, bilingual lexicographers will explain their methodologies, principles and philosophies about their work in short articles written in clear, plain and non-technical language. 5.1.1.5 Guide to the use of the dictionary Modern bilingual dictionaries are designed to fulfil a much broader range of functions than their forerunners. As a consequence, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of teaching the intended user how to make best and full use of the dictionary information and functions provided. To achieve this end, a separate section, Guide to the Use of the Dictionary, has been opened in the front matter of almost all present-day bilingual dictionaries. The purpose of such a section is to give a detailed description of how the dictionary is structured, how one structural component is related to the other, how the information is organized and systematized, what information is to be found in which part. Its task is also to inform the user of how to locate and access particular items of information in the quickest manner possible. As a result, the challenge for the compiler is how to design this part of the front matter well and how to raise user awareness and make full use of it. Early bilingual dictionaries did not include Guide to the Use of the Dictionary, which used to be woven into Preface or Introduction. In both H.A.Giles’ A ChineseEnglish Dictionary (1892) and F.W. Baller’s An Analytical Chinese-English Dictionary (1900), information on how to use the dictionary was contained in Preface. In S.W.Williams’ A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language (1874) and Carstairs Douglas’ Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy (1873), such information was all contained in Introduction. Guide to the Use of the Dictionary may also have taken the form of To the Reader, as in John Veron’s Dictionariolum puerorum, tribus linguis (1552). Modern bilingual dictionaries, however, would be impossible to use without guidance to their use in the front matter.




5.1.1.6 Explanations of abbreviations and symbols Explanations of Abbreviations and Symbols usually comes last in the sequence of the front matter, and occasionally may also be affixed to the end of the book. The codes to be explained in this item are usually shortened forms of specialized terminologies in almost every conceivable field to which the dictionary vocabulary is related. More often than not, these codes turn out to be very effective and significant in enhancing language understanding and use due to their highly informative and compact nature. This is probably the reason why bilingual lexicographers and learners dictionary makers attach greater importance to the research and development of this feature than their monolingual counterparts do. Besides the major items normally contained in the front matter of a bilingual dictionary, others may be included, depending on how these items will help to achieve dictionary purpose and function. 5.1.2 Back matter What is mapped out after the dictionary text is generally referred to as the back matter, which may comprise a greater variety of material than the front matter. Its main constituents may be classified into three categories: linguistic, encyclopedic and referential. 5.1.2.1 Linguistic material The inclusion of material of linguistic nature in the back matter of the bilingual dictionary occurred as early as medieval times. Tables of verb conjugation and pronunciation rules were often included. However, with the passage of time, the range of linguistic material in the back matter broadened, and greater advancements were made in bilingual dictionaries than in monolingual dictionaries. Besides tables of verb conjugation and pronunciation guidelines, bilingual dictionaries are now found to include word formation rules, tense formation rules, rules of agreement (or concord), orthography rules, transcription systems, alphabets, list of Americanisms and Britishisms, special usage notes, and even examples of language, as in Collins Robert Comprehensive French-English Dictionary (Atkins et al, 1995). As far as the methodology of handling linguistic material is concerned, monolingual dictionaries usually adopt a descriptive approach while bilingual ones, in most cases, employ a comparative method. 5.1.2.2 Encyclopedic material “The tradition of including encyclopedic material in dictionaries is as old as lexicography” (Landau 1989:119). Early bilingual glossaries and wordbooks were generally of a more encyclopedic than of a linguistic nature. When the function of

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

dictionaries was fully recognized, encyclopedic material was omitted or moved from the dictionary text to the back matter. This is still the practice of some contemporary dictionary-makers in England, though most dictionary compilers tend to adopt a moderate policy towards such matter. The extent of inclusion of encyclopedic material in the back matter is largely determined by the design, size, and function of the dictionary. The more comprehensive the design, the greater the size, and the fuller the function, the more extensive the inclusion. Encyclopedic information may cover historical chronology, geographical names, personal names, prominent literary figures, family relations, chemical elements, monetary units, weights and measures, numbers, time and dates, and so on. Bilingual dictionaries are combinations of two languages, thus involving two different cultures. This inevitably leads to divergence in focus and orientation in the inclusion of encyclopedic material. It is most often the culture of the source language and the intended user that dominate the decision as to what is to be included in the back matter. In a Chinese-English dictionary, for example, the inclusion of encyclopedic material is to be oriented toward the Chinese culture, and in an English-Chinese dictionary, focus will certainly fall on the English side. But the former can also contain information concerning the English culture if it is for the use of Chinese users, and the latter can contain information concerning the Chinese culture if it is for the use of English users. 5.1.2.3 Reference guidance Guide to the Use of the Dictionary is designed to provide the user with methods of direct access to the required part or a particular item in the dictionary. There may, however, be extremely complicated cases where it is far beyond the scope and power of such guides, as in the case of Chinese-English dictionaries. Unlike English, Chinese does not employ the alphabet as the basis for its writing system. Chinese characters are made up of radicals and strokes. Accordingly, in early dictionaries they were arranged on the basis of radicals, which implies that anyone who wished to consult Chinese-English dictionaries must have a sound knowledge of how Chinese characters are formed. This makes almost impossible demands upon dictionary users, especially those who do not have much knowledge of the Chinese language. Thanks to the invention of the Wade-Giles romanization system and the implementation of the official Pinyin system in China, Chinese dictionaries, as well as Chinese-English dictionaries, are now able to follow the Roman alphabetic system in arranging Chinese characters, which makes it easy for those who are not well acquainted with Chinese characters to have quick and direct access to various parts of the dictionary. But trouble also arises for those who are unfamiliar with the Wade-Giles and the Pinyin systems. To offset this disadvantage, referential guidance in the form of indexes becomes necessary. This explains

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

why almost every Chinese-English dictionary follows the tradition of providing radical indexes in the back matter. For instance, R. H. Mathews’ Chinese-English Dictionary (Shanghai 1931) contained “The 214 Radicals and Radical Index”; S. W.Williams’ A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language (Shanghai 1874) contained “List of the Radicals”, “Index of Characters”, and “List of Difficult Characters”; and Liu Dah-jen’s Chinese-English Dictionary (New York 1978) contains “Index of the Liu’s Tonal-Built-in Sound System” and “Index of Liu’s Left-top Radical System”. All these indexes ensure the ease of reference in looking up Chinese characters in Chinese-English dictionaries. To refer speakers of English to Chinese characters, English indexes may also be appended, as in Lin Yutang’s Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern Usage (Hong Kong 1972). Just as front matter serves as a prelude to the dictionary text, so back matter should function as a supplement to it. The introductory principle should be regarded as the criterion for selection and inclusion of material in the front matter. Likewise, the supplementary principle should be regarded as the criterion for selection and inclusion of information in the back matter. Whatever is selected for inclusion in the back matter should be relevant to the dictionary text. Irrelevant material should not be admitted. 5.1.3 Outside matter: a comparative survey A comparative survey of structural constituents and distributional features of the outside matter in eight monolingual and bilingual dictionaries demonstrates some interesting facts about what is in “outside matter” and what is lacking there:

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

Front and back matter

Foreword/Introduction Guide to Dictionary Use Abbreviations/Symbols Pronunciation Guide Key to Entry Structure Language Varieties Language History Tables of Measurements, Weights, etc. Proofreaders’ Marks Collective Nouns for Animals and Plants Foreign Alphabets Classic and Modern Quotations Personal / Place Names Chemical Elements Roman Numerals Style Guide Geological Time Division Time and Date Table of Verb Inflections Musical Terms and Signs Temperature

Co

Ce

Ch Mc

Mf

Rc

Cg De

F F F N N N F/B B B B B N B B N B B N N N N

F F F F N F N B N B N N N B N N N N N N N

F F F F N F N B N N B B B N B N N N N B N

N F F F N N N F N N N N N N N N N N N N N

F F N F N N N B N N N N N N B N N N B N N

F F N F N N N B N N N N N N B N N B B N N

F F F F F F N B B B B N N N N B N N N N N

F F F N N N N B N N N N N N N N N N N N B

Middle Matter Middle Matter

Co

Ce

Ch

Mc

Mf

Rc

Cg

De

N

N

N

N

M

N

N

N

Note: (1) The eight dictionaries and their codes are: The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Co) (R. E. Allen, 1990, 8th ed., Oxford Clarendon Press), Collins English Dictionary (Ce) (Diana Treffry et al, 1998, 4th ed., HarperCollins Publishers), Chambers English Dictionary (Ch), Catherine Schwarz et al, 1988, Cambridge:Chambers), The Macquarie Dictionary (Mc) (Arthur Delbridge, 1997, 3rd ed., The Macquarie Library), Dictionnaire Moderne Francais-Anglais (Mf) (William Maxwell Landers, 1978, Paris: Librairie Larousse), Robert Collins Dictionnaire Francais-Anglais (Rc) (Beryl T. Atkins et al, 1987, Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert), Collins German-English English-German Dictionary (unabridged) (Cg) (Peter Ferrell et al, 1997, 3rd ed., Earnest Klett Verlag), and Diccionario Moderno Espanol-Ingles (De) (Micheline Durand, 1976, Librairie Larousse). (2) “F(ront)” in the table means “the information item is distributed before the dictionary text”, “B(ack)” means “after the dictionary text”, “M(iddle)” means “inside the dictionary text”, and “N(o)” means “no such item is included in the indicated dictionary”.




It becomes obvious from the table above that monolingual and bilingual dictionaries overlap extensively with regard to structural constituents and their distribution patterns in the front matter, but differ significantly in the back matter. It also demonstrates the scarcity in both types of dictionaries, especially the bilingual one, of those outside matter constituents, which have traditionally proved to be useful to dictionary users. Dictionary users are sometimes blamed for not reading the outside matter (in particular the front matter) and therefore fail to make full use of information and to recognize the full range of functions provided in the dictionary. The above survey, however, shows that there is really not much for dictionary users to read. Even if there is something there, it is usually written in professional jargon and is often beyond the ordinary user’s ability to read and understand. Bilingual lexicographers need to think about and seek, preferably by means of questionnaires and group discussions, what it is that dictionary users really expect to find in the outside matter and how it should be made user-friendly and easily understandable.

5.2 Macrostructure The dictionary text is the central part of the book. It is where the most essential information is located. When looking at the general structure of the dictionary text, one can easily discover two predominant threads going through it, stringing various dictionary entry articles together and weaving them into a coherent and cohesive body. The two predominant threads are the macrostructure and the microstructure, the former constituting the spine of the dictionary body and the latter being realized by the lemma articles forming that body. 5.2.1 Hierarchies of lemma units The macrostructure of the dictionary is the system under which the arrangement of lemmata in the lexicon is actualized. There has been a long-cherished misconception about what can constitute the macrostructure of a dictionary. The traditional view holds that the dictionary records word, from which may be inferred that only words can be recruited to form the spine of the dictionary body. It is understandable, therefore, why early dictionaries did not treat anything smaller than words, not even letters of the alphabet, as lemmata in the macrostructure. Structural linguists believe that a language system is hierarchical. They distinguish between words and morphemes, regarding morphemes, not words, as the smallest meaningful unit in the language. In the light of this theory, both words (i.e. free morphemes) and inflectional and derivational endings (i.e. bound morphemes)

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

are capable of being recorded as lemmata in the dictionary. One will find this specification still incomplete when looking through almost any dictionary at hand. Not only does actual lexicographical practice allow bound morphemes to be entered as lemmata, but letters, numbers and other graphemes as well. A complete description of constituents realizing the macrostructure of the dictionary should take into account all graphemes used in writing that could be considered potential headwords in the lemma article. A brief survey will show the inclusion not only of words and morphemes in the macrostructure but also of lemma units smaller than morphemes (e.g. letter) and larger than words (e.g. closed collocation). On the basis of such an analysis, there is every reason to represent the macrostructure as being realized hierarchically by constituents graded between five levels. Running from the lowest to the topmost level, they are grapheme, morpheme, word, phrase, and sentence. They can all be entered as prospective constituents forming the spine of the dictionary text, and there are three major approaches to arranging them in the macrostructure: alphabetical, thematic (or semantic, categorical) and morphemic. As the morphemic approach “would be of interest mainly to linguists” (Landau 1989:33) and is not usually used in bilingual dictionaries, attention will only be paid to the alphabetical and thematic approaches. 5.2.2 Alphabetical approach The foundation of the alphabetical approach lies in the assumption that there exists in language a set of visually graphic symbols, i.e. letters, which are arranged one after another in a conventional and universally accepted order and forms what is called the alphabet. All European languages consist of such alphabets, though they may differ in the number of letters and in the way they are arranged. People in the same speech community share the knowledge of the alphabet in their languages. Lexicographers, therefore, take advantage of this shared knowledge basis and follow the alphabetic sequence in arranging entries in their dictionaries. Generally speaking, there are two different ways of realizing the macrostructure of the dictionary by means of alphabetization: word-by-word and letter-byletter. Both ways are found in bilingual dictionaries. The difference can be seen when there are headwords comprising more than one graphical word. The letter-by-letter method treats these as if they were written continuously, while the word-by-word method takes account of the spaces (which are always ranked before the letters). (Svensen 1993:223)




When graphemes are taken into account, Nielsen considers it necessary to make a distinction between the alphabet of a language in the usual sense of the word, as in the English, Danish, etc. alphabet, and access alphabet, which is the alphabetic arrangement principle used in a particular dictionary, but not necessarily identical with alphabet in the above sense of the word. (Nielsen 1995:190)

Thus, every dictionary may have its own access alphabet represented by its specific arrangement of lemmata in the macrostructure. According to the word-by-word principle, “blanks are treated as typographic symbols coming before the first letter in the alphabet, for which reason the blank is usually the first symbol in the access alphabet” (Nielsen 1995:192), but in the light of the letter-by-letter principle, “only letters, or graphemes, count. Blank spaces in lemmata consisting of more than one typographical word are thus ignored.” (op.cit) As is clear from the above, each of the two principles of alphabetization displays advantages and disadvantages. The letter-by-letter arrangement is easy for lexicographers and dictionary users to follow. Lexicographers will not have to seriously consider where to enter a word, its derivatives and compounds. Dictionary users armed with the knowledge of the alphabet and its conventional order will find this arrangement familiar, practical, and easy to follow. A single search may suffice to locate the required information or information item. Linguistically and technically, the letter-by-letter arrangement places less demand on the user. On the other hand, this type of arrangement upsets subject-field systematisms, as concepts occur out of context in arbitrary order, thereby precluding the illustration of conceptual relations. From the point of view of the user, this must be considered unfortunate, since he is not given an overview of the subject field in question, which might otherwise prove useful for translation and comprehension purposes. (Laursen 1995:199)

These disadvantages will be offset if lemmata are arranged word by word. Under the word-by-word system, the sequence of related lemmata is not interrupted by one or more morphologically and semantically unrelated lemmata, thus providing the user with a coherent overview of the formal and sense relations between the stem and its derivations. This would prove to be an invaluable help to language learners. But when it comes to lookup, dictionary users sometimes find it demanding to locate a lexical item if they are unfamiliar with how the paradigmatic structure is realized. It is important to note that as long as clear indications are given as to how the macrostructure is organized, the word-by-word arrangement should have obvious advantages over the letter-by-letter arrangement and should always

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

be recommended for bilingual dictionaries, especially for medium-sized active bilingual dictionaries, as it facilitates lexical association and language learning. When the word-by-word principle is followed in bilingual dictionary making, two methods of implementing this principle will have to be established and distinguished: the straight-alphabetic method and the nest-alphabetic method. The straight-alphabetic method treats every lexical and graphical unit as lemma constituents realizing the paradigmatic structure. As a result, each lemma has a separate paragraph to itself, and the lemma article is addressed only to the headword. There are no subentries or sublemmata, the number of articles equaling the number of lemmata in the paradigmatic structure. This method gives the reader great ease in finding lemmata, as it ensures the greatest clarity possible in the arrangement of lemmata. All lemmata are always listed on the extreme left of each column of the dictionary text and highlighted by boldface type. The obvious disadvantage of this method is that it takes up too much space. The nest-alphabetic method is based more on the morphological and etymological aspects of the lexical unit than on its semantic aspect, though the latter aspect is a close reflection of the former, since morphologically related lexical items are usually semantically associated in one way or the other. This method groups lemmata in nests. Each nest is introduced by one headword, i.e. the main lemma, which may be separated by two vertical lines (║) from sub-heads (i.e. sublemmata) derived from it. Thus, all words derived from the same stem (i.e. lemma) will be grouped together in the same nest and woven into the lemma article as sublemmata. Each nest lemma may have its own article, headed by the subheadword (i.e. the nest lemma). The main lemmata, which normally appear in strictly alphabetic order, are always listed at the head of the lemma article and can only be located by searching through the paradigmatic structure. Nest lemmata in each lemma article may be arranged in strictly alphabetic order, or they may be arranged in two parts, with the first part separated from the second by two vertical lines (║) and each part still listed alphabetically. Note that in this case derivatives usually precede compounds. A deviation can be discovered from this method in some bilingual dictionaries which place each nest lemma on a new line and indenting it by a one- or twoletter space. This deviation consumes more space than nesting, but it can still give a clear picture of the expressional relation between the lemma and the indented sublemmata and to some extent maintain the sense relations between them. In cases where the lemma has a number of derivatives and compounds, this deviation has the advantage over nesting that nest lemmata are easier to locate. On the whole, the nest-alphabetic method has several prominent features. First, it can save a lot of valuable space as all relevant lemmata are grouped in the same nest and every bit of room is made full use of. Second, it provides the diction-




ary user with a panoramic view of the whole range and subrange of the subject field as etymologically and morphologically related lexical units are clustered, and their relationship is easy to trace. Third, it excites lexical association, providing the user with more information than expected, since a number of related lexical units which may be linked to his consultation appear in the same nest. It is not hard to understand why this method is more often adopted in learners dictionaries and active bilingual dictionaries. However, the difficulty in locating sublemmata in nests is not to be underestimated as nest articles are eventually longer and more compact than more normal lemma articles, especially in cases where a great number of words are derived from the same stem. But this disadvantage can be largely offset if clear indications are given in the Guide to the Use of the Dictionary. The alphabetic approach is believed to be universally applicable to all sorts of lexicographical practice and to all subject fields. The Preface in Grimm’s dictionary considers it “a sin not to use the alphabetic arrangement principle, since this is a prerequisite for the safe and quick consultation of dictionaries” (see Nielsen 1995:190). Although languages with non-alphabetic writing systems may make the situation more complicated, lexicographers writing dictionaries in these languages have, nevertheless, made assiduous efforts to conform to the alphabetic sequence. For instance, the Chinese language derives its logographical writing system from an ideographic script, where the graphemes represent words, each syllable being represented in the script by a unique graph or character which suggests the meaning of the syllable rather than its sound. The contrasts in meaning are carried by the strokes that constitute the characters. Consequently, radicals and strokes are used as the basis for arranging characters in Chinese monolingual dictionaries, as in The Imperial Dictionary of Kang Xi. This kind of arrangement, if adopted in the Chinese-English dictionary, will cause serious problems in looking up word entries, especially to those without a sound knowledge of the origins of Chinese characters. To work out solutions to this problem, early Chinese-English bilingual dictionary-makers, in particular missionary lexicographers, tried to adapt the alphabetic phonetic system to transcribe pronunciations of Chinese characters and arrange Chinese characters on the basis of such a transcription. The results were various versions of sound systems for spelling the Chinese language. The most well-known and the most widely accepted system was the WadeGiles romanization system, from which all later modified and extended systems were derived to meet international needs. The Wade-Giles system, which started to take shape with the compilation of early Chinese-English dictionaries dominated phonetic transcription in Chinese-English dictionaries for over a century, and did not give place to the Chinese romanization system, the Pinyin system, until the recent two or three decades, when it was officially established and put

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

into effect in the mainland of China and gradually gained recognition and circulation in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and overseas. As a result of the creation of the romanization systems, Chinese-English dictionary users can choose between the romanization system and the traditional radical system for consultation. If the dictionary adopts the traditional radical system to arrange its characters, there is sure to be a Pinyin or the Wade-Giles reference index. But if characters in Chinese-English dictionaries are arranged according to the romanization (e.g. pinyin) system, then there will invariably be Chinese radical indexes. This dual arrangement has the advantage of maintaining the semantic integrity of related Chinese characters, which is totally missing in a strictly alphabetically based Chinese-English dictionary like John DeFrancis’ ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (1997). This dictionary claims to be “distinctive in that it offers the powerful advantage of arranging entries in single-sort alphabetical order as by far the simplest and fastest way to look up a term whose pronunciation is known” (see Introduction of ABC Chinese-English Dictionary). As in dictionaries of European languages based on the Latin alphabet and in romanized dictionaries of Japanese, this dictionary follows a strict letter-by-letter sequence. It is true that “the strict single-sort alphabetical order of this dictionary distinguishes it from the double-sort ‘alphabetic’ dictionaries where the order is determined by the alphabetic sequence of the head character” (see User’s Guide of ABC Chinese-English Dictionary), and that it “enables users to find words seen only in transcription or heard but not seen in written form” (see Introduction of ABC Chinese-English Dictionary). But it does this at the expense of upsetting the semantic fields some characters form between themselves and therefore cutting off all lexical ties between semantically related lemmata. Moreover, the Chinese language is rich in homophones, which also pose serious challenges to the didactic value and utility of this arrangement. 5.2.3 Semantic approach The semantic approach is another common means of realizing the macrostructure of the dictionary text. While the alphabetic approach focuses on the formal aspect of linguistic and graphical signs, the semantic approach is based on the sense relations that exist between lexical units. It is characterized by semantic categorization and grouping. Under the semantic system, word entries are arranged according to conceptual systems based on definitions, which among other things, serve to delimit the concepts relative to each other as well as to establish their mutual relationships. The place of the individual concepts in a conceptual system will determine the structure of lemmata in the dictionary word list (Nielsen 1995).




The semantic approach has its foundation in semantic field theory, but it did not originate with semantic field theory and had existed in English bilingual glossaries and wordbooks for several hundred years before being theoretically generalized. In the history of Chinese lexicography, the topical arrangement preceded the alphabetical ordering by nearly two thousand years. In the history of English lexicography, Latin-Old English vocabularies had adopted the topical or the thematic principle as the basis for ordering its lemmata as early as the tenth century. Owing to its merits of sustaining sense relations between lexical items and thus enhancing language learning, it has been in constant use by lexicographers to achieve what is missing in the alphabetic order. Before adopting the topical principle in ordering lemmata, lexicographers have to make a careful examination of corpus data, classify them into different categories, and then into subcategories in the light of further observation and analysis. The practice of arranging lexical items in semantically related groups started with bilingual vocabulary compilation in English lexicography, “which flourished from the Anglo-Saxon period to the nineteenth century” (Starnes 1946). They might well be the earliest instances of the topic arrangement found in bilingual dictionaries. A Latin-Anglo-Saxon vocabulary of the eleventh century, for instance, falls roughly into eighteen groups, which run as follows (headings supplied by Starnes 1946): (1) God, heaven, angels, archangels, sun, moon, earth, sea; (2) man, woman, the parts of the body; (3) terms of consanguinity, professional and trades people, artisans; (4) diseases; (5) abstract terms (impious, just, prudent, etc.); (6) times of year, of day, seasons, weather; (7) colors; (8) birds; (9) fishes; (10) beasts; (11) herbs; (12) trees; (13) house furnishings; (14) kitchen and cooking utensils; (15) weapons; (16) parts of the city; (17) metals and precious stones; (18) general – both abstract and concrete words. A comparison between The Ready Guide and this Latin-Anglo-Saxon vocabulary will reveal surprising similarities between the two in semantic categorization. Some of the headings (e.g. trees, birds, beasts, fishes, herbs, kitchen and cooking utensils, etc.) overlap exactly, some with only slight variation, and others are completely different owing to compilers’ different sociocultural backgrounds and different cultural interests. This naturally leads to the assumption that languages share some fundamental conceptions which form the basis for communication between different nations and cultures and thus enable bilingual dictionary-making. This categorization is sharedby all languages. Although the semantic approach was widely accepted for compiling general purpose vocabularies, modern lexicographers prefer the alphabetic to the semantic arrangement for general language dictionaries. The semantic arrangement is now found more often in what Zgusta (1971:204) calls restricted language dictionaries than in general language dictionaries. The most common type of restricted

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

language dictionary is the thesaurus. Almost all English monolingual dictionary series, for instance the Chambers series, the Macquarie series and the Webster series, include thesauruses. The bilingualization of monolingual thesauruses and the compilation of bilingual thesauruses seem to be quite a recent and still rare event. In most monolingual thesauruses, lexical items in a semantic group are listed according to their usage frequency rather than the alphabetic order. Though most thesauruses include indexes at the back with a view to facilitating access, searching is still extremely difficult. The problem of lexical arrangement under each heading remains a tough task for lexicographers to perform if attempts at making bilingual thesauruses are to be made. The semantic approach can also be applied to the arrangement of the macrostructure in other types of restricted language dictionaries. In A Comprehensive Dictionary of English Prepositions (Yong Heming 1997), a combination of semantic grouping, alphabetic ordering and indexation have been used in order to guarantee the greatest extent of ease in consultation and at the same time maintain the semantic integrity within the same semantic field. The result turns out to be satisfying. It is noteworthy that no entry arrangement system in bilingual dictionaries can be completely free from alphabetization and that the semantic arrangement, when used for constructing the paradigmatic structure of the dictionary, needs to be supplemented in certain ways for easy reference. If such ways have to be worked out, alphabetization is always the primary choice in semantic grouping and/or in indexation. 5.2.4 Reference structure Various investigations indicate that dictionaries are chiefly used for consulting spelling, pronunciation and meaning, which attests to the primary and primitive function dictionaries are supposed to perform: the reference function. Starting from the early stage of dictionary design and compilation, lexicographers are faced with the problem of how to make reference easier and more straightforward for the reader. To facilitate access and reference, different methods have been attempted and different systems designed, mainly alphabetization, cross-reference, indexation and pagination. Alphabetization is one of the most effective means of realizing the macrostructure in the dictionary and is so far the optimum reference system adopted in English dictionaries of almost every description. Even in dictionaries that employ other approaches, alphabetization cannot be entirely dispensed with. In order to ensure that the reader can have easy and direct access to the information looked for in the dictionary text, lexicographers need to clarify the following points in the front matter: Does the dictionary adopt the alphabetical approach? Which principle does the dictionary follow, word-by-word or letter-by-letter? How does the

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

dictionary handle lexical units derived from the headword (e.g. compounds, derivatives, etc.)? Are they entered as independent lemmata or sublemmata? The user is strongly advised to read the relevant information before they use the dictionary, otherwise much of the information in the dictionary would never be utilized and a lot of dictionary uses would never be fully recognized and explored. Cross-references in bilingual dictionaries should be structured in a clear, consistent and unequivocal manner. They are usually introduced by simple indicators or symbols and attached to the end of the lemma article or of a relevant lemma definition. The forms they take may vary with lexicographical decisions adopted in the course of dictionary making, but whatever forms are taken, they should be used consistently. For instance, the same form and the same system should be guaranteed when the same contexts or situations are dealt with. Generally speaking, cross-references in bilingual dictionaries may be classified into two types: explicit cross-reference and implicit cross-reference. Explicit cross-reference is usually introduced by indicators, such as see, see also, compare, and cf.. In some dictionaries, cross-reference is also made explicit by lexicographical symbols like asterisks (∗), arrows (↑,→,⇑,⇒) and equation signs (=). In the process of dictionary making, symbols are preferred, because they save space and can be immediately recognized in the dictionary text. However, the use of symbols should be kept to minimum, since the abuse of symbols in dictionaries tends to confuse users. Implicit cross-reference is usually embodied in the explanation of or a statement about the lemma or a related lexical unit involving it, offering further information about the lemma or guiding the reader to a relevant point. Expressions such as “past form of …”, “plural form of …”, “abbreviation of …”, “comparative form of …”, and “euphemism for …” are very often used in their shortened forms to lead the user to the exact location of the required information. Cross-references have the function of saving space, avoiding unnecessary repetition of information at different places, and guiding the user to where further relevant information is provided, thus ensuring the maximum utility of space and information provided in the dictionary. Indexing is designed to supplement access and reference systems in bilingual dictionaries, which explains why indexing is not usually found in alphabetically arranged monolingual and bilingual dictionaries where information consultation and location are not problematic. This is especially true of lexicographical work compiled in modern European languages. But when it comes to dictionaries written in languages which do not adopt the alphabetical writing system, the case becomes much more complicated. Chinese uses the logographical writing system. Before the introduction of Wade-Giles romanization system and the official implementation of the Pinyin

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

system, Chinese monolingual dictionaries used to arrange Chinese characters according to radicals, i.e. how they are formed. This practice was followed by some bilingual Chinese dictionaries using the monolingual ones as the base. This arrangement made consultation extremely difficult and time-consuming. Later on, most bilingual Chinese dictionaries adopted a dual reference system, the alphabetical romanization system and the radical system, to cater to the needs of a wider range of users. Either of the two systems must be employed to realize the paradigmatic structure of the dictionary text, leaving the other to indexation. In Williams’ A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language (1874), for instance, the Wu-fang Yuen Yin, a native arrangement of the Chinese syllables, was taken as the basis for arranging the characters, so that the paradigmatic structure of the dictionary text was realized by means of alphabetization, which was supplemented by “Index of Characters” arranged by their radicals and “List of Difficult Characters”, “whose radicals are not very obvious, being combined with other parts or placed in unusual positions”. In contrast to Williams’ work, Liang Shih-chiu’s A New Practical Chinese-English Dictionary (Taipei 1971) arranged individual characters according to their radicals, which is in keeping with the Chinese tradition. But this method of arranging Chinese characters has its problems. Sometimes, finding words turns out to be impossible as the formation of Chinese characters is not always regular and predictable. As a conscious effort to compensate for this defect in the reference system, four indices are attached to the dictionary, i.e. “Radical Index”, “Stroke Number Index”, “Mandarin Phonetic Symbol Index”, and “Wade Romanization Index”. “With these indices we hope no one will fail to find in this dictionary the character or any of the entries he is looking for.” (see Introduction of A New Practical Chinese-English Dictionary). In strictly alphabetical dictionaries, like John DeFrancis’ ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (New York 1997) and Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary (Tokyo, 1985), indices of strokes and radicals seem to be superfluous, as looking up a word is not be a problem under such a system. Indexing may have another function in bilingual dictionaries. It may, to some extent, make a monodirectional bilingual dictionary bidirectional. Lin Yu-tang’s Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1972) is quite exceptional in this aspect. It provides an English index, listing all the English words and expressions occurring in the dictionary text. By referring to the English index, the reader can retrieve the English word and its corresponding Chinese equivalents in the dictionary text. Compared with the other three reference elements, pagination is not an important information item in the dictionary text. That explains why early bilingual dictionaries were not paginated, because in most cases, they did not convey any precise information regarding lemma location. Modern dictionaries provide the

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

user with page numbers, referring the reader easily and readily to components which come before and after the dictionary text and helping the reader to locate exactly the illustrations and some important usage essays when needed. Although pagination does not seem to be so important in lexicographical work compiled in normal manners, it does play a significant role in specially-made dictionaries where indexing is employed. When indices are provided in bilingual dictionaries, they are usually accompanied by page numbers, which direct the reader to the location of the information required. An examination of the above-mentioned Chinese-English dictionaries will disclose its practical value. Without pagination, indexation does lose much of its utility and sometimes becomes useless.

5.3 Microstructure The microstructure of the dictionary specifies the way the lemma articles are composed. The lemma article starts with the headword, which is followed by its orthographical, phonological, morphological, syntactical, pragmatic and, most important of all, semantic descriptions. It usually ends with information about word origin, which is found in some bilingual dictionaries, especially in unabridged bilingual dictionaries. 5.3.1 Lemmata structure In the lemma article, the headword is the focal point around which all discussions evolve and develop. The headword is followed by its spelling, pronunciation, which is usually transcribed according to the International Phonetic System. What follows the pronunciation transcription is the indication of the word class of the headword. In English bilingual dictionaries, nine major parts of speech are distinguished: noun (n.), verb (v.), adjective (adj.), adverb (adv.), conjunction (conj.), pronoun (pron.), preposition (prep.), determiner (det., including articles, art.), and interjection (interj.). Numerals are conflated into the noun class. What comes next is the inflectional form if the headword happens to be an irregular noun, verb, adjective or adverb. Next comes the most important part of the lemma article – the definition and illustrative sentences, which may include information concerning the grammar, register, usage, etc. of the headword. The lemma article may end with information about the etymology of the headword. But it is important to note that in most cases only unabridged and highly scholarly bilingual dictionaries are likely to have etymological information attached. The above-described sequence

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

of the lemma article (i.e. base structure in Hartmann and James’ term) can be diagrammed as follows: headword→ pronunciation→ part of speech→ inflections→ grammatical, register and other codes→ definitions→ illustrations→ word origin

In bilingual dictionaries, the question of where to place the derivatives and compounds of the headword can be very problematic. Answers may vary from one dictionary to another, depending on the dictionary types and lexicographical policies. In passive bilingual dictionaries, where the straight word-by-word alphabetic method is used, such derivatives and compounds are generally listed as lemmata in the macrostructure and are treated on the same footing as the stem lemma. They may have their own articles or may be cross-referenced to the stem lemma. In active bilingual dictionaries, however, the nest alphabetic method is favored over the straight alphabetic method. The purpose is clearly to enhance lexical association and language learning. In this latter case, derivatives and compounds may appear in their truncated forms usually preceded by a hyphen representing the main lemma or may be represented by a combination of a tilde standing for the main lemma and the remaining part of the derivative or compound. In the indented nest-alphabetic arrangement, sublemmata should not be truncated, and the stem (main lemma) in derivatives and compounds should not be replaced by hyphens and tildes. 5.3.2 Definition structure Sense ordering applies only to words with two or more than two meanings (polysemy) as monosemous words have a single meaning and therefore have only one definition in the lemma article. The ordering of senses in lemma articles is one of the most significant decisions lexicographers have to make, because the role such decisions play in dictionary use can never be underestimated. Kipfer (1984:101, in Hartmann) distinguishes three different ways of ordering definitions: (1) by usage or frequency, (2) by clustering the various definitions around several core or basic uses, such as the original use and major metaphorical uses, and (3) in chronological or historical order. The first and the third principles are already firmly established in lexicographical practices, but the second one in Kipfer’s differentiation is somewhat vague and difficult to follow. In the actual process of dictionary making, this principle may roughly be divided into two subcategories: logical ordering and analytical ordering. As a result, there are generally four basic principles governing the ordering of meanings in the lemma article: empirical, analytical, logical and historical. The empirical principle implies that the senses of a lemma should be arranged accord-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

ing to how they are currently used in a speech community. The usage frequency count is used as the basis for such arrangements. The meaning that is most frequently used is listed as the first item in the lemma article. In actual lexicographical practice, the logical ordering depends so much on the knowledge lexicographers have and the judgements they make rather than on a scientific foundation, so that it is highly subjective and “should not be accepted in these scientific times” (Kipfer 1984(a):102, in Hartmann). The analytical principle clusters various definitions around several core or basic uses so that senses are “ordered analytically, according to central meaning clusters from which related subsenses and additional separate senses may evolve” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1981). The historical principle lists the senses of a word in chronological order of their first recorded occurrence. Its foundation is the collection of excerpts. If disagreement arises over the ordering of meanings in the lemma article, it must be due to gaps in the collection of data. Dictionaries intended for different purposes and different target users may choose to follow different principles. “There is no single system which would be both powerful and detailed enough to be used unequivocally and alone as the basis for ordering senses and which would command general authority and recognition.” (Kipfer 1984:107, in Hartmann) But in the case of bilingual dictionaries, the empirical principle based on usage and frequency count should always be preferred, because current senses and usage of words are the dominant concerns of dictionary users. 5.3.3 Structural organization of examples Examples are effective means of showing how the lemma behaves in combination with other lexical units, that is in the context of its actual use, demonstrating its morphological, syntactical, collocational, connotational, stylistic and sociocultural features. In bilingual dictionaries, examples have the additional merit of displaying how the lemma in the source language is translated into the target language. Only very small dictionaries can afford not to indicate them (i.e. examples); but absolute absence of examples is usually accompanied by a severe lowering of the standard of the dictionary (unless its purpose is a strictly restricted one, such as for instance that of a glossary of technical terminology or of a purely orthographical or similar dictionary) (Zgusta 1971:263).

The important role examples play and the great amount of space they occupy in bilingual dictionaries force lexicographers to work out systematic and consistent ways of putting such an enormous corpus of data in neat order so as to enable the inquiring user to have quick access to the information item looked for. So far in

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

most bilingual dictionaries two basic principles of example arrangement are followed: one is meaning-centered, and the other usage-centered. In terms of the meaning-centered principle, examples are arranged according to the meaning of the lemma they illustrate. The ideal model is that each lexical subsense in a sense division is illustrated by at least one quotation, the number of examples in each sense divisions at least equaling that of the subsenses, and that each quotation is ordered in the same sequence as subsenses. If the dictionary size is strictly restricted, examples should be provided to illustrate at least the most essential senses and usages. The usage-centered principle arranges examples on the basis of how the lemma functions syntactically and morphologically in combination with other lexical units. Here the sequence of grammatical codes bracketed after each definition can be decisive in determining the organizational structure of examples. Many examples are required to show the syntactic behavior and combinational features of the lemma, which must be given far greater prominence in bilingual dictionaries. When two or more examples are provided for one sense or one usage, short phrases precede long ones, clauses come after phrases. The longer the example, the farther away it is from the definition. In the case of monosemous lemmata, the length of examples is also the basis for the arrangement of examples. Which principle should be adopted in bilingual dictionaries depends again on the dictionary purpose and its intended user. In dictionaries intended for decoding purpose, the meaning-centered principle has its obvious advantages, but when dictionaries are compiled for encoding purposes, the usage-centered principle should be optimal, as usage plays a more significant role in this context. Another point to bear in mind is that consistency in the exemplification of lexical items is essential to heightening the dictionary quality and facilitating dictionary use. 5.3.4 Structural organization of variants The lemma in the macrostructure is normally printed in bold roman type, or in bold italic type if the word is not considered naturalized in the source language. Most lemmata in a dictionary have only one written form, but some lemmata may be spelled and pronounced in more than one way, thus acquiring spelling variants and phonetic variants. When they apply to the whole entry, including any phrases and undefined derivatives, the spelling variants are usually given immediately after the headword but separated from it by a comma. In some less common cases they may also be given before the definition. The variant which is given the initial position in microstructure is normally considered the socially accepted standard form preferred by most members of the speech community. In addition, the ordering of variants of the headword in the microstructure may also be determined by

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

the dictionary contents. For instance, in an English-Chinese dictionary of American English, the American form should precede the British form, occupying the initial position, but in a general English-Chinese dictionary, it is almost always the British form that is listed first. In cases where differences in spelling are not due to regional factors, it is the frequency count that matters. It is always the most frequently used form that comes first. When spelling variants apply only to certain functions or senses of a word, they should then be given at the relevant point in the lemma article and usually in brackets. The frequency principle also applies to the arrangement of pronunciation variants, grammatical labeling, homographs, and so on in microstructure. It is often the case with English words with more than one pronunciation that, in case there are variants, the most commonly used one comes first. In the bilingualized Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Beijing 1987), the pronunciations of British and American English are systematically provided to meet the needs of dictionary users learning both English varieties. Like monolingual dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries also distinguish homographs by superior numerals (e.g. bat1, bat2, bat3). Again, it is the frequency that counts most in their arrangement. In grammatical labeling, frequency may also decide the order of grammatical codes that are bracketed after definitions. For instance, when a verb is used both transitively and intransitively, the order of the codes (v.tr., v. intr.) indicates the relative frequency of the two uses, i.e. “v. tr. & intr.”, which means the verb is more frequently used transitively than intransitively.

5.4 Bidirectionality and reversibility 5.4.1 Bidirectionality When structural aspects of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries are compared beyond the dictionary text, the question of bidirectionality and reversibility immediately comes into focus. Monolingual dictionaries deal with the lexicon of only one language and are generally intended to serve the needs of native speakers of that language. Theoretically they can only be monodirectional for lack of a contrasting counterpart. On the contrary, bilingual dictionaries have to coordinate between two languages and attend to the needs of native speakers of one of the two languages or of both languages. A bilingual dictionary is monodirectional if it consists of only one part in which the paradigmatic structure in the source language is followed by explanations in the target language. It is designed to serve the needs of native speakers of one of the two languages involved in the dictionary and may perform either the encoding or the decoding function, depending on the diction-

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

ary design. A bilingual dictionary is bidirectional if it consists of two parts, one of which runs from the source language to the target language and the other goes in the reverse direction. The idea of “a double dictionary” was first expressed in “Ad Lectorem”, which was appended to Promptorium parvulorum, sive clericorum. The binding together of the 1516 edition of Promptorium and the 1520 edition of Hortus vocabulorum may be regarded as the first example of a bidirectional bilingual dictionary in the history of English lexicography. Bidirectionality became the prevalent practice in the seventeenth century English and Latin bilingual lexicography. It was paralleled by their French and English bilingual counterparts. This tradition was inherited by Spanish and English, German and English, Italian and English bilingual dictionary makers. Bidirectionality is a common feature shared by most English bilingual dictionaries made in England and on the European Continent, but it is an extremely rare phenomenon in the history of Chinese bilingual lexicography. The first ChineseEnglish dictionary, Morrison’s A Dictionary of the Chinese Language (Wu Chu Yun Fu, 1815–1823), was also the first bidirectional bilingual dictionary made with Chinese as the source language. Of the numerous Chinese and English bilingual dictionaries following Morrison’s work, almost all of them were monodirectional. The reasons why bidirectional Chinese and English bilingual dictionaries ceased to be compiled are not known. It is strange that numerous English-Chinese and Chinese-English dictionaries have been created without anyone making attempts to combine them into a coherent integrated whole, while contemporary lexicographers in the West are still pursuing their efforts to produce modern and up-to-date editions of bidirectional bilingual dictionaries. It is not possible that their Chinese counterparts are not aware of the existence of such efforts. In fact some of the dictionaries have been introduced into China, either in the original form or in modified and translated form. Neither can cultural factors account for the lack of such bidirectional bilingual dictionaries. Here, again the reason will probably have to be attributed to linguistic factors. Unlike English and French or English and German, Chinese and English originated from entirely different ancestors. They share no linguistic or cultural backgrounds. Neither language contains shared linguistic elements, historical connections or cultural associations that contribute to the understanding of the other. As a consequence, the Chinese user prefers to have a copy of Chinese-English dictionary and at the same time a copy of an English-Chinese one so as to guarantee more efficient text comprehension and generation instead of a bidirectional dictionary, which will turn out to be cumbersome to use. Modern encyclopedic language dictionaries are usually monolingual, for instance, The Century Dictionary (in six volumes, 1889), The Chambers Encyclopae-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

dic Dictionary,The Macquarie Encyclopaedic Dictionary, and so on. If there happen to be bilingual ones, they tend to be monodirectional, perhaps due to the resultant massive size resulting from bidirectionality. Bidirectionality is rarely found in the encyclopedic dictionary category. The only case that occurred in our survey is Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Francais-Allemand et Allemand-Francais, compiled by Cesaire Villatte and Charles Sachs. This giant project was divided into two volumes, which were published in 1887 and in 1889 respectively. The body part of the dictionary consists of altogether 3749 pages. The first volume was arranged from Francais to Allemand, and the second from Allemand to Français. Finally it is interesting to take a look at the macrostructure of Joseph Leonhard Hilpert’s A Dictionary of the English and German, and the German and English Language (Carlsruhe 1857). Judging from the title of the book, one might well take it for a bidirectional bilingual dictionary. But a brief examination of its contents will reveal the true nature of its structure. In reality, it is a two-volume monodirectional bilingual dictionary, running from English to German. Part I consists of 464 pages and has three columns to each page, covering letters from A to I (actually to J), followed by a supplement from letter A to J. Part II consists of 624 pages, also with three columns to each page. It contains letters from K to Z and concludes with a supplement covering the corresponding letters in the alphabet. What is more unusual about this dictionary is that except for a title page no front and back matter exist. The title page itself reflected an obvious digression from the usual practice of that time. It contained no other information than the title of the dictionary, the compiler, the publisher and the date of publication, approximating a modern dictionary title page. 5.4.2 Reversibility In the history of English bilingual lexicography, monodirectional bilingual dictionaries occurred long before their bidirectional counterparts. As suggested above, bidirectionality was first introduced into English and Latin bilingual dictionaries, and this tradition was later followed by bilingual lexicographers of other major European languages. There is no evidence that such early works were made simply by reversing the order of the monodirectional bilingual dictionary, that is “everything that appears on the right-hand side of the L1-L2 part should reappear–as far as the structure of the two lexicons allows – on the left-hand side of the L2-L1 part.” (Tomaszczyk 1988:290, in Snell-Hornby). Theoretically, reversibility does not seem to work with language dictionaries, as no two languages in the world, not even those sharing the same origin, have a one-to-one correspondence between lexical units and their meanings, to say nothing of their differences in cultural implications even if there happens to be such correspondence. Deviation

Chapter 5. Bilingual dictionaries: a structural description 

is found in reverse(-order) dictionaries, which list word-entries “alphabetically by last-to-first rather than first-to-last letter order” (Hartmann and James 1998:119) or arrange word-entries according to the expressional aspect of the last character rather than the first character in the lexical combination, as in A Reverse Dictionary of the Chinese Language (1989). But this is a different type of macrostructure.

chapter 6

Bilingual dictionaries Fundamental principles

As indicated in 1.1.3, communication is a social-cultural behaviour. Man has developed a great variety of communication systems that make social and cultural life possible and sustainable. Most remarkable among all these systems of communication is undoubtedly the human language, which is unique in its richness, systematicity and complexity. Human communication may be verbal or nonverbal. Whatever its nature may be, the basic prerequisite for communication to take place is that the participants must share “elements of behavior or modes of life, by the existence of sets of rules” (Cherry 1990:14, in Corner and Hawthorn). In other words, human communication involves a sharing of common codes and is rule-governed. The study of the common codes (i.e. signs) and of the rules governing their use by the participants form the core of communication studies. “Lexicography is not a disembodied activity taking place in a vacuum; it is an act of communication in a real-world context” (Geeraerts 1989:291, in Hausmann et al). The dictionary is regarded as a system of lexicographical communication between the compiler and the user. On one hand, lexicographic communication shares some common fundamental features with other forms of human communication. Like them, it involves two parties and must take place in certain specific contexts, i.e. the transmission of information from the compiler to his intended users by means of the dictionary text comprising various tiny texts or paragraphs. On the other hand, this system of communication differs from other forms in several aspects. First, human communication can be achieved by various means (i.e. spoken or written, verbal or non-verbal), but lexicographic communication is chiefly verbal and written in nature. Second, human communication can employ various systems of signs, linguistic and non-linguistic, but lexicographical communication is linguistic, except for the use of some specially-designed codes, diagrams and labels. Third, human communication can be direct or indirect, whereas the communication between the dictionary compiler and the user is almost always indirect.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

The user can convey his or her ideas to the compiler and thus influence the process of lexicographic communication only by participating in questionnaires, organized discussions and dictionary reviews in regard to lexicographic policies and choices. Direct exchange of ideas takes place only in internet lexicographic communication, under which circumstances users are encouraged to play their part and make their contributions. Fourth, in the exchange of roles in the communicative interactions, both parties in human communication can be active and passive by turns. But in lexicographical communication, the compiler always seems to occupy the dominating position. As a result of such exchanges, the nature of the message the compiler and the user convey to each other is completely different. What the compiler transmits to the user are always informative messages, i.e. information and knowledge concerning socialized linguistic forms of a given speech community and/or extralinguistic reality, with a view to affecting the user’s knowledge structure and perception of the world. What the user conveys to the compiler are usually persuasive messages like suggestions, criticisms and comments for the purpose of influencing the lexicographers’ policies and choices and enhancing lexicographical communication. Like other forms of human communication, which can be carried out between individuals or groups from the same culture or from different cultures, lexicographical communication can also be intracultural or intercultural transmission of information and knowledge from the compiler to the user. The monolingual dictionary is then described in terms of intracultural communication and the bilingual dictionary is described in terms of intercultural communication. In the course of dictionary making their differences are manifested by the different sets of choices compilers make for their work (see Chapter 2). The selection of these sets of choices is rule-governed. There are seven fundamental principles governing lexicographic choices and policies. The first five general principles apply to both intracultural and intercultural lexicographical communication, and the last two bilingual principles apply specifically to intercultural lexicographical communication.

6.1 General principles 6.1.1 Descriptive principle Prescriptivism and descriptivism are two opposing approaches to language studies, represented by prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar respectively. Prescriptivism

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

states rules for what is considered the best or most correct usage. Prescriptive grammars are often based not on descriptions of actual usage but rather on the grammarian’s views of what is best (Richards et al 1985:227). Using such criteria as purity, logic, history or literary excellence, ‘prescriptivism’ aims to preserve imagined standards by insisting on norms of usage and criticising departures from these norms (Crystal 1985:243–4).

On the other hand, descriptivism “describes how a language is actually spoken and/ or written, and does not state or prescribe how it ought to be spoken or written” (Richards et al 1985:78). It aims to “give a comprehensive, systematic, objective and precise account of the patterns and use of a specific language dialect, at a particular point in time” (Crystal 1985:89–90). Instead of being based on logic and literary excellency, descriptivism attaches great importance to objectivity and systematism. Prescriptivism originated with classical language scholars who deprecated language uses that were not in conformity with their rules. They believed that norms and standards should be established on the basis of logic and literary excellence to prescribe language uses and prevent language from being contaminated and decaying. “Prescription depends on an ideology (or set of beliefs) concerning language which requires that in language use, as in other matters, things shall be done in the ‘right’ way” (Milroy 1985:1). Therefore, prescriptive grammar prescribes such rules as using the subjective case form of pronouns after the verb to be (Say “It’s I”, NOT “It’s me”) and the objective case form after verbs and prepositions (Say “between you and me”, NOT “between you and I”). Deviations from such norms were treated as corruption in language which had to be corrected. Descriptivism developed from Bloomfieldian linguistics, which began to attract the attention of the linguistic circles in the 1920’s. This school of thought holds that language description should be based on a wide range of sources, both spoken and written, rather than on works written by the best authors only. It should mirror how language is actually used, not how it should be used. Descriptive linguists think that whatever the language or whatever the variety of language, standard, substandard or non-standard, it is able to fulfil communicative functions once it gains currency within a given speech community. The task of linguists is not to pass judgement on what is correct usage and what is not, but to make a faithful record of actual language uses. In addition to different attitudes toward linguistic change and variation, prescriptivists and descriptivists also differ in the ways they look at written and spoken language. The former attach great importance to the role of the written form in language studies and stick to the view that grammar should be abstracted from the writings of the best authors and that it should not be based on the spoken form. But descriptivists maintain that written language derives from its spoken

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

form(s), which is normally the most conspicuous manifestation of the differences between the varieties of the same language. Eventually, spoken language is as important as written language, if not more important. Language description and linguistic analysis must be based on data collected from both spoken and written language sources. Present-day linguists have generally taken a critical attitude towards the “prescriptivist” approach to language, “emphasising instead the importance of descriptively accurate studies of usage, and of the need to take into account sociolinguistic variation in explaining attitudes to language” (Crystal 1985:244). Over the past two decades there seems to have been a revival of interest in an objective study of prescriptivism from the sociocultural perspective. Two of the most noteworthy works in this connection are Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation (James Milroy and Lesley Milroy 1985) and Norms of Language: Theoretical and Practical Aspects (Renate Bartsch 1987). Modern linguists are beginning to sort out and recognize some of the positive effects prescriptivism has had upon language studies. It has been a common claim that lexicographical theory and practice have been alienated from language studies. Linguists’ findings have generally been neglected by lexicographers, who have been going their own way, almost unaware of what has been going on with language studies, and have not considered applying linguists’ findings to lexicographic research and practice. A brief survey of the development of English dictionaries from Cawdrey’s time to Webster’s will defy the truthfulness of this claim. English lexicography has been evolving from the prescriptive tradition to the descriptive approach almost step by step with the transition of prescription to description in language studies. The prescriptive tradition became firmly established when Dr. Samuel Johnson published his Dictionary of the English Language in 1755 and persisted until Dr. Philip Babcock Gove’s Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language met the public in 1961. Ever since the appearance of Dr. Gove’s Dictionary, the descriptive approach has been dominating dictionary making and research and has generally been recognized as one of the fundamental principles of lexicography. The seed of descriptivism seems to have been sowed deeply in the minds of both linguists and lexicographers, and the tug-of-war between prescriptivism and descriptivism has obviously swung towards the latter in the process of dictionary making. Nevertheless, the struggle between them is far from over, and prescriptivism is far from being considered superfluous in language studies or dropped out of the lexicographic scene. It should be stressed that in distinguishing between description and prescription, the linguist is not saying that there is no place for prescriptive studies of language.

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

It is not being denied that there might be valid cultural, social or political reasons for promoting the wider acceptance of some particular language or dialect at the expense of others. In particular, there are obvious administrative and educational advantages in having a relatively unified literary standard (Lyons 1968:43).

Both linguists and lexicographers have begun to take a serious attitude towards prescriptivism and make an objective assessment of its impact upon and application to pedagogical and lexicographic issues. Modern linguistics has shown that correct use of language does not merely mean grammatical correctness and conformity to the standards and norms of the language used by the most educated members of a speech community. There is much more to it. “Generally, notions of correctness are not developed for their own sake, but are developed and employed only when they are necessary” (Bartsch 1987:10). Bartsch (1987) distinguishes six types of correctness in language: correctness of the basic means of expression, correctness of lexical items, correctness of syntactic form, correctness of texts, semantic correctness and pragmatic correctness. The first three types fall into the formal category and the latter three into the functional category. The traditional notion of “correctness” concentrates on the formal category. “The norms are the constellations in social reality that create, delimit, and secure the notions of correctness” (Bartsch 1987:70). Language acquires various forms and variations because it changes according to the use to which it is put. Every form and variation in language is meaningful and functional. As indicated above, correct use of language involves the use of the appropriate form of language with the right people on the right occasion and in the right manner. The standard form of language is always given priority over other forms, but non-standard forms of language are needed on some occasions and used by particular groups of people in the speech community and are also acceptable to other people in some circumstances. For learners of foreign languages, it is important to know the standard language forms, but it is equally important to get acquainted with deviations from norms and standards and to know where and how these deviations apply, which is theoretically ideal but practically difficult, and sometimes dangerous. A native speaker of Chinese or English may not know well all the linguistic variations and deviations from norms, which exist in the standard national language or in dialects of that language. It is not reasonable to make such demands upon learners of foreign languages. Even if they may acquaint themselves with some of them, it is very likely that they may use these variations and deviations without discrimination. The results will then run counter to expectations. The prescriptive tradition has been deeply rooted in people’s minds and has influenced foreign language teaching and studies for several hundred years. Previous to the Quirk series of English grammar, almost all English grammar books

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

were prescriptive in nature. They still enjoy a wide popularity among learners of English, especially in non-English speaking countries. It is unrealistic to expect shedding the influence of traditional grammar in English learning and teaching overnight. “Moreover, any dictionary is inevitably to some extent prescriptive (if only regarding spellings), because ordinary users (or would-be users) of the language concerned consult it as an authority” (Hudson 1988:289). The challenge to lexicographers, in particular bilingual lexicographers, is thus how to implement the descriptive principle in dictionary compilation without totally abandoning the utility of prescriptivism. Although mainstream linguists of recent times have “generally claimed that prescription is not a central part of their discipline and even that it is irrelevant to linguistics” (Milroy 1987:5), prescription is not completely disposed of in language study and lexicographic communication for two reasons. Language is in a constant state of change, which shows “the extraordinarily strong tendency of language to maintain and neaten its patterns” (Aitchison 1991:150) – an instinct for self-preservation and a process of standardization – is easy to show. To be more accurate, “it is the speakers of the language who perform these adjustments in response to some innate need to structure the information they have to remember” (Aitchison 1991:138). Thus, “standardisation is motivated in the first place by various social, political and commerical needs and is promoted in various ways, including the use of the writing system, which is relatively easily standardised; but absolute standardisation of a spoken language is never achieved” (Milroy 1985:22). Though “it seems appropriate to speak more abstractly of standardisation as an ideology, and a standard language as an idea in the mind rather than a reality”, the ultimate desideratum is that “everyone should use and understand the language in the same way with the minimum of misunderstanding and the maximum of efficiency” (Milroy 1985:23). This is the most fundamental launching-point for any dictionary project and the most essential basis for effective lexicographic communication to be carried out. Language standardization is one of the social functions dictionaries are supposed to fulfil. Secondly, descriptivism has had profound influence upon theoretical studies of language, but it does not seem to have much effect upon the general public. As language learners and dictionary users, they desperately feel that rules for correct usage are needed. They still turn to dictionaries and grammar books (traditional ones rather than modern ones) for such information and regard them as language authorities. A dictionary that rids itself of all traces of value-judgment and does not give stylistic and register labels of any kind to particular lexical items is bound to stir up severe criticisms and raise a public outcry. This has to do with the long tradition of teaching the formal standard language to students in classrooms and examining them only in this aspect of language. In the case of foreign language learning and

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

teaching, this tradition is considered necessary and essential. Non-native learners of foreign languages are usually taught the standard variety of a foreign language and are denied almost any access to informal or non-standard varieties. Language testing and assessment are most often based on the standard variety of language and “frequently do not take account of variation according to dialect and occasion of use” (Milroy 1985:4). Interestingly enough, the policies for language testing and assessment are most often formulated by language authorities themselves. The gap between ideal norms of language and the rules taught to learners leaves room for prescritivism to linger and subsist in dictionaries, particularly in bilingual dictionaries. Prescriptivism still lingers in bilingual dictionaries. Though it does not affect general aspects of intercultural lexicographic communication, it exercises influence upon specific lexicographic choices dealing with borderline cases and controversial usage issues. Language is not uniform in all aspects nor free from variations. For learners of foreign languages, variations can cause serious problems due to the fact that no bilingual lexicographer can exhaust all variations growing out of linguistic, social, regional and stylistic differences. Even if all variations were provided in bilingual dictionaries, it would not be possible for foreign language learners to pay equal attention to all these variations and discriminate between them when they are used in real contexts. Bilingual lexicographers will have to rely on their own intuitions to make lexicographic choices and decisions as to what variations to select for their work and what suggestions and comments to make concerning the appropriate and correct use of these variations and the source language involved. Foreign language learners are strongly advised and encouraged to master and use the standard form of the national language before they turn to acquaint themselves with variations and deviations from national language norms. The suggestions and comments bilingual lexicographers make concerning borderline cases and controversial issues are arbitrary and prescriptive to some extent. It is in this sense that prescriptivism is understood in intercultural lexicographic communication and used in bilingual dictionaries. 6.1.2 Linguistic principle In his Introduction to The Macquarie Dictionary (2nd edition), Arthur Delbridge, chief editor, states, Dictionaries became more linguistic, more descriptive, readier to take as evidence the usage of unliterary, workaday writers, readier to explore the wilder shores of a language without using castigating labels (Vulgar! Slang! Not in polite usage!), readier to record and even themselves use disputed forms (though conscious as

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

ever of how serious and difficult a matter it is to make only good choices in language, for them as for everybody).

The “more linguistic” nature of the dictionary has been marked by a stronger integration of language studies with the art of dictionary making and a more penetrating concentration on words themselves. Lexicographers have often been blamed for not “getting their act together” with linguists. This criticism is justified to some extent, when viewed in certain contexts. In a sense, language studies started with the making of the dictionary, which, however, grew out of practical needs rather than theoretical considerations. Early dictionaries were made to meet educational and religious needs. Early dictionary makers were mainly schoolmasters, monks and missionaries. Schoolmasters compiled glossaries to help young people to learn to read and write in the same language or in different languages. Monks and missionaries made wordbooks to help their followers to understand religious teachings within the same culture and across cultures. These practical considerations have prevailed so dominantly that up until the present day there is still a deplorable lack of serious and consistent thoughts regarding the establishment of lexicography on a coherent theoretical foundation. Early in 1964, in his review of “Webster’s Third”, Uriel Weinreich commented that “a mountain of lexicographic practice such as an unabridged dictionary of English should yield no more than a paragraph-sized molehill of lexicographical theory.” Nothing substantial seems to have changed since then for two reasons. First, the rapid development of linguistics and the resulting widening gap between its theoretical sophistication and impracticality make it increasingly difficult for lexicographers to accommodate developments in language studies in their dictionaries. Second, the life span of a dictionary edition is generally assumed to be about ten years, but it may take longer, sometimes several decades, to compile an unabridged dictionary. “A lexicographer might find the linguistic theory on which he based his work obsolete and old-fashioned before his dictionary was published” (Al-Kasimi 1977:5). Dictionaries are intended to serve the general public, among whom only a small proportion may be conversant with linguistics. But the overwhelming majority of their users may not even know what linguistics is and may have never heard anything about it. Thus, the development in modern linguistics generally loses its impact upon the general public. The more advanced linguistic theories become, the more striking the contradiction between linguistic methodology and the conventional expectations of the public, the greater the difficulty in applying linguistic findings to lexicography. Linguistics is not just evolving rapidly; it shows great diversity in its many competing schools. Faced with such a great variety,

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

lexicographers will inevitably become perplexed as to what school of thought to follow, what policies to implement and what choices to make, not to say anything about the reaction on the part of the user. Dictionary users are bound to have extremely varied expectations about dictionaries, which may be very distant from what linguists and theoretical lexicographers think. Generally speaking, lexicographers intend their dictionaries to be comprehensive, normative, practical, precise, and concise. But these are only ideals lexicographers endeavor to attain. Lexicographers are often torn between the desire to be comprehensive, i.e. to cover the largest proportion of the lexicon, and at the same time selective to ensure a high level of utility; the desire to be descriptive to follow the new fashion, and at the same time prescriptive to cater to the general user; the desire to be practical to guarantee ease of reference, and at the same time inevitably required to encompass the largest amount of intricate information; the desire to be precise to present a clear picture, and at the same time unconsciously prone to be misleading; and the desire to be concise to save dictionary space and users’ time and energy and at the same time verbose enough to make themselves fully understood and to be pedantic sometimes, as in the case of some so-called “scientific” definitions of some common words provided in certain dictionaries. Lexicographers will never be able to free themselves from these torments, because the general public will never become linguists, like themselves. The gap between linguistic theories and their practical application to lexicography is widening, but that does not mean the relation between linguistics and lexicography is becoming loose. Detailed theoretical descriptions may not have immediate relevance and practical validity in lexicographic communication, but the fundamental principles linguists have abstracted from their studies have been generally adopted as guidelines for lexicographic communication and are more readily incorporated into dictionary making (see 1.2 and Chapter 3). Theoretical principles will have to be turned into something manageable, experimental and pragmatic if they are going to make their way into lexicographers’ work and prove to be acceptable to the general public. “Although more theoreticians would be a welcome addition to the field (i.e. lexicography), they must remember that their theories should be interpretable above all in terms of practicality” (Urdang 1963). The integration of language studies into lexicography is becoming stronger, more apparent, and more fruitful than ever, just as Carter remarked, Lexicography is a good example of a domain in which linguistic insights can be directly applied and practical advantages quite readily recognized. But we should not forget that lexicographic practice can also … be of service to refinements in linguistic description. (Carter 1987:125)

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

The linguistic contribution of the dictionary is also manifest by its detailed analysis of various aspects of words. Early dictionary makers concentrated merely on the orthographic and semantic aspects of the word, which arose out of the need to standardize word spellings and meanings. As greater prominence is given to the active use of the dictionary and the importance of studying dictionaries from users’ perspective, the process of dictionary making becomes more user-focused than compiler-centered. In addition to the referential and semantic aspects, lexicographers are also committed to providing information concerning other formal and functional aspects of the lexicon in the language, mainly the phonetics of the word, its grammar, its history, its style of usage, its pragmatics and its role and relation to other lexical items in the lexicon. A dictionary, at its best, is a mine of incomplete answers, but in a world where profound answers are vague and most answers are partly wrong, a collection of well-founded answers about man’s most useful tool, language, can be a boon (Laird 1974).

The penetrating studies of words in language enable lexicographers to provide information concerning various aspects of the lexicon in their work and to make “incomplete answers” more complete and better-founded. The linguistic principle makes bilingual lexicographers’ work difficult and challenging. Intercultural lexicographic communication involves the coordination of the source and target languages within the same work and the coordination of the active and passive needs of their respective speakers. Bilingual lexicographers will have to familiarize themselves with both languages and their cultures, study user needs and expectations and reflect them in their lexicographic policies and choices. In the case of active bilingual dictionaries, for instance, the source language word grammar and pragmatics, which may not be problematic to monolingual users, are two of the major problems that frequently frustrate dictionary compilers’ and users’ efforts and obstruct intercultural lexicographic communication. These two aspects used to be overlooked in earlier bilingual dictionaries, but they will have to be treated consistently and systematically if the linguistic principle is to be understood and implemented fully in the process of intercultural lexicographic communication. It may be worthwhile to add, finally, that the linguistic principle should not be construed literally and pressed too hard. It should be used to process whatever data is related in one way or another to the lexical or lexicalized elements in language. Thus, encyclopedic items, for instance, should also fall within its scope of business.

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

6.1.3 Structural principle In addition to the distinctions between human communication and lexicographic communication discussed earlier in this chapter, there is one more aspect that makes them differ from each other. Basically, human communication may be either spoken or written whereas lexicographic communication is always written, sometimes now in electronic form. This difference in the media of information transmission leads to various ways of presenting information and thus to different set-ups of the information structure. Oral communication is characterized by loose structure, information redundancy, meaningless pauses, casual style and so on, but written communication is tight in structure, dense in content, formal in style and meticulous in diction. As lexicographic communication is one of the forms of written communication, it shares all the features with written communication, though with varying degrees in some cases. However, it has its unique ways of information organization and presentation. Lexicographic information is normally presented and organized in a regular, consistent and predictable manner, which is determined by a combination of lexicographic choices. These choices are primarily made according to the dictionary size, the dictionary function and the intended user. They all have decisive effects upon how the dictionary is to be framed and constructed. Chapter 5 offered a structural description of bilingual dictionaries from the following standpoints: before the dictionary text, after the dictionary text, inside the dictionary text and beyond the dictionary text, which, when put together, form the overall structure of all the components constituting a dictionary. This description applies to other types of dictionaries as well. The discussion of the structure of the front and back matter in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 is followed by the structure “inside the dictionary text”, i.e. the macrostructure and microstructure of the dictionary. Prominence will be given to lexicographers’ choices regarding how the lexical items in the wordlist are to be determined and organized and how the information relating to each of the lexical items is to be presented. The macrostructure of the dictionary is the spine that goes through the dictionary text, connecting all the mini-texts constituting the dictionary text into a retrievable form and relates them to each other. Some remarks have already been made in 5.2 about the formal organization of macrostructural elements inside the dictionary text, but the selection of macrostructural items deserves further discussion. By far, the most extensive research on macrostructure was conducted by Dirk Geeraerts (1984, 1989). According to him, the selection of macrostructural elements to be included in the dictionary is mostly based on formal, semantic, grammatical, stylistic, geographical, sociolinguistic, chronological, interlingual, etymological, ideological, or statistical criteria. These criteria are provided and discussed

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

from the viewpoint of the compiler. But from the standpoint of treating the dictionary as a communicative system, the dictionary context and the user’s aspect must be considered together. Some immediately relevant issues emerge in relation to this. What determines the number of lexical items to be included in the macrostructure? What forms of these lexical items are to be accepted and presented in it? Will the dictionary function affect the selection of macrostructural elements? How will the user aspect affect lexicographical choices in relation to the selection of lexical items in macrostructure and macrostructural construction? Will it make a great difference whether the dictionary is intended for foreign or native speakers? Will different principles be adopted for different dictionary types? Answers to these questions must take into consideration a multiplicity of factors affecting lexicographic choices, the most important of which are the dictionary size, the dictionary function, and the intended user. Lexicographic communication is achieved through establishing and realizing an indefinite set of choices “with regard to the selection and presentation, on the microstructural and the macrostructural level, of lexical elements of one or more languages, or of data relating to those elements” (Geeraerts 1989:288, in Hausmann et al). The data relating to those lexical elements on the microstructural level normally include at least two or more of the following information items concerning the lexical entries: the orthography, the phonetics, the signification (or translation equivalents), the grammar, the history, the pragmatics, the exemplification, and the sociolinguistics of the lexical item. The choices as to which items are to be included in the microstructure and which are not are again determined by the three primary factors mentioned above. It is interesting to note that the ways the macrostructure and the microstructure of the dictionary are constructed may themselves suggest information. The semantic (or thematic) organization of lexical items in the macrostructure of the dictionary may itself convey the message that all the lexical items in one group are semantically related in one way or the other. On the microstructural level, the chronological ordering of definitions may denote the line of evolution of word meanings, and the ordering of definitions based on usage may indicate their frequency. Generally, the structure of the dictionary, at the macrostructural and microstructural levels, is determined by a wide range of factors, which, viewed from the communicative model of lexicography, may be classified into three major categories: the compiler aspect, the dictionary context, and the user aspect. In deciding how to construct the macrostructure and microstructure of the dictionary lexicographers are confronted with an extensive set of choices, which are made on the basis of the analytical studies of the three major categories. The choices thus made determine the overall patterning of the dictionary structure.

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

Bilingual dictionaries will differ in their ways of presenting and organizing lexicographic information if they are intended for different purposes. Bilingual dictionaries for “decoding” will generally adopt the straight word-by-word alphabetic arrangement of entry words and list derivatives and compounds as lemmata in macrostructure if their meaning structure is relatively independent of the lemma. Bilingual dictionaries for “encoding”, on the other hand, will normally adopt the nest alphabetic arrangement of entry words and derivatives and compounds are treated in the nest under the headword. In special-aspect bilingual dictionaries, alphabetization is normally favored over other approaches, but a combination of semantic categorization and alphabetic ordering is recommended in bilingual thesauruses to ensure semantic integration and ease of reference. At the level of microstructure, the facilitation of the active use of language predominates over all relevant lexicographic choices. In definition structuring, for example, the empirical method (i.e. the arrangement of senses on the basis of actual usage) is always given priority over other methods in bilingual dictionaries. 6.1.4 Relevance principle Human communication is an extremely complicated process that involves a wide range of interactive activities, diverse aspects and varied participants. Its success depends on a multiplicity of heterogeneous factors, some of which are the result of successful choices made in establishing the conditions and the realization of the speech act. Before conveying any message, the sender will have to be guided by a certain set of assumptions and presuppositions pertaining to “recipient expectations” and “recipient knowledge” in choosing a common code and formulating the right policies. These conditions form the appropriate background for communication to take place and provide the basis on which communicative efficiency can be assessed. Whether a speech act can achieve its intended communicative goal depends essentially on how well these conditions are understood and to what extent they are realized. As indicated earlier, one of the basic presuppositions for human communication is that participants share a common code, “a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction” (Grice 1975:45). In the light of this observation, Grice (1975) formulated “a rough general principle” which participants are expected to follow in the course of communication: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

This general principle, labeled “the cooperative principle”, consists of a number of more specific maxims and submaxims, which fall under four categories: quantity, quality, relation and manner. They grew out of the need to identify some basic guidelines for the generation, perception, and modulation of oral discourse and were developed particularly for observing and analyzing implicature in conversation. However, it may be extended to any sequence of communication, i.e. normal written communication. The dictionary is regarded as one of the forms of written communication and viewed as an interactive type of text, which presupposes the operation of Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the conversational maxims in the interaction between the encoder of the dictionary text and its decoder (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Tomaszczyk 1987: Introduction).

Whether Grice’s cooperative principle can be extensively used for lexicographic practice and research still awaits further exploration. So far no conscious efforts seem to have been made in this direction. One of the reasons may be that Grice’s theory is controversial in one aspect or another. For example, the first maxim under the category of quantity may be in conflict with others, as in the case of someone being asked with either good or evil intentions for some confidential information that the other party feels uneasy to disclose. So it is with several maxims in the other categories, especially on occasions where these maxims are consciously violated. Unconscious violations of these maxims will be detrimental to effective communication, but conscious violations are normal and far from rare in social intercourse. But it is undeniable that Grice’s theory has its lexicographic value and several of his maxims, in particular the category of relation, turn out to be enlightening to lexicographers and metalexicographers. Grice’s theory was first put forward in the William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1967, and the category of relation was later singled out for separate studies and developed into the theory of relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995). The theory of relevance, which is not rule-governed or maxim-based, is built upon the argument that human cognition has a goal: we pay attention only to information which seems to us relevant. To communicate is to claim someone’s attention, and hence to imply that the information communicated is relevant. Thus, a single property – relevance – is seen as the key to human communication and cognition (Sperber and Wilson 1986:back cover).

“Every act of ostensive communication communicates the presumption of its own optimal relevance.” (Sperber and Wilson 1986:158) According to this theory, relevance is measured against its contextual effects and the effort needed for process-

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

ing what is contained in a message, and the optimal relevance is achieved if minimal effort is needed for digesting the message conveyed and the contextual effect of an assumption is maximal. Then, the responsibility for the efficiency of communication rests chiefly on the sender of the message because “it is left to the communicator to make correct assumptions about the codes and contextual information that the audience will have accessible and be likely to use in the comprehension process”. However, “the responsibility for avoiding misunderstanding also lies with the speaker, so that all the hearer has to do is go ahead and use whatever code and contextual information come most easily to hand” (Sperber and Wilson 1986:43). The theory of relevance has immediate relevance and significance for lexicographers. It concerns not only the compiler but the dictionary itself and the user as well. From the compiler’s point of view, the dictionary is a communicative system and its making is realized by a set of choices based upon assumptions about the dictionary context and the dictionary use. These assumptions form the basis for the formulation of lexicographic perspectives and policies. Whatever assumptions and choices are made, they must conform to the lexicographic perspectives and purposes, substantiate the dictionary context and facilitate the dictionary use. Supposing a bilingual project is to be launched. Bilingual lexicographers will have to answer such basic questions as for whom and for what purpose the project is intended. For the first question, bilingual lexicographers will be faced with answers like “for speakers of the source language”, “for speakers of the target language” or “for speakers of both languages”, “for reference-oriented users” or “for active-learning users”, “for adults” or “for children”, etc.. And for the second question, bilingual lexicographers will have such choices as “for general purpose” or “for special purpose”, “for encoding purpose” or “for decoding purpose”, etc. Appropriate answers will be based on the assumptions made from the position of dictionary context and the user perspective. The variety of answers will mean different lexicographic choices, which suit different lexicographic situations. The lexicographic choices selected must reflect the basic assumptions and relate to the answers to the basic questions. From the position of dictionary context, the information that the dictionary text contains and the way that it is organized and presented must be related in one way or the other to lexicographic perspectives and purposes. Lexicographic choices make bilingual dictionaries for “decoding” different from those for “encoding” and bilingual dictionaries for one type of user different from another. The choices bilingual lexicographers make must serve lexicographic purposes. A bilingual dictionary for “decoding” should not devote much of its valuable space to matters irrelevant to text comprehension. A detailed treatment of word grammar, for instance, should be avoided in dictionaries intended for such purpose.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

From the position of the dictionary user, whatever lexicographic choices are relevant to dictionary purpose and functions will be useful to them, in which case the semantic value and the communicative value will be combined and the greatest degree of efficiency of lexicographic communication is achieved. Lexicographic choices must serve the intended dictionary users. A bilingual dictionary for active learners should then facilitate the active use of language. 6.1.5 Aesthetic principle Aesthetics, an important consideration in dictionary making, has not seemed to arouse much attention in lexicographic circles, as no such discussion is found in any lexicographic studies. Once a dictionary project is completed, the dictionary will become something static (at least at the time of its completion), a cultural artefact. The status of the dictionary as a cultural and artistic entity is promoted and partly determined by lexicographers’ interest in and adoption of the aesthetic principle in the process of dictionary making. The aesthetic principle is, first of all, reflected in the congruity between the form of the dictionary and its contents. The aesthetic effects can be discerned from the composition of the covers of the dictionary, the design of its title page, the layout of its printed pages, the choice of its fonts and font types, the amount of space reserved for top, bottom and side margins, the making of its illustrations, and so on. All these formal considerations will contribute a great deal to the dictionary image and context, hence the dictionary use. The manner in which the body part of the dictionary message (i.e. dictionary text) is constructed can be examined from both macrostructural and microstructural levels. Macrostructure is paradigmatic and refers to the overall design of the word list in the dictionary text. Microstructure is syntagmatic and refers to the way contents of individual entries of the word list are composed. As is evident, the set-up of macrostructure and microstructure of the dictionary embodies the part the aesthetic principle plays in the configuration of the dictionary. The following discussion will concentrate on how “harmony” and “symmetry”, two of the most common elements in the aesthetic principle, work in macrostructure and microstructure. In macrostructure, “harmony” resides first in consistency in following the stylistic rules and layout, which must be fully discussed, established on a scientific basis, and agreed upon by the dictionary project team. Rigorous observation of each of the rules is required for every member on the team, which was especially important for such a large project as The English-Chinese Dictionary, with a team of nearly 140 members. Any violation of the rules may result in a serious distortion of the dictionary image and an inevitable loss of information, thus reducing the efficiency of lexicographic communication.

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

Take a simple orthographic representation problem for instance. Should the initial letter of the first word in an English proverb be printed in capital letters or in small letters? The normal practice in both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries is to capitalize the initial letter of the first word. But variation is found in The EnglishChinese Dictionary, which capitalizes the initial letter in most English proverbs but spells a limited number of them with small letters owing to inconsistency in following the stylistic format of the dictionary (See entries like bone, green, door, paw). The arrangement of lexical variants can be another good case in point. Lexicographers usually arrange lexical variants according to frequency counts. The most common variant should come before the less common one(s), which is also the case with The English-Chinese Dictionary. However, inconsistency is discovered in dealing with those variants whose frequency counts are difficult to decide. Cardamon, cardamum and cardamom are three variant forms of the same word. Their order in most English monolingual and bilingual dictionaries is cardamom, cardamum, cardamon, but this arrangement was changed to cardamom, cardamon, cardamum in Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (New Revised Edition, 1994, Dilithium Press, Ltd.), in which case the alphabetic sequence prevailed. “Harmony” also works in selecting word lists for macrostructural organization and guaranteeing the proportional distribution of lexical items throughout the alphabet. In lexical selection for macrostructural set-up, “harmony” helps lexicographers check whether lexical items of similar shapes and categories are treated in the same manner. An extensive survey was conducted regarding whether consistent policies and techniques were employed to treat prepositions with an –ing ending in The English-Chinese Dictionary. The result was interesting. This dictionary selected almost all prepositions with an –ing suffix in modern English as word entries, including such uncommon prepositions as pending, touching and wanting. Unexpectedly, two of the most common prepositions with that ending, i.e. excluding and including, were omitted. These two words were entered as prepositions as early as 1967 in Frederick T. Wood’s English Prepositional Idioms, and their status as prepositional word entries was confirmed in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978) and in Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987). Edward L. Thorndike was the first among lexicographers to devote attention to the proportional distribution of lexical items throughout the alphabet, which reflects the application of “harmony” to macrostructural configuration. He made a thorough study of the English lexicon and divided the English alphabet into 105 approximately equal units, called blocks (see Landau 1989:242). “The block system is helpful in providing a check on the criteria used by various compilers working in different parts of the alphabet” (Landau 1989:241). The distribution of words according to their initial letters may change as a result of language change, but the

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

overall distribution of lexical items in the alphabet may remain unchanged for quite some time before adjustment becomes really necessary. “Symmetry” is one of the intriguing interrelations existing between word entries. It helps in several ways in microstructural construction. It may offer comparative criteria to determine the status of a lexical item as a word entry or as a run-on in the entry in the dictionary text and the status of borderline expressions as free combinations or as fixed expressions. It also influences decisions as to whether to include or exclude a lexical unit, an idiom, or a definition of an entry word as microstructural elements. Instances are again cited from The English-Chinese Dictionary to illustrate how “symmetry” plays its role in microstructure. Under the entry exclusive, exclusive of is listed as an idiom, but inclusive of is not under inclusive.Under the entry eye the idiom an eye for an eye is found, but a tooth for a tooth is not under tooth. A consistent pattern is discovered in this dictionary in defining numerals from one to hundred, but in defining numerals four and five, this pattern is distorted. Would these problems have been avoided if some attention had been paid to “symmetry” in microstructural composition? Lexicography is conceived by scholars such as Robert W. Burchfield and Sydney I. Landau as an art form. This concept of dictionary making obviously implies their reflections of the application of the aesthetic principle to lexicographic research and practice.

6.2 Bilingual principles 6.2.1 Equivalence principle “The basic purpose of a bilingual dictionary is to coordinate with the lexical units of one language those lexical units of another language which are equivalent in their lexical meaning” (Zgusta 1971:294). It follows that bilingual lexicographers’ primary task is to coordinate the lexical units of the source language and the target language and attempt to establish equivalence, “a relation between the individual meanings of the lemmatized word and the equivalents” (Kromann et al 1989:2717, in Hausmann et al) and between the language pair. It is also their responsibility to induce the user to develop an awareness of the foreign culture and create lexical associations and images that are as close as possible to those existing in the mind of the native speakers. Languages arise from different cultural backgrounds and out of different communicative needs of specific speech communities. Nations have developed different ways of life, different ways of thinking, and different linguistic systems for communication, owing to differences in geographical locations, natural surroundings, social customs, cultural influences, religious beliefs, social systems, economic conditions,

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

and so on. Regardless of these differences, there must exist linguistic universals, social commonness and cultural similarities among different nations, otherwise human communication would never be possible. Human species live on the same planet like a large family. They all have the power to reason and think, to communicate ideas, and to express emotions and feelings. They all possess linguistic systems for communication, which share some common basic features and, functionally, are equally expressive. All this furnishes the basis for communication within cultures and across cultures and makes it possible to translate from one language to another. Cross-cultural communication requires translation. “The bilingual dictionary is often called the translation dictionary par excellence because it offers the user interlingual lexical equivalents” (Hartmann 1989:9, in Snell-Hornby et al). Interlingual lexical equivalents are identified and discriminated on the semantic and/or categorical basis. Whether a lexical item in the target language can be considered an equivalent to the source language item depends largely on the extent to which they correspond semantically and/or categorially. Interlingual lexical equivalents are generally categorized into three types: full equivalents, partial equivalents and zero equivalents. Full equivalents are variously known as complete equivalents, translational equivalents, insertible equivalents or exact equivalents. They require an overall correspondence between the lexical unit in the source language and its counterpart in the target language in content, category, style of usage and register so that they are readily insertible into the context to produce faithful, smooth and elegant translations. Just as it is difficult to find two complete synonyms (like word building and word formation in English) within the same language, it is even more difficult to find exact equivalents in two different languages. The difficulty becomes even greater when the source and target languages are not closely related etymologically. It is easier to find such equivalents within the European languages, between English and French for instance, than between English and Chinese or English and Japanese. Full equivalents between two languages are extremely rare except in scientific and technical fields, where the lexical unit is stripped of all its social implication, cultural association, and stylistic differences, with only the most basic meaning remaining to still make it a meaningful word. Partial equivalence, as the name denotes, implies limited semantic and categorical correspondence between the lexical units in the source and the target languages. Partial equivalents may also overlap in various other aspects. They constitute the largest and, undoubtedly, the most bewildering part of dictionary making for bilingual lexicographers. They also present serious problems to the users, because incomplete understanding on the part of the dictionary user and loss of information are common occurrences due to improper or imperfect treatment and transmission of lexicographical information across languages and cultures. Gloss-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

es, explanations, descriptions and illustrations are always effective remedies employed to avoid such imperfections (see Chapter 7). Partial equivalents can be subcategorized into the following types: (1) Approximate equivalents: Interlingual lexical items are treated as approximate equivalents when considerable, though not complete, semantic and categorical correspondence is found to exist between them. “Father” approximately corresponds to “父亲(fuqin)” in Chinese, “mother” to “母亲(muqin)”, “daddy” to “爸爸(papa)”, and “mama, mammy, mummy” to “妈妈(mama)，妈咪 (mami)”. They correspond extensively in denotation and category in both languages but may somewhat differ from language to language in connotation and style of use. The image Chinese youngsters have of their “mammy” is bound to be different from that of their English-speaking counterparts. (2) Analytical equivalents: Monosemy and polysemy are common semantic phenomena in world languages. In bilingual lexicographic communication, monosemous words or one sense of polysemous words in the source language may be decomposed semantically into two or several components in the target language in order to cover the semantic range of the source language word. The word dictionary has two senses in Longman (1987), the first of which is “a book that gives a list of words in alphabetical order, with their meanings in the same or another language and usu. their pronunciation”. When this first definition is presented in an English-Chinese dictionary, it will have to be analyzed into “词典(cidian), 辞典(cidian);字典(zidian);词书(cishu),辞书(cishu)” to cover its whole reference range. Similarly, the Chinese character “看(kan)” will have to be translated into “look (at a picture)”, “see (a film)”, “read (a book)”, “watch (a basketball match)” and some others when presented in a Chinese-English dictionary. (3) Synthetic equivalents: In some cases bilingual lexicographers will have to combine several meanings of a polysemous word and two or more monosemous words belonging to the same semantic category in the source language into one sense unit or one lexical unit in the target language. Examples are childhood, boyhood, and girlhood, which can be synthesized and represented by “童年(tongnian)” in a Chinese-English dictionary. (4) Subordinate equivalents: Sometimes the lexical units in the source and the target languages may overlap in such a way that the semantic range of one lexical unit in the source language not only covers the semantic range of its counterpart in the target language but extends beyond it as well. The English word wood shares some semantic features with the French word bois, but the semantic range of bois goes far beyond that of wood so that wood is embedded within the

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

range of bois (Svensen 1993:141). Likewise, boyhood is also embedded within the reference range of the Chinese “童年”, which is used regardless of gender. (5) Superordinate equivalents: Superordinate equivalence is the relation that obtains between lexical units of general reference and those of specific reference, such that the latter is only one kind or species in the category. The Chinese language is abundant in kinship terms, but it is not the case with English, so that the English word cousin covers all the following Chinese kinship terms: 堂兄(tangxiong);堂弟(tangdi);堂姐(tangjie);堂妹(tangmei);表兄(biaoxiong);表弟(biaodi);表姐(biaojie);表妹(biaomei). Bilingual lexicographers strive for equivalence between lexical units in the source and target languages, but their efforts are not always rewarded with success, for there are cases where equivalents between languages are difficult to find or are simply absent due to social, cultural, political and linguistic divergences. Every language has some language- and culture-specific lexical units, which cannot be matched in the target language. This phenomenon is called “zero equivalence”, which is believed by many bilingual lexicographers and translators to be ascribable to the so-called “lexical gap”. Expressions (e.g. “功夫” gongfu, “太极” taiji, “叩头” koutou) that are unique to the Chinese language will have to be transliterated and explained in English in the Chinese-English dictionary, and vice versa. However, two other instances of lexical gaps are also worthy of mention. One instance is the absence of proper equivalents in the target language for extended meanings of lexical units in the source language, which is no less uncommon than the so-called “lexical gap”. When equivalence is restricted to the basic meaning (denoting “color”) of black and “黑(hei)” and white and “白(bai)”, one can claim to have found complete equivalents for the two sets of lexical units. Non-equivalence occurs when comparison is extended to their metaphorical uses, for the Chinese “黑” has the implication of “reactionary”, “criminal” and “in secret”, and “白” has the implication of “anti-revolutionary”, “fear and terror” and “backward”. The same is true of some language- and culture-specific idiomatic expressions. These implications and idiomatic expressions are absent in English and bilingual lexicographers will have to resort to explanatory, descriptive and illustrative means. The three types of equivalents are considered as “three stages on a scale of lexical units going from isomorphism through increasing to extreme anisomorphism” (Kromann et al 1989:2718, in Hausmann et al). “The more distantly related and culturally foreign to one another two languages are, the more anisomorphism one must expect to have to describe in the relevant bilingual dictionaries.” (op.cit)

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

6.2.2 Comparative principle It is regarded as the primary task of bilingual lexicographers to provide lexical units in the source language with equivalents in the target language, which should be as close as possible semantically, categorically and in other aspects. “The logic outset of the search for equivalents is a comparative analysis of the structures of the two languages” (Zgusta 1971:313). Naturally, comparison between the source and target languages and between their lexical units becomes one of the fundamental principles bilingual lexicographers need to follow in intercultural lexicographic communication. The comparative approach becomes even more significant in the light of the status of the bilingual dictionary as a system for intercultural communication. The success of intercultural lexicographic communication is determined by a great multiplicity of factors, among which the bilingual lexicographers’ wide variety of choices stands out conspicuously. One of the basic varieties is the choice of equivalents between the language pair, and the choice of equivalents largely involves comparison between lexical units in the source and target languages and translation from one language to another. “The links between translation and dictionary making depend at least in part on the nature and intensity of the cultural contact between the language pair in question” (Hartmann 1989:9, in Snell-Hornby et al). It may be claimed that equivalence between language pairs that are closely related is less painstaking to establish. Zero equivalence is more likely to account for a higher percentage between languages that are not related or between an international language like English and a language that is almost completely isolated from the rest of the human world, than between languages that are closely related. This has been verified by a series of sociolinguistic studies conducted by such sociolinguists as B. Malinovski, W. Labov and L. Milroy in different parts of the world. No matter how close or how distant relations exist between the language pair involved, lexical comparison between the two languages will inevitably contribute to revealing similarities and differences in various aspects of the respective lexicon of the language pair. Traditionally, most of the studies in lexical interlanguage comparison concentrated on the semantic structure of selected closed sets of items, such as kinship terms, colour words, and the like…. Much less attention has been paid to the syntactic behaviour of words and classes of words (Tomaszczyk 1983:45, in R.R.K. Hartmann),

to say nothing of the other aspects of the lexicon. To discriminate equivalents between languages and establish their corresponding relations, comparisons should be made from the following four aspects, each of which consists of subclasses:

Chapter 6. Bilingual dictionaries: fundamental principles 

1.

Semantic comparison a. between conceptual and non-conceptual b. between general and specific c. between concrete and abstract d. between literal and figurative e. between technical and popular f. between provincial and general g. in emphasis h. in connotation i. in association j. in idiom

2.

Categorical comparison k. between word classes l. in morphological aspects m. in syntactic aspects n. in idiomatic usage

3.

Stylistic comparison o. in levels of usage p. in levels of style q. in regional varieties r. in register

4.

Pragmatic comparison s. in communicative purposes t. in levels of intended readership u. in transmission media v. in affectivity w. in text organization and presentation

What are provided here are only four sets of guidelines for comparison between the language pair involved in the bilingual dictionary. It is important to recognize that the first guideline in each set is the most essential and fundamental for comparison between any language pair, for specification of similarities and differences between lexical units and for verification of possible equivalence between the language pair involved. The remaining guidelines in each set are supportive, but in most cases, they can prove to be equally serviceable. “Every word (lexical unit) has … something that is individual, that makes it different from any other word. And it is just the lexical meaning which is the most outstanding individual property of the word” (Zgusta 1971:67). Guidelines b to f in Set 1, for example, will help to

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

describe and compare this “most outstanding individual property” of lexical units in both languages in different aspects and from different angles. The comparative principle can be extended beyond the lexical level to other aspects of dictionary making. For example, comparison can be made between dictionary types (e.g. active and passive), dictionary functions (e.g. production and comprehension), dictionary users (e.g. native user and foreign user), and so on. Comparison in all these aspects will bring out interesting differences and lead to enlightening discoveries, which will be of great significance to fulfilling bilingual lexicographers’ communicative intentions and meeting user expectations.

chapter 7

Bilingual dictionaries Problems and reflections

In the communicative model of lexicography, dictionary making is considered written communication and thus presupposes the emergence and existence of the written form of language. In fact it “is as old as written language” (Green 1996:39). Sumerian, the language spoken by the tribes who inhabited Southern Mesopotamia (roughly equating to modern Iraq) from the fifth to the second millennium BC, is credited with being the first language to be used in the compilation of “remarkably extensive collections of word-lists” (Green 1996:40). However, in its earliest incarnation lexicography was not a monolingual discipline. The words that appeared in the first collections were not defined in their own terms and their own language, … They were bilingual word-lists, intended, quite simply, to make one language comprehensible to those who spoke and read another. (Green 1996:40)

Those pioneering bilingual word-lists included such information items as the source language term, a note on its pronunciation and a target language translation. This is undoubtedly the archetype of modern bilingual dictionaries, and the methods used at that time are the precursor of modern practices, which, upon further thought and observation, are still basically similar to those ancient techniques and not modern in most of its major aspects. Modern bilingual lexicographers are still struggling with those ancient techniques and ideas and striving to achieve breakthroughs. From the following reflections upon all major problems confronting modern bilingual lexicographers, it will become apparent that some of the problems are really old and still persist as problems and some are the result of modern thinking and efforts.

7.1 Anisomorphism It is not true to claim that linguistics descended from biology, but there is enough evidence to show that linguistics was once linked to biology, which is obvious from

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Franz Bopp and August Pott’s views (see Sampson 1980:17). In his short treatise on Darwin’s Theory and Lingustics, August Schleicher went to the extreme of arguing that “linguistics should be regarded as one of the natural sciences to which Darwin’s theory applies” (Sampson 1980:18). Regardless of whatever relations may be established between biology and lexicography, the term “anisomorphism” which characterises the core problem in bilingual lexicography, is derived from the biological term, isomorphism, which means “a similarity of form between individuals belonging to different races or species or to different generations of the same life-cycle” (George Davidson, Chambers Pocket Dictionary, 1996). The basic purpose of a bilingual dictionary is to coordinate with the lexical units of one language those lexical units of another language which are equivalent in their lexical meaning. … The fundamental difficulty of such a co-ordination of lexical units is caused by the anisomorphism of languages, i.e. by the differences in the organization of designate in the individual languages and by other differences between languages. (Zgusta 1971:294)

In a sense, intercultural lexicographic communication may be described as a combination of the search for and creation of equivalence between languages and between lexical units in the language pair. In addition to factors on the part of the dictionary user, the effectiveness of bilingual lexicographic communication depends largely on the extent to which equivalence between the language pair and between their lexical units can be established. To establish equivalence between the language pair involved, it is necessary to investigate how anisomorphism arises and where it resides. Anisomorphism may arise from various sources, cultural, social, geographical, political, religious, biological, etc.. Anything that is unique to one culture and one nation can be an indication of the existence of anisomorphism. Between 1966 and 1976, the Great Cultural Revolution was surging throughout China. Quite a number of special terms arose out of this political movement, which was totally Chinese in nature. Terms like “红卫兵” (hongweibing, red guards), “走资派” (zouzipai, capitalist road takers), “大字报” (dazibao, big character posters) are specific to this movement and to the Chinese nation. Neither the original terms nor their English translation equivalents are readily understandable to the English speaking nations. Even the name of the movement (the Great Cultural Revolution) may sound perplexing to the English ear. This may be just one instance but displays the regular pattern of how anisomorphism comes into being. The lexicon can be categorized into groups (i.e. fields) on the basis of the semantic links between lexical items. The lexical items (A1-An) can be arranged on a vertical axis according to the extent to which they are related to the superordinate (A). The more intimate and more usual the relation between the superordi-

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

nate and the subordinate item is, the nearer the subordinate item is to the superordinate on the axis. Examined on the vertical lexical axis, anisomorphism is found to become increasingly conspicuous as it goes from the end point to the direction the arrow indicates. The farther away the subordinate lexical item is from the superordinate, the more peculiar its meaning, hence the greater the degree of anisomorphism between lexical items in the language pair. At the end point of the axis, one-to-one correspondence between lexical items in the language pair is most likely to be expected. As the arrow moves away from the end point along the axis, an increasingly loose relation between the superordinate and the subordinate item gradually surfaces. walk A A1 amble – A2 roam – A3 stroll – A4 stride – A5 creep – A6 tiptoe – A7 shuffle – A8 clump – … –

行走漫步闲逛溜达阔步行进悄悄地行走踮起脚尖地走拖着脚步走以沉重的脚步行走 …

The search for equivalents in the same semantic field in both languages is going with increasing degrees from isomorphism to anisomorphism. While one-to-one correspondence can be established between walk and 行走(xingzou) and near equivalence can be established between amble and 漫步(manbu), roam and 闲逛(xianguang), and stroll and 溜达(liuda), no such equivalence can be found for stride, creep, tiptoe, shuffle and clump in the Chinese language. What are provided then are the target language explanations. Such anisomorphism is most typically encountered in cultural words, categorical words, encyclopedic terms, and technical terms.

(1) Cultural anisomorphism: Language is influenced and shaped by culture. It is the mirror of culture and is part of the cultural system. As cultures are unique and differ from one another, so languages are diverse. Differences between cultures and languages often lead to difficulties and sometimes even failures in cross-cultural communication. One of the major difficulties comes from cultural words, which form one source of lexical gaps between languages. Cultural words exist in every language. They denote things and conceptions that are unique to a particular culture and nation. Expressions like “华表” (huabiao, paired ceremonial columns erected in front of a palace, a tomb, etc.,

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

usually carved with dragon and phoenix patterns, with a transverse engraved stone slab on its top), “节气” (jieqi, a solar term, a day marking one of the 24 seasonal divisions of the solar year in the traditional Chinese calendar, which are established according to the length of the day and the sun’s shadow at noon), “气功” (qigong, a traditional way of exercising deep breath in China, practiced on a regular basis to keep fit; it is classified into two categories: one requiring the practitioner to stand, sit or lie still, concentrate his or her mind, and breathe in a special way to promote circulation and digestion in the body, and the other calling for the use of mild physical exercises or massage), “阴阳” (yinyang, yin and yang, in ancient Chinese philosophy, are two opposing principles existing in substances, people, and all things under the heaven), “太极” (taiji, the Supreme Ultimate; the Absolute in ancient Chinese cosmology, presented as the primary source of all created things), “饺子” (jiaozi, crescent-shaped dumpling made of wheat dough with a meat and vegetable filling) and “功夫” (gongfu, also kung fu, extraordinary skills)” are all specific to Chinese culture. Similarly, English words like egghead, blackleg and salad are also culture-specific and are absent from the Chinese culture and language.

(2) Linguistic anisomorphism: It is a mistake to think that cultural anisomorphism only exists between languages; its linguistic variety is also present inside languages. Categorial words are typical instances. One way that Chinese differs from English lies in the absence of tense and aspect markers. English grammar employs special grammatical structures (e.g. be doing, have done, had done, will do, would do, etc.) as markers indicating whether an action is in progress, is completed, was already completed before a past time or is yet to be done. It also employs special structural markers to indicate whether a sentence is a statement or a question. The Chinese language, however, does not have such structural markers. Instead it uses lexical means to indicate the state of an action. For instance, it uses “着” (zhe) as a progressive aspect marker to denote an on-going action, “了” (liao) as a perfect aspect marker to denote a completed action, and “将” (jiang) as a future tense marker to denote an action which is to be performed. To ask a question, “吗” (ma), an interrogative marker, is added to the end of a statement and end the sentence with a question mark when it is written. Owing to grammatical differences, English has no equivalents for all these Chinese functional words. Unit nouns (or partitive nouns), which can be cited as another instance of linguistic anisomorphism, are common lexical items in both Chinese and English, but are used in different ways. They are often found with uncountable nouns in English, but more often used with countable nouns in Chinese. That

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

is why English learners of Chinese generally have trouble with Chinese partitive nouns and Chinese learners of English are likely to make such mistakes as an advice and a work.

(3) Componential anisomorphism: “The anisomorphism can be manifested by any component of the lexical meaning, in any degree and dimension” (Zgusta 1971:296). No two lexical units in the language pair can be equivalent in all semantic aspects. Partial equivalents are classified into five categories in 6.2.1. The basis for this classification is the componential analysis of the lexical meanings of words and lexical units inside the same semantic category and the study of sense relations between various meanings of a word and between lexical units in the same semantic category. Complete synonyms inside a language are as rare as complete equivalents between languages. Componential and contrastive analysis shows that lexical items from any language pair do not correspond to each other in both conceptual and non-conceptual aspects (see 3.2). Bilingual lexicographers have to find the differences and reflect them in their work.

(4) Extralinguistic anisomorphism: This category comprises encyclopedic expressions, mainly proper nouns. In each culture they have unique references, i.e. they refer to one particular person, place, organization and so on. Naturally no such match can be found for them in the target language. In intercultural lexicographic communication, encyclopedic terms are usually transliterated or translated by means of explanatory equivalents.

(5) Specialized anisomorphism: While equivalence can be established between the source and target languages for most technical terms, there are two classes of technical terms that do not readily correspond: rare technical terms and newly created terms. This happens either because of absence of corresponding entities in the target culture or because of absence of corresponding terms in the target language. It is often the case that one object exists and named in one language but does not exist in the other. Computer science has developed rapidly in the past few decades and has given rise to a number of new terms. Some of these new English terms have not found their counterparts or proper equivalents in Chinese. English-Chinese bilingual lexicographers are even still arguing over what could pass for the most appropriate translations for the most popular terms like internet and e-mail, as they have already acquired various controversial Chinese equivalents. Anisomorphism is the most serious obstacle that obstructs bilingual lexicographical communication. It is one of the hardest tasks bilingual lexicographers have to accomplish in order to guarantee smooth and successful communication between themselves and dictionary users. The solution to the problem of “anisomorphism” lies in the search and creation of proper equiva-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

lents. The quality of bilingual dictionaries and the efficiency of communication between the compiler and the user depend to a large extent on the effectiveness of this search and the durability of this term creation. For cultural anisomorphism, the best possible solution might be literal translation or transliteration followed by pragmatic and cultural explanations. This has proved useful in previous bilingual lexicographic treatment. English expressions like save one’s face and a loss of face are both literal translations of “保全面子” (bao quan mian zi) and “丢面子” (diu mian zi) in Chinese. The Chinese expression “磕头” (ketou, a traditional Chinese custom of kneeling, with both hands on the floor, and touching the ground with the forehead in worship or submission; act obsequiously) has successfully made its way into English as “kowtow” by means of transliteration plus cultural explanation, though it is mainly used metaphorically. In most cases linguistic anisomorphism can be resolved by means of functional explanations or explanatory equivalents, as in the case of “着”, “了” and “将”. Componential and contrastive analysis are effective means of searching for and creating proper equivalents for lexical items of componential anisomorphism (see 3.2).

7.2 Equivalence presentation “In some real sense any bilingual dictionary is an exercise in contrastive lexicology” (Tomaszczyk 1983:45, in R.R.K. Hartmann). Comparison between lexical items is the basis for establishing equivalence between expressions in two languages. In 6.2.1 three types of equivalence were identifed, the second of which was further divided into five subtypes. Here, discussions will mainly be devoted to how these three types of equivalence can be presented in bilingual lexicographic communication. The presentation of full equivalence between lexical units does not seem to be a big problem, when they correspond to one another in all aspects. For example, word formation is a compound noun and means “the way of forming new words”. It equates exactly with the Chinese “构词法” (gou ci fa), semantically, categorially, and stylistically. However, owing to both linguistic and cultural differences, such complete equivalents are extremely rare. The greatest challenge lies in establishing and presenting partial equivalence and coping with zero equivalence. Partial equivalence consists of five types. Approximate equivalents are usually monosemous in both the source and target languages. They overlap extensively in the semantic and categorial range of meaning, but may differ in such non-conceptual aspects as cultural associations and social images a word invokes. The Chinese “宣传” (xuanchuan) is a politically neutral term. As a noun, it has two approximate

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

equivalents in English: propaganda and publicity. Propaganda means “(the organised circulation by a political group, etc. of) information, misinformation, rumour or opinion, presented so as to influence public feeling” (Chambers Pocket Dictionary, 1996). Evidently it can be somewhat derogatory in meaning. Publicity is neutral, meaning “advertising or other activity designed to rouse public interest in something”. Propaganda, when presented in the English-Chinese dictionary, must be accompanied by stylistic label to guarantee its proper use in the English context. Interestingly, this word has acquired its special cultural flavor in the Chinese context, as used in “Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China”. Approximate equivalence also applies to the overlapping of one of several meanings of the word. The English word book has a wider range of reference than the Chinese character “书” (shu, book). Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (1994) lists eleven definitions of the word book. Except for the first two definitions none of the remaining ones can be translated with the Chinese character “书”. Even when the contrast is restricted to their basic meanings, their relation can only be described as that of approximate equivalence, as “dictionary” is included in the second definition and treated as one kind of book, but this is not the case in Chinese because the Chinese language makes a clear distinction between “书” (shu, book) and “词典” (cidian, dictionary). The dictionary does not fall within the category of “books” in the Chinese conceptual system. To reflect the whole semantic range of the word “book”, English-Chinese bilingual lexicographers will have to make a serious analysis of the grammatical categories, the definitions and the actual use of the English word, discriminate between meanings and then try to find Chinese equivalents for them. The following illustrates how book as a noun is analyzed and discriminated semantically and how its Chinese equivalents are presented to match their corresponding English definitions in an English-Chinese dictionary. 1. a number of printed or written pages bound together inside a cover, as a thing to be read: 书，书本，书籍 2. a written work or composition, such as a novel, technical manual, or dictionary: 专著，著作，作品 3. a number of blank sheets of paper bound together inside a cover, used as a thing to be written in: 本子，簿本，票据 4. any collection of things bound together, especially one with its own covers: 簿，册 5. a record of the transactions of a business society:（复）帐目 6. the libretto of an opera, a light musical play, etc.: 唱词，唱本 7. one of the main divisions of a larger written composition, as of a long novel or of the Bible: 卷，篇，部 8. a number of tickets, stamps, etc., fastened together along one edge: 封，板

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

All the above Chinese equivalents match individual definitions of the English word book. Some of the equivalents are close in meaning, but some are semantically unrelated. In some cases, all target language equivalents belong to the same semantic field and share some common semantic features. The Chinese “老师” (laoshi, one who teaches, especially one who is hired to teach knowledge or skills; in a broad sense, one whom one deserves to learn from), “教师” (jiaoshi, schoolteacher; instructor; master; schoolmaster; pedagogue; preceptor), “教员” (jiao yuan, instructor; teaching staff; facultyman), “导师” (daoshi, tutor; adviser; superviser; people who give tuition, supervision and guidance to students in universities and research institutes on how to do research and write papers) and “师长” (shizhang, a term of respect for a teacher, an elderly person of high scholastic status) may all be considered equivalents of the English word teacher, but none of them are exact equivalents, though they overlap to varying degrees in part of the semantic range. In the Chinese-English dictionary “童年” (tongnian, childhood) has to be presented by three different English words. English makes a distinction between the childhood of a boy (boyhood) and that of a girl (girlhood). Thus, “童年” has the equivalent of childhood in English. As the distinction between boyhood and girlhood does not exist in the Chinese language and no Chinese equivalents can be found for them, the other two equivalents will have to be synthesized into the “童年” entry. However, glosses must be added to make clear their reference to sexes, as follows: 童年 childhood; boyhood (男孩, a male child); girlhood（女孩, a female child）

As “童年” is the synthetic equivalent of childhood, boyhood and girlhood in English and childhood, boyhood and girlhood are the analytical equivalents of “童年” in Chinese, so cousin is the superordinate equivalent of “堂兄” (tangxiong, elder male cousin), “堂弟” (tangdi, younger male cousin), “堂姐” (tangjie, elder female cousin), and “堂妹” (tangmei, younger female cousin), in which case “堂” indicates the relationship between cousins on the paternal side like father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and “表兄” (biaoxiong, elder male cousin), “表弟” (biaodi, younger male cousin)”, “表姐” (biaojie, elder female cousin) and “表妹” (biaomei, younger female cousin), in which case “表” indicates the relationship between cousins on the maternal side like mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. “堂兄”, “堂弟”, “堂姐”, “堂妹”, “表兄”, “表弟”, “表姐” and “表妹” are the subordinate equivalents of cousin in English. In English-Chinese dictionaries, the Chinese subordinate equivalents may be presented in the same way as the “童年” entry above. But in Chinese-English dictionaries the English superordinate equivalent must be presented in both the “堂” and “表” entries.

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

The presentation of zero equivalents is always a big problem for bilingual lexicographers. To present what is absent in the target language, lexicographers usually have recourse to such techniques as description, explanation, literal translation, transliteration, borrowing and coinage. Description, explanation and literal translation are very often used to handle cultural, linguistic and componential anisomorphism, and literal translation is in most contexts accompanied by bracketed glosses. Transliteration, borrowing and coinage are usually employed to handle extra-linguistic and specialized anisomorphism. Literal translation is also sometimes used to deal with such situations (see also 7.1).

7.3 Meaning discrimination Meaning discrimination is one of the most intricate tasks involved in bilingual lexicographic communication. It helps to answer the question of which sense is to be taken in the specific target language situation and guide the dictionary user towards the right or appropriate target language equivalent. Meaning discrimination must be included in bilingual dictionaries because only on very rare occasions does the semantic range of lexical units in the source and target languages overlap completely. Full equivalents are extremely rare, and partial and complete anisomorphism dominates the minds of bilingual lexicographers, and meaning discrimination is included in a considerably high percentage of dictionary entries. “Dictionaries that have been fairly well elaborated include sense discriminations in approximately one-third of their entries” (Bartholomew and Schoenhals 1983:71). From the position of the user, without systematic meaning discrimination, the bilingual dictionary cannot function as a dependable guide to proper equivalents and translation efficiency. To provide systematic and consistent sets of information concerning meaning discrimination, bilingual lexicographers will have to deal with the following issues:

(1) In what context is meaning discrimination required?

(2) To what extent should lexical meanings be discriminated?

(3) In what ways should meaning discrimination be presented?

James E. Iannucci (1967) was perhaps the first scholar to make an empirical study of meaning discrimination in bilingual dictionaries. His focus was mainly on the first and third questions. Subsequently, more specific and detailed studies were carried out (see Al-Kasimi 1977:67–7; Bartholomew and Schoenhals 1983:70–80; Svensen 1993:145–148), but they were still confined to the first and third ques-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

tions. As those two questions have received their due attention and considerable studies, emphasis will be shifted to the second question, which is also a key issue. Bilingual lexicographers usually base their meaning discrimination on the sense divisions made by monolingual lexicographers, who divide the senses of a polysemous word on the basis of the discovery of “distinct superordinates or genus words” and “various differentiae” (Ayto 1983:89, in Hartmann) and/or the analysis of grammatical behavior and collocational patterns (Stock 1984, in Hartmann). They study various definitions of the word in monolingual dictionaries and work conscientiously to find translation equivalents for source language lexical units. This is why bilingual dictionaries are sometimes referred to as translation dictionaries. Putting aside the question of whether monolingual definitions are always reliable and scientifically founded, it may be asked whether bilingual lexicographers have to follow monolingual definitions rigorously and in the same order and the same number to discriminate between meanings in their work? Or, should they take advantage of existing monolingual definitions and use them as the starting point for their own work? To a large extent, the answer to this question encompasses that to the second question above. Bilingual dictionaries are generally intended for “comprehension” and “production”. Some reflections are provided here to illustrate how they affect the “comprehension” and “production” process. Let us suppose someone is reading an English book. He comes across a new word and tries to guess its meaning. But he is not sure about the result and goes to the bilingual dictionary for help. He then finds a number of meanings listed for the English word in the dictionary. He goes through the numbered definitions and tries to discover the closest target language equivalents. What he finally finds in the dictionary is the target language equivalent that is the most relevant or appropriate to the original context. The equivalent may not throw much new light on what the user has guessed about the meaning of the word, but it may confirm his guess. Normally, this is actually the best that can be offered in bilingual dictionaries for comprehension and what such bilingual dictionaries can do for the user. Again, suppose a Chinese student engaged in writing an English essay is uncertain about how to express a certain idea in English. He has got a certain idea in his mind but does not know how to express it in English. He turns to the ChineseEnglish dictionary and finds a string of English equivalents, which are semantically related or synonymous. He may recognize a few of the equivalents but not all of them. Armed with the English equivalent list, he goes to the English-English or English-Chinese dictionary to make sure he gets the right word for the right context and uses it idiomatically. It is no mere coincidence that in both situations no full but only approximate equivalents can be found. First, dictionary definitions are abstractions of uses of

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

citational forms of words. They are related to specific contexts and both meanings and uses are delimited by contexts. Shades of meaning will certainly occur when they are put in a different context. No dictionary, monolingual or bilingual, can possibly exhaust all uses of a word in all possible contexts. Words have meanings only when they are used in contexts and understood within their systems. “Concepts are not just matched to words, but to affixes, compounds, phrases, word components (features), associative lists of words and the interrelationships and interconnections among all of these” (Dolezal 1995:341, in Kachru and Kahane). Second, a distinction should be made between lexical meaning and contextual meaning of a word. Theoretically, what is reflected in dictionary definitions should be lexical meanings rather than contextual meanings. As translation equivalents rather than definitions are provided in bilingual dictionaries, a greater distance is bound to exist between the basic meaning of the word and its contextual use in bilingual dictionaries than in monolingual dictionaries. Third, linguistic and cultural differences between languages tend to intensify the difference and widen the distance between the lexical and the contextual use of a word despite bilingual lexicographers’ painstaking efforts to narrow or even eliminate them. Bilingual dictionaries are used in cross-cultural communication. Texts or messages are accepted and interpreted in entirely unpredictable settings and by people of entirely different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Bilingual lexicographers’ primary task is then to furnish the lexicographic basis and improve the linguistic and cultural contexts for understanding between languages and across cultures rather than to provide readily insertible equivalents, which do not help much in either production or comprehension as illustrated in the two situations described above. The insertion of such equivalents will only result in awkward or even ridiculous texts. “Although a definition may be accurate in an individual context, this is because the context itself has allowed the word to take on a more specific meaning in other contexts that definition will be inappropriate” (Moon 1987:181– 182, in Cowie). Although sense division and meaning discrimination are performed in two different types of dictionaries, the former in monolingual dictionaries and the latter in bilingual ones, they are by no means separated and unrelated. On the contrary, the former is very often used to a considerable extent as the basis for the latter. The form of definitions and the division of word meanings in monolingual dictionaries directly influences how bilingual lexicographers discriminate between word meanings and how they match these meanings with target language equivalents. All this has again brought the basic problem of dictionary definitions to the forefront of lexicographers’ attention. The fundamental point resides in the question of whether dictionary definitions must be context-bound and whether it is

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

always better to specify word meanings down to last minute detail? Doubt also persists as to whether lexicographers can actually achieve that end? “A dictionary may support the reading of a text but it does not interpret the text or decide between readings of a text” (Dolezal 1995:342, in Kachru and Kahane). Lexicographers find themselves caught in a dilemma: dictionaries describe language in the assumedly neutral context of the dictionary, but words in non-dictionary discourse have their own contexts. Should dictionaries describe words only or words together with their contexts? When contexts are taken into account, should lexicographers consider linguistic contexts only or linguistic contexts and socio-cultural contexts as well? And finally, should contexts be presented in definitions or by other means (e.g. exemplification and glosses)? From the point of lexical semantics, all these questions may be boiled down to one issue: should dictionaries describe lexical meanings only or contextual meanings as well? Johannes P. Louw (1995:357–365, in Kachru and Kahane) has provided a convincing settlement of the issue by making a critical analysis of the definitions of the word “run” in The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. He concludes that “it is of the utmost importance to distinguish lexical meaning from contextual meaning. Failing to do so entails the danger of assuming or, more precisely, suggesting to the user that meanings of run are defined which may as such be applied to other contexts where they may not fit, but are forced upon such a context. This is not a serious danger for native speakers of a language, but for nonnative speakers, to whom that language may be a second or third language, such dictionaries are not as helpful as they might wish.” The advisability of boiling down the basic meanings of run to “move from one point to another in a relatively quick manner” (Louw 1995:359, in Kachru and Kahane) is more in agreement with the nature of dictionary use for comprehension. This is not just the case with verbs. It can also be the case with nouns. Longman Dictionary (1987:438) lists five definitions for the word entry girl. They can again be reduced to “a young female person; a woman (infml).” Other definitions are actually extensions of this basic meaning in different contexts. They mean what they do basically without being accompanied by other lexical items or put in specific contexts. Human beings are born with a well-developed nervous system. They have an inherent capability of making inferences and associations. Given specific contexts, they can infer the writer- or speaker-meaning from what they have already known about the meaning of the word. Lexicographers should take advantage of this innate human cognitive ability and write lexicographic definitions on the assumption that dictionary users need basic meanings of words for the understanding of words in real use. Thus, bilingual dictionary definitions should be concerned mainly with what the word means basically rather than what it means in individual contexts. No dictionary can

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

present all possible uses of a word in all possible situations. Bilingual definitions should be so written as to guide the user towards the right understanding of a word rather than substituting syntactically for the word defined without considering its semantic appropriateness. Lexicographers “define and analyze the context, and look for diversity rather than unity”; they “look too hard around the word” they are working on, “and not hard enough at what it means in itself, or what it adds to its context” (Moon 1987:182, in Anthony Cowie). If this idea is actually taken seriously by bilingual lexicographers, meaning discrimination will certainly become less painstaking, dictionary use will become more relaxed, and bilingual dictionaries will become more informative as a result of the dictionary space saved from reduced definitions being employed for more useful information. Intercultural lexicographical communication will be conducted in a smoother, more natural and realistic context.

7.4 Grammar Word grammar is an essential part of information lexicographers must convey to their users in lexicographical communication. It proves to be more important for encoding than for decoding. As far as Chinese bilingual dictionaries are concerned, lexicographers have been more successful in foreign language-Chinese dictionaries than in Chinese-foreign language dictionaries. The reason might be that Chinese is fundamentally different from foreign languages in terms of its grammar and Chinese monolingual dictionaries do not normally consider grammatical labels like word classes to be indispensable. As a result, foreign languageChinese dictionaries provide grammatical labels to source language words, but this is not the case with Chinese-foreign language dictionaries. The presentation of the word grammar in bilingual dictionaries can be examined from five different levels, ranging from word classes to idiomatic usage. The basis for lexico-grammatical analysis is the division of word classes. The English language has nine major word classes: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, conjunction, preposition, pronoun, determiner (including articles and numerals), and interjections. They correspond roughly with those in the Chinese language except that the latter does not have articles like a(n) and the. Labels of word classes in word entries convey not only grammatical information but also semantic information. They help to distinguish between homographs, divide polysemous words into different sense units and discriminate between meanings in bilingual dictionaries. The dictionary user’s desire for knowledge of word classes will never stop at the basic classification of words into nine major classes, which still hide a great deal of information of practical value about words. Their expectations urge lexi-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

cographers to probe deeper into word classes and divide them into subclasses, which is the second level of lexico-grammatical analysis. Verbs, for example, can be subdivided into full verbs (e.g. leave, eat), primary verbs (e.g. do, have, be) and modal auxiliary verbs (e.g. will, might) (see Quirk et al 1985:3.1). Full verbs can be further divided into transitive verbs, intransitive verbs and linking verbs. Adjectives can be subdivided into attributive and predictive according to their syntactic functions and stative and dynamic according to their semantic features. Labels of subclasses of words should be given in bilingual learners dictionaries, active-type dictionaries or dictionaries for production because dictionary users need to know the basics of the word grammar and learn their usage in real contexts. In bilingual dictionaries for comprehension, the labeling of major word classes would suffice to serve “comprehension”. Words may have various forms when they appear in different contexts. The third level of lexico-grammatical analysis will be made of their inflections and morphosyntactic features. Emphasis is to be given to irregular forms of grammatical value, such as the plural form of nouns, the past and past participle forms of verbs, the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs. Morphosyntactic features are identified by notations of “marked” words. For example, some nouns must appear in the plural form (e.g. “books” indicating “a record of the business done by a company, a society, etc.), and some must be used with the determiner the (e.g. the case, as in “This is not the case”). Some adjectives can only appear after the verb to be, and some can only be used before nouns. Some verbs can only occur in the simple base form, and some must be used in the progressive form to serve special needs. All this information must be presented in bilingual dictionaries for general purpose, particularly in dictionaries for production. Words must be combined with each other according to grammatical rules into larger linguistic units, which enable lexicographers to examine words in a larger context and analyze them from a higher level, that is from the combinatory features of syntax. The combinatory features constitute part of the lexical context in which words are used and construed. There are seven basic sentence patterns in the English language: SV, SVO, SVC, SVA, SVOO, SVOC, SVOA (see Quirk et al 1985:10.3). When used in these patterns, English words, in particular nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, will appear together with their specific combinatory syntactic features. Take verbs for example. In addition to syntactic restrictions in the basic patterns, there are also other rules governing the combination of verbs with elements that function as their object. Some verbs are intransitive (e.g. reside, lie) and must be complemented by an adverb or a prepositional phrase. Some verbs (e.g. put) are transitive; they can take objects but must be complemented also by an adverb or a prepositional phrase. Some verbs (e.g. decide) can only take infinitives as their objects, some (e.g. enjoy) only the –ing form of the verb, and some others

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

(e.g. like, remember) can take both as their objects, sometimes with differences in meaning. The same combinatory features and syntactic restrictions can be found with nouns, adjectives, and even with closed word classes like pronouns. They are best covered in learners dictionaries like The Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary of Current English, Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (see 2.1). The presentation of combinatory features and syntactic behaviour of words in dictionaries will guide the user towards constructing larger linguistic units in the right manner. It is still controversial whether idiomatic usage is part of word grammar, but it is included in the discussion here (but idioms are taken up in Chapter 8) and put on the highest level of our lexico-grammatical analysis. According to Leonard Bloomfield, grammar is about regularities in language, and the lexicon (dictionary) is “really an appendix of the grammar, a list of irregularities” (Bloomfield 1933:274). Idiomatic usage, in its narrow sense, may be treated as deviation from regularities and language norms. Some examples are cited to illustrate the point. Grammar tells us that the objective case of a pronoun appears in the “object” position (i.e. after verbs), and that the subjective case appears in the “subject” position, and that the subjective case is used after the verb to be. In actual discourse, however, it is not unusual to hear such sentences as “My friend and me went to the movie last night”, “Please keep it between you and I”, and “It’s me”. These deviations from prescribed rules are usually described in “usage notes” or “usage essays” in bilingual dictionaries. To what extent they should be included in the bilingual dictionary is determined by its size, purpose and intended user. The description of the word grammar in the bilingual dictionary is very often supplemented and reinforced by other contexts (e.g. examples) which show how the word behaves syntactically. Bilingual lexicographers will also need to make comparative studies in both the source and target language grammar and systematic analyses of common errors in foreign language learning so that the source language grammar can be handled consistently and systematically. Word grammar at five different levels has been described and analyzed above. It is usually presented in the form of specially-designed codes, specially-written essays, usage notes and tables. Whatever form is used should be in agreement with the purpose, the size and the linguistic background of the user. A tentative code system for the grammatical treatment of English nouns was provided in 3.1. Further code systems for three other content word classes (i.e. verbs, adjectives and adverbs) are devised as follows for English-Chinese lexicographers’ reference: A code system for verbs: [v] → used either transitively or intransitively [vi] → used only intransitively

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

[vt] → used only transitively [+ to inf.] → followed by an infinitive with “to” [+ -ing] → followed by the –ing form [+ to inf./-ing] → followed by both an infinitive with “to” or the –ing form [+ Oi + Od] → followed by both direct and indirect objects [+ adv] → followed by an adverbial [+ O + to inf.] → followed by an object and an infinitive with “to” [+ O + inf.] → followed by an object and an infinitive without “to” [+ O + -ing] → followed by an object and the –ing verb form [+ O +inf. /-ing] → followed by an object and the infinitive without “to” or the –ing verb form [+ O + -ed] → followed by an object and the –ed participle [+ O + adj] → followed by an object and an adjective [+ O + n] → followed by an object and a noun [not progressive] → not used in the progressive form [usu. progressive] → usually used in the progressive form [usu. negative] → usually used in the negative form [usu. affirmative] → usually used in the affirmative form [usu. active] → usually used in the active form [usu. passive] → usually used in the passive form [not active] → not used in the active form [not passive] → not used in the passive form [+ with, etc.] → followed by a certain preposition such as “with”, etc.

A code system for adjectives: [no comp.] → no comparative form [attributive] → only used to modify nouns [postmodifier] → used to modify nouns and appear after them [predicative] → used after linking verbs such as the verb to be [+ with, etc.] → followed by a certain preposition such as “with”, etc. A code system for adverbs: [+ adj/adv] → used only before adjectives or adverbs [after adj/adv] → used only after adjectives and adverbs [inversion] → inverted sentence order required when used to begin a sentence [+ with, etc.] → followed by a certain preposition such as “with”, etc. [position] → indicates what position the adverb typically occupies in the sentence, e.g. the initial, middle or end position.

This code system for verbs, adjectives and adverbs in bilingual dictionaries is not complete in any sense. Bilingual lexicographers can devise and add more to them according to their actual needs.

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

7.5 Collocation Words can be combined into larger units, but the combination of one word with another is usually rule-governed. Although the rules differ with languages, they share one common feature – habitual co-occurrence, which characterizes all sorts of combinations in all languages. In analytical languages like English and Chinese, which depend more on word order for meaning, the study of word combinations and their inclusion in dictionaries is very important. No lexicographer can afford to overlook such combinations in active-type dictionaries or in dictionaries for production. Different languages have different ways of combining words into larger units. The co-occurrence between lexical units is not always represented by exact equivalents in the language pair due to anisomorphism discussed above. Three types of collocational correspondence can be established between the language pair: complete correspondence, pseudo-correspondence and zero correspondence. Like full equivalents, complete correspondence is extremely rare. It refers to the relationship between collocations which equate in both form and meaning in the language pair, like clear hint (明白的暗示, ming bai de an shi) and overcome difficulties (克服困难, ke fu kun nan). Pseudo-correspondence refers to the superficial equation of collocations in form but not really in meaning or function because the literal translation of the source language collocation does not indicate what is actually meant by the collocation in the target language. For example, the English expression outpatient service seems to equate with “出诊 (chuzhen)” in Chinese, which should actually be translated into “(of a doctor) visit a patient at home; pay a home visit; make a house call” in English. The right Chinese expression for outpatient service is “门诊 (menzhen)” (the service for a person visiting a hospital for treatment but not staying there). Zero correspondence refers to the case where the collocations in the language pair do not equate in either form or meaning due to lexical gaps in the language pair. This situation accounts for a large proportion of collocations between languages and arises out of the fact that people in different cultures and speech communities differ in their life style, in ways of thinking and expressing ideas and in their habitual use of words, typically in “verb + noun” combinations. The same source language verb, when used with different nouns, will have to be matched according to how it is expressed in the target language. The verb play, for example, may take a number of nouns as its object, and when put into Chinese, different verbs are required for different nouns to produce smooth and idiomatic combinations: play football 踢足球 play chess 下棋

play volleyball 打排球 play the races 赌赛马

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

play records 放唱片 play the piano 弹钢琴 play Beethoven’s symphony play the part of Hamlet

play tricks 耍花招 play the flute吹笛子演奏贝多芬的交响曲扮演哈姆莱特的角色

In the case of bilingual dictionary users, the difficulty lies not with complete correspondence but with pseudo- and zero correspondence, to which sufficient attention and careful comparative studies ought to be devoted. In terms of substitutability, collocations may be roughly classified into two types: open collocation and closed collocation. Subclasses can be distinguished, such as grammatical and lexical collocation, restrictive and non-restrictive collocation, motivated and non-motivated collocation. As closed collocation (or called idioms) will receive separate attention in Chapter 8, here the focus will be on open collocation, mainly grammatical collocation and lexical collocation. A survey of 50 content word entries in The English-Chinese Dictionary (Lu Guosen 1989–1991) and A Comprehensive Chinese-English Dictionary (Dai Mingzhong and Dai Weidong 1993) shows that English and Chinese bilingual lexicographers have tended to give a better treatment of grammatical collocations than of lexical collocations in their work. Therefore, lexical collocation will require greater and more prominent concentration in this presentation. In handling collocations, the first question that confronts lexicographers is what collocations are to be included and according to what criteria the decisions for selection are to be made. In selecting grammatical collocations, structural suitability should be the dominant consideration. Some English nouns may be followed by an infinitive phrase (e.g. with intent to steal), an –ing phrase (e.g. with intention of stealing), a special prepositional phrase (e.g. the child’s fascination with video games) or a that-clause (e.g. the fact that he stole my money). Some may take two or more of these grammatical collocations with or without much difference in meaning (e.g. the right way to do / of doing something). The case may become somewhat more complicated with adjectives and verbs. Fortunately, there has already been a long tradition of dealing with the combinatory syntactic features of these word classes in previous lexicographic practice, and more comprehensive code systems have been designed for four major English parts of speech and presented in 3.1 and 7.5. The selection and inclusion of lexical collocations in bilingual dictionaries are generally governed by two major factors: lexical selection and lexical mismatch. Lexical selection is the spontaneous semantic association of one lexical item with another and the mutual restriction of their co-occurrence in a combination. The thought of tea will naturally lead you to associate it with words like black, green, strong and weak. These four adjectives co-occur with tea to form a habitual com-

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

bination. And the thought of tea will invoke different images in the minds of people doing different work in the field of tea. As a host or hostess, one brews or makes tea; as a guest, one drinks or takes tea; as a worker on a tea plantation, one grows or plants tea and gathers or picks it; as a waiter or waitress in a tea house, one strains, pours, and serves tea. The collocational range can still be widened, but it will certainly be improper to include bring, buy, sell, export and import. Their association with tea is too weak to be counted as collocates of tea. Restrictions of co-occurrence of these lexical items do not permit combinations like eat tea or raise tea. Due to linguistic and cultural anisomorphism, dictionary users are very likely to mismatch lexical items according to their native language patterns and usage. This sort of lexical mismatch, which is not uncommon among foreign language learners, is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in foreign language learning. By providing instances of collocations in bilingual dictionaries, lexicographers can help their users to avoid possible lexical mismatches (i.e. pseudo-correspondence) and put them on the right track that leads them to efficient and fluent communication. Chinese learners of English have no problem with see a film, which corresponds completely with the Chinese expression “看电影” (kan dian ying), but errors are bound to occur where “pseudo-correspondence” and “zero correspondence” exist. Speakers of English read a book, but speakers of Chinese can either “读书” (dushu, read a book) or “看书” (kanshu, see or look at a book). Both “读书” and “看书” mean the same thing in Chinese. Obviously see a book and look at a book are not acceptable English except when what one really means is “to perceive with the eye” or “to take a look”, not to undertake a serious reading or study of the book. Lexical mismatch occurs not only in intercultural communication but also in intracultural communication. In English, one can say quench one’s thirst and quench a fire. The lexical item extinguish can also be used with a fire (i.e. extinguish a fire), but not with thirst. It can be regarded as one of the basic tasks for lexicographers to guide their readers toward the right lexical combinations and avoid lexical mismatches like see a book in inter-cultural communication and extinguish one’s thirst in intra-cultural communication. In order to achieve this end, the following suggestions must be considered and taken seriously: 1. Bilingual lexicographers need to distinguish between different types of lexical items in the source and target languages and treat them in their work discriminatingly. The focus should be on difficult words, which need more extensive and penetrating treatment. Bilingual dictionaries must help to make these difficult words easy to grasp. 2. Bilingual lexicographers need to make a complete list of source language lexical items to be included and identify those lexical items that might lead dictionary users to mismatch them with false target language equivalents.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

3. Bilingual lexicographers need to make comparative studies of those lexical items in both languages so as to discover where “pseudo-correspondence” lies and offer dictionary users necessary hints by means of bracketed glosses or notes so as to help them avoid lexical traps. 4. Bilingual lexicographers need to devise a comprehensive and flexible system for presenting lexical collocations consistently and systematically. Prominence must certainly be given to content word classes, especially those lexical entries in which “pseudo-correspondence” exists and lexical mismatch may occur. Dictionary users should be warned of these lexical traps by means of exemplification rather than definitions.

7.6 Style and register One of the most important contributions modern linguistics has made towards lexicography lies in drawing lexicographers’ attention to the appropriate use of language. Pragmatics is now introduced not only in learners dictionaries but in general-purpose bilingual dictionaries as well. It must be admitted that though a great deal of work has been done, English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries still remain far behind their monolingual counterparts in this regard. Bilingual lexicographers are faced with several key problems in labeling the style and register of source language words. The first problem is how to label words with peculiarities of style and register. The normal practice is to give a label before all the definitions of an entry word if that label applies to all of them, before a particular definition if that label applies to this particular definition only, and before, in or after an example. Labels are also provided at the initial position if the entry word varies in pronunciation and spelling for stylistic and register reasons. English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries usually provide stylistic and register labels before definitions, and seldom before, in or after examples. Stylistic and register labels are to be given in Chinese if the dictionary goes from English to Chinese, and in English if the dictionary goes from Chinese to English. Second, stylistic and register labeling in English and Chinese dictionaries must be objective, reflecting the actual use of both the source and target languages. Some lexical items are formal, and some are informal; some are slang, and some are colloquial, but many others are neutral. It is worse to label a formal word as informal than not to label it at all. Bilingual lexicographers usually base their labeling on monolingual dictionaries and their own awareness of the source language. Neither of them is really entirely reliable. The safest way to avoid mislabeling is to keep several monolingual dictionaries at hand and consult the entry words in-

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

volved whenever doubt or controversy arise. Sometimes questionnaires, sociolinguistic investigations and discussions must also be conducted to verify the facts. Third, stylistic and register labeling should be as complete and exact as possible. Incomplete labeling can be as misleading as incorrect labeling. Without proper guidance, dictionary users can easily fall into the trap set by incomplete labeling. For instance, lexical items, which should be labeled as “slang” or “colloquial”, may be mistaken for neutral or unmarked terms if they are not labeled. Judicious labeling has proved to be very demanding upon monolingual lexicographers. Understandably, it will turn out to be harder and more demanding for bilingual lexicographers, but adequate stylistic and register labeling is bound to promote intercultural lexicographic communication and improve the quality of bilingual dictionary making. Fourth, due to space limitations, stylistic and register labels are usually given in the form of abbreviations, mainly clippings and initials. “AmE” and “BrE” are two examples of abbreviations for American English and British English. “Infml” and “fml” are two other examples of abbreviations for informal and formal. As stylistic and register labels are usually given in Chinese in English-Chinese dictionaries, a consistently codified system of Chinese terminology is needed. It may be noted that there are already sets of such abbreviations designed for stylistic and register labeling in English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries, but there remains much room for improvement in terms of standardization and consistency. Take the Chinese abbreviations for the labeling of regional varieties of English in The English-Chinese Dictionary for instance. Inconsistency is found in both form and methodology. A combination of the initial characters (印英, yinying) in 印度 (yindu, India) and 英语 (yingyu, English) is used for labeling Indian English (印度英语), but country names such as加拿大 (jianada, Canada), 南非 (nanfei, South Africa) and 新西兰 (xinxilan, New Zealand) are used for labeling Canadian English (加拿大英语, jianada yingyu), South African English (南非英语, nanfei yingyu) and New Zealand English (新西兰英语, xinxilan yingyu). For Australian English, only the initial character (澳, ao) of “澳大利亚” (aodaliya, Australia) is used. The labeling of lexical items that are similar in nature and belong in the same category must be done consistently within a unified code system or subsystem and by the same method. Thus, a consistent method of treatment is recommended for labeling regional varieties of English. By comparison, the method of combining the initial characters like “印英” is the most appropriate, as it not only indicates the region where this variety of English is used but also offers a self-evident literal interpretation. This way of labeling regional varieties of English can be extended to other varieties of English and varieties of other languages. Finally, bilingual lexicographers have to decide what words need to be marked with stylistic and register labels. Theoretically, words that can be used in any vari-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

ety of the source language (usually the core vocabulary of the standard national language) without stylistic and register restriction should not be labeled. However, labels must be given to those words with stylistic and register restrictions either in meaning or in usage from general norms of the source language in the bilingual dictionary. Those words may be classified into six groups:

(1) Words that are limited to particular regions: In the case of English, such regional varieties can be distinguished as American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, South African English, Caribbean English, New Zealand English, Irish English, Scottish English, Northern Ireland English, Indian and Pakistan English.

(2) Words that have come into use in English from foreign origins but are still not naturalized: English is abundant in borrowings. “Of the 20,000 or so words in common use, about three-fifths are borrowed” (Fromkin and Rodman 1983:292). Labels are to be given only to those unnaturalized English words that still retain their native spellings and pronunciations.

(3) Words that have special meanings when used in a special field or subject: general language dictionaries are inclined to be more encyclopedic in nature and tend to include a greater number of technical and scientific terms. These terms need particular labels to mark their specific usage in special fields.

(4) Words that are confined to certain situations and time periods: Some words might be considered appropriate only in certain types of situations, some are becoming out-dated and obsolete, and the others are becoming less common. Labels are provided for these words to ensure the use of the right word in the right situation at the right time.

(5) Words that can suggest particular attitudes and evoke unusual reactions or feelings on the part of the user. Some words can be appreciative, some can be derogatory or offensive, and others can be euphemistic or humorous. Labels for this group of words are considered of particular importance to bilingual dictionary users.

(6) Words that have other restricted uses: Some may be used only in certain dialects, some only in non-standard speech, others may be restricted to special social groups or people of a particular profession and trade.

7.7 Exemplification Dictionaries need examples, but not all types of dictionaries need them. Whether a dictionary needs examples and how many are needed are determined by its type,

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

size, and intended purpose. “Special-field” dictionaries concentrate on the lexicon of one special field, such as business or law. Lexical items in this type of dictionary are most often monosemous and extremely limited in usage, and therefore, do not need examples to elaborate their meaning and usage. Dictionaries for comprehension need perhaps fewer examples than those for production, as examples serve to assist the active use of the source language by providing a natural environment for words. Even in dictionaries for production lexicographers are still faced with the problem of what lexical items need examples. Technical and encyclopedic lemmas certainly do not need to be exemplified. Neither do lemmas with a single sense unit and limited usage. The question of what lexical items need examples and how many are needed for them lead us to a more general question: what purposes do examples serve? Scholars both in China and abroad have made careful studies of the role examples play in dictionaries. Two outstanding pieces of research will be mentioned here. Starting from the decoding/encoding contrast, Cowie (1989:57, in James) distinguished between functions relevant to decoding and functions relevant to encoding. Based on the contrast between the monolingual dictionary type and the bilingual type, Toope (1996) distinguished between general functions (including semantic, grammatical and stylistic functions) and specific functions (including translation and cultural functions). Both of these studies have provided illuminating insights. The role of examples in dictionaries varies not only with dictionary functions and types but also with users. Native users of dictionaries have different expectations and consult dictionaries for different purposes than non-native users. Examples may have different implications and significance with different types of users. Native users expect examples to help them better understand what the lexical item means (if they really want examples to be given there), but non-native speakers will expect examples to help them to understand not only the meaning of the lexical item but also its use. That is why bilingual dictionary users prefer their dictionaries to be furnished with more examples. In the light of these observations, the role of examples may be classified into five major functional categories:

(1) Semantic function: Examples in this category may serve as a means of clarifying individual meanings or equivalents, distinguishing related senses or equivalents, supplementing the information in definitions or equivalents, specifying semantic nuances, demonstrating the semantic range of application, and illustrating geographical variations in meaning (see Cowie 1989:55– 65; Toope 1996).

(2) Grammatical functions: Examples in this category indicate the morphological and syntactic behaviour of the lemma and “serve as models of correct usage” (Toope 1996), because “actual usage has the weight of authority behind it”

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

(Landau 1989:166). They show how lemmas change their forms when they enter the sentence and how they are integrated syntactically into larger connected discourse units.

(3) Collocational function: Most dictionaries provide bracketed glosses after definitions to indicate collocations, but in most cases the information given between the brackets fails to guide the user toward the right combination of lexical items. These glosses must be reinforced by examples, which enable the user to examine lexical collocations in a larger context. In bilingual dictionaries, full-length sentence examples are preferred over bracketed glosses or reduced examples to indicate grammatical and lexical collocations.

(4) Stylistic function: According to Gleason (1967, in Householder and Saporta), a fully descriptive dictionary must indicate the stylistic value of the lemma. Since it is extremely complicated to define and indicate the stylistic values of each entry word concisely and precisely in the dictionary, the most practical way is to provide well-selected illustrative examples. Examples for this purpose must indicate appropriate registers, levels of usage, levels of style and the use of regional varieties of the entry word.

(5) Pragmatic function: Examples in this category will show the appropriate use of the entry word, its degree of formality, its affective implications, its specific contexts and associations in different cultural settings. They are very often coupled with language notes, usage notes or pragmatic notes, because examples are sometimes not “large” enough to cover the whole context of use of the entry word.

Generally, examples in bilingual dictionaries can perform one or all of these five functions. Their utility is not merely determined by the role they play in lexicographical communication but by the way they are arranged in the lemma article as well. There are two approaches to the arrangement of examples in bilingual dictionaries. They may be given immediately after the definition to which they are related. In this case, phrases come before sentences, and short sentences come before longer ones. Alternatively all examples may be collected and presented together after the definitions. This approach is less common and may have the advantage of saving users’ time if they are only interested in the word meaning. But it is obviously cumbersome to the user who expects to get information concerning both the meaning and usage of the word, and the situation may become even worse if the examples are not arranged and numbered on the basis of sense divisions in the “definition” part. Good arrangement of examples will speed up the user’s access to the expected information and save users’ time in going through unnecessary parts. “However illustrative examples may be, their value is considerably re-

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

duced if users are unable to access them quickly and focus effectively on the information provided” (Toope 1996). Bilingual lexicographers should follow the principle of “examples immediately after definitions”, as examples “are a critical part of the dictionary definition and should not be regarded as mere appurtenances” (Landau 1989:166). Lexicographers can choose linguistically natural quotations from well-known authors and from computerized corpuses (authentic examples) or invented explanatory phrases and sentences (introspective examples) to illustrate the meaning and usage of words in their dictionaries. The practice of introducing illustrative examples into English dictionaries started with Dr Samuel Johnson, who quoted from famous authors of his times and limited his quotations only to written literature. This practice was later developed to include both spoken and written sources. The introduction of invented examples in A.S.Hornby’s Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English raised a serious challenge to the traditional practice. It was assumed that invented examples “can be made to include detail, whether syntactic or lexical, which throws light on the meaning or use of the entry word” and “can, as it were, be judiciously shaped in the interests of the learner” (Cowie 1989:58, in James). In spite of Hornby’s firm support of invented examples, John Sinclair, editor in chief of Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987) believes the contrary. In his opinion, authentic examples are “examples of good practice”; they “support the explanations”, “illustrate usage”, and “provide a reliable guide for speaking and writing in the English of today”. Invented examples, on the other hand, are “really part of the explanations” and “only of value in helping to explain”; “they give no reliable guide to composition in English and would be very misleading if applied to that task.” Therefore, “only on very rare occasions have we composed an example because there is no suitable one in the corpus” (see Introduction, 1987:xv). Sinclair was quite right in his comments about authentic examples, but it can be argued whether it is questionable. Dictionary compilers are usually linguists themselves and have a far better command of their native language than ordinary people. They are expert enough to judiciously select invented examples. As long as invented examples are linguistically natural, they can serve the same purpose as authentic ones. In cases where only the grammatical function is to be exemplified or words with special implications are to be treated, invented examples can be more effective. This is especially true of bilingual dictionaries, which sometimes require invented instances to reflect the special meaning of culturally-bound words, because authentic examples are usually long and take up too much dictionary space. They will lose much of their original flavor and will be no better than invented ones if they are reduced in length for the purpose of exemplification.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Remember is a grammatically special word. It can be followed by a noun (e.g. I cannot remember his name), a noun clause (e.g. I cannot remember what his name is) and a prepositional phrase (e.g. I remember her as a rather quiet lady). It can also be followed by an infinitive phrase or an -ing phrase. It is in this latter case that bilingual dictionary users are likely to encounter problems. They may be at a loss as to when to use the infinitive or the –ing form. By inventing two contrasting examples, their differences are clearly illustrated: in the sentence I certainly posted the letter. I remember posting it yesterday, the –ing form indicates a completed action, but in The letter is still in my handbag. I will remember to post it today, the infinitive form indicates an action that is to be completed. In the case of culturally-loaded words, brief invented examples can create the necessary contexts for users to appreciate their cultural implications. The word flatter is neutral in meaning in English, but its equivalents “奉承” (fengcheng) and”恭维” (gongwei) are not in Chinese. The first one is derogatory, but the second is appreciative. Two examples can be invented for the different contexts of use: She is always flattering her boss because she wants a pay rise. / When he brought her flowers, she was flattered by his attention. By creating two examples in different situations, the differences between the source and target language words in implication are brought out – something that will take much more space to achieve by means of authentic examples.

7.8 Illustration Illustrations may fall into two kinds: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal illustrations are examples such as those discussed above. Here in this section, attention will be paid to various aspects of nonverbal illustrations. Ever since Thomas Blount’s Glossographia (1656), which “broke new ground among English dictionaries by including two woodcuts in illustration of heraldic terms” (Landau 1989:42), the practice of including illustrations in dictionaries was followed by early British and American lexicographers. Although it was discontinued for several decades in British dictionaries, it is now again employed in modern British dictionaries, especially English learners dictionaries, as an effective means of communicating lexicographic information. Bilingual lexicographers use nonverbal illustrations in their dictionaries mainly for providing visual presentation of those lexical items whose meanings are difficult to describe in short paragraphs. The linguistic items that are illustrated nonverbally are mostly names of concrete objects. But attempts have been made to include other classes of nouns and other parts of speech like verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions (see Ilson 1987:193–199, in Cowie). Even numerals can be

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

pictorially illustrated. The picture of an apple being cut into four equal pieces may be provided as an illustration of what ¼ means. Nonverbal illustrations can also offer a visual description of sense relations between lexical items. They can be meticulously designed for comparisons between synonyms and highlighting contrasts between antonyms and other types of sense relations. Nonverbal illustrations may be classified into three types: single, group, and composite illustration. Single illustrations may represent a single object, animal, action and the like. They are by far the most common of the three types. In bilingual dictionaries, single illustrations should focus on culture- and language-specific items (i.e. zero equivalents), partial equivalents, and pseudo-equivalents. Group illustrations deal with a group of things, objects, and actions, which are related to each other in category or class. Their purpose is to display their relationship and bring out their differences so that the dictionary user can identify one from the other. Composite illustrations depict synthetic concepts and superordinate terms by analytical means. In the illustration of “the human body”, for example, different parts of the human body are labeled with their individual names, and in the illustration of “gardening equipment”, different tools used for gardening are presented in the pictorial form. The extensive adoption of nonverbal illustrations in dictionaries raises the problem of how to determine what qualities an ideal illustration should have. AlKasimi (1977:100–101) put forward a three-word criterion for assessment: compactness, fidelity and interpretability. “Interpretability” includes such components as “relevance”, “simplicity”, “preciseness”, “completeness” and “clarity”. A careful study of the three-word criterion will show that it is not invulnerable. Pictorial illustrations in dictionaries are not always “compact”, and some illustrations need not be “compact” as long as they adequately represent the illustrated lexical items, as in the case of most single illustrations. In the case of group and composite illustrations, “compactness” sometimes does not apply, either. The illustration of “the human body” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987) is only a rough sketch, but it adequately describes all the major parts of the human body. The criterion of “fidelity” seems to apply to artists rather than to lexicographers. It would be best to elevate lexicographic illustrations to a professional level, when encyclopedic entries are taken into account, but that will mean a great deal of labor on the part of lexicographers and a great deal of money on the part of publishers and users. The best illustrations for most lexical items should be simple, precise line drawings, which are on the whole preferable to “artistic” representations which may lack clarity. Some illustrations in dictionaries are still crude, but thanks to computer graphics their quality may be improved at relatively little extra cost. Using Al-Kasimi’s criterion as the starting-point, the present study suggests the following criteria for assessing nonverbal lexicographic illustrations:

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

(a) Appropriateness: The illustration must be related to the lexical items involved and suitable for the illustrative purpose. It must help dictionary users to gain a correct understanding of its basic meaning and intention so that misunderstandings and distortions are avoided. The focus should be on what differences the illustrated lexical item makes in the relevant culture in terms of acceptability and interpretation. This is particularly significant when viewed from the perspective of intercultural lexicographic communication. (b) Adequateness: The illustration must amply display the main features (and the fine details, if necessary) of the illustrated objects, concepts and actions. It must indicate similarities and differences. Group illustrations must be capable of showing various relationships between the illustrated items and the ways they are related. Composite illustrations must be able to show the part-whole relationship and label the individual parts that make up the whole. (c) User-friendliness: The illustration must not make heavy demands upon dictionary users to interpret its basic intention and meaning. Reproductions of paintings may make no sense because dictionary users are usually not prepared or knowledgeable enough to appreciate their artistic value. Generally speaking, the adoption of nonverbal illustrations in bilingual dictionaries may create and enhance a relaxed, easy lively and informative atmosphere which may assist in understanding language- and culture-specific words and intricate lexical sense relations. Nonverbal illustrations can therefore be a good way of raising language awareness and cultivating sensitivity to foreign culture. It may also “break the monotony of seemingly endless pages of dictionary entries” and “stimulate interest and recreational use of the dictionary” (Bartholomew and Schoenhals 1983:223).

7.9 Glossing The information structure of the dictionary definition can roughly be considered as being made up of two parts: core meaning and contextual meaning. “Core meaning” consists of the essential part of the information residing in the definition, and “contextual meaning” indicates various cases and restrictions that govern the ways the core of the meaning presents itself. There are two kinds of “meaning context” for each definition in the dictionary entry: implicit context and explicit context. Except for scientific and technical terms, whose context of meaning is determined by the nature of their special field, the core of the word meaning is virtually always accompanied by “meaning context”, which is explicit. In bilingual dictionaries, “explicit context” is usually indicated by means of glosses within pa-

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

rentheses before or after the core part of the dictionary definition. Sometimes it is also given in the form of “notes” after definitions or in the margins of dictionary pages. Compare: howl vi. 1. (狼、狗等)嗥叫；狂吠 2.(因疼痛、愤怒、悲伤等而) 吼叫；咆哮；怒吼 (�� explicit context in the form of bracketed glosses） howl vi. 1. 嗥叫；狂吠▶用于狼、狗等 2. 吼叫；咆哮；怒吼▶常因疼痛、愤怒、悲伤等 (explicit context in the form of notes)

In these words whose definition consists only of “core meaning”, “meaning context” is implied and integrated into the core of the definition. In this case, “meaning context” is implicit. “Implicit context” may cover part of the semantic range or the whole semantic range of the dictionary definition, in which case it overlaps “core meaning” and plays the part of the dictionary definition. For example, the meaning of crutch consists of two parts: “a stick” (core meaning) and “with a bar fitting under the armpit to support a person who has difficulty in walking” (contextual meaning). The Chinese equivalent expression “T字形拐杖” (a T-shaped walking stick, T zi xing guai zhang) is an integration of both parts and serves as an explanatory definition. “Meaning context” does not generalize about the word meaning; it specifies, limits, reinforces and/or supplements “core meaning”. “Meaning context” is presented in the form of glosses. Bilingual dictionaries conceive glossing as an important part of the process of intercultural lexicographic communication. Either “explicit context” or “implicit context” may be employed as a means of establishing equivalence between the language pair and discriminating between various meanings of a headword that may be matched with different equivalents in the target language. When meaning context is not contained in the definitional wording and no overlapping with “core meaning” exists, glosses are put between parentheses or in the form of “notes”, as in the case of howl. If these glosses can stand alone as explanatory definitions and overlap “core meaning”, they are not put between parentheses but are written as definitions, as in the case of crutch. Glosses in bilingual dictionaries are mostly restrictive in nature. They may be intended to perform a variety of informative functions and may be categorized into the following major types:

(1) Grammatical glosses: Glosses in this category are provided to indicate the morphological and syntactic behavior of the lemma. They may include information regarding what form the lemma takes (e.g. simple, progressive, active or passive form, etc.), what syntactic patterns the lemma may follow (e.g. af-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

firmative, negative or passive, or imperative as in the case of “beware”, etc.), and/or what special grammatical features the lemma may have (e.g. used attributively or predicatively, taking the infinitive or the -ing form as object or both, appearing in “subject” or other sentence positions, etc.).

(2) Semantic glosses: Semantic glosses may supplement the “core meaning” of the lemma, impose semantic restrictions upon the ways the lemma is used and give hints about its relations to other lemmas so as to form contrasts. They may include information pertaining to subject restrictions (e.g. “bark” used of a dog), object restrictions (e.g. “drink” followed by something liquid), modificational and collocational features (e.g. “beautiful” used to modify “women” and “handsome” to modify “men”), or different ways in which an action is performed, etc..

(3) Cultural glosses: Cultural glosses are eye-openers to bilingual dictionary users, and the role they play in intercultural lexicographic communication is significant and unique. Glosses in this category should concentrate on those culturally-loaded lexical items, which hinder intercultural communication, and those items that are specific to one particular culture. Some bilingual lexicographers even go so far as to suggest expanding glosses and notes into short cultural essays.

(4) Stylistic glosses: Stylistic glosses should help the user to distinguish between major varieties of the source language (e.g. American or British) and major types of usage style (e.g. formal or informal, standard or substandard, national or regional, literary or colloquial, modern or obsolete, etc.).

(5) Pragmatic glosses: Pragmatic glosses should give the user the ease and the confidence in the appropriate use of the language, i.e. use the right word with the right person at the right time on the right occasion. (see 3.3)

Whether glosses should be given in dictionary definitions depends largely on whether they fulfil the functions of specifying, limiting, reinforcing or supplementing core meaning. Glossing should be done in such a manner as to facilitate text comprehension and production, enhance dictionary use and promote intercultural lexicographic communication. Lexicographers should avoid writing glosses with inadequate or unnecessary information.

7.10 Etymology It is sometimes claimed that findings in linguistics are slow in making their way into lexicography and that lexicographers always lag behind linguists in theoretical studies of language, which is justified to some extent from the modern point of

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

view. An exploration into the early history of lexicography will definitely present a completely different picture. Word histories began to attract lexicographers’ attention at a much earlier time than historical linguists. The practice of giving information about etymologies in dictionaries began around the mid-17th century, when Thomas Blount published his English dictionary Glossographia (1656). Blount was “the first to attempt etymologies” (Landau 1989:42) in dictionaries. This practice was continued in Nathan Bailey’s An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), which “gave great attention to etymology” and “was the first English dictionary to treat etymology with consistent purpose and seriousness” (Landau 1989:45, 99). “Bailey listed not only the immediate source of the English word (etymon), but often earlier forms in other languages, practice now commonplace in our dictionaries but then a novelty” (Landau 1989:45). Many of Bailey’s etymologies “appear wildly speculative from our vantage point, but Bailey was working a century before the great advances in Germanic philology” (Landau 1989:46). The labeling of word etymologies in dictionaries culminated in the monumental work The Oxford English Dictionary. There has not been much discussion about the role of word histories in dictionaries, and even less about their role in bilingual dictionaries. No mention was made of this in Haas’ What Belongs in a Bilingual Dictionary? (1967:45–50) Only a few remarks were written in Al-Kasimi’s Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries (1977) and were irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Landau (1989:98–104) and Svensen (1993:189–193) were exceptional in this aspect, because both of them devoted several pages to this topic. Landau (1989:102) states that etymologies are not included in ESL dictionaries or in bilingual dictionaries. To use space on this subject for a foreign learner, given the many other more profitable uses to which the space could be put, would be foolish, especially when general, monolingual dictionaries cover the ground so much better than any ESL or “translation” dictionary could. Etymologies are almost exclusively for the adult, native speaker. (Landau 1989:102)

He, nevertheless, believes that etymologies can “show language in its context” and “demonstrate that language changes in form and meaning” and that they may have their roles to play if they are presented effectively for their chosen users. It seems that Svensen holds quite a negative attitude toward the inclusion of etymological information in bilingual dictionaries. Etymologies, in his opinion, should in principle occur only in monolingual dictionaries in the user’s native language. In foreign learners’ dictionaries, etymological information may even be harmful, as it can give the user incorrect ideas as to the present meaning of words…. A bilingual dictionary is aimed at translation; historical information

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

about the source language occurs only exceptionally, and even then seldom for any good reason. (Svensen 1993:189)

There are two general purposes in providing etymologies in dictionaries: the academic purpose and the pedagogical purpose. To serve the purpose of academic research, lexicographers should provide detailed information concerning the original source of the word, i.e. tracking down the history of the word from the time it came into being up to the present day and depicting its path of development in form and in meaning. Etymologies given in scholarly historical dictionaries like The Oxford English Dictionary are intended to serve this purpose. However, in most other dictionaries, etymologies are provided for pedagogical application (if there is any such information). Etymologies, which can facilitate lexical acquisition and learning, may benefit bilingual users in several ways and help them to see the trace of the historical evolution of the meaning of lexical units, thus enhancing their understanding of word meanings and their historical relations. Etymologies also help them to gain an invaluable insight into the history and culture of the language involved and the people who spoke it and to cultivate their cultural awareness of the language and its lexicon, thus promoting their understanding of how languages are used and how they mean in social contexts. From the etymological information about the word career in The English-Chinese Dictionary, it is easy to see how this word came into English from Latin via French, how it came to acquire its present meaning and how it related to the cultures of the relative languages. The pedagogical purpose normally requires such dictionaries to provide information about the immediate source rather than the distant source of the word, i.e. the etymological information immediately relating to the current form and meaning of the word. Dictionary users may not be interested in the distant history of lexical items, but their immediate sources will throw a great deal of light upon how words are formed and how they mean. In English-Chinese dictionaries information about word history is still very rare; it is found only in a few dictionaries like The English-Chinese Dictionary, which gives the distant source of the word, and A Concise English-Chinese Dictionary along with A New Advanced English-Chinese Dictionary, which provides the immediate source of the word. It seems that the problem of whether to provide information regarding the word history in bilingual dictionaries is still unsettled. Most bilingual lexicographers do not believe it necessary, because the overwhelming majority of dictionary users never consult this part of lexicographic information. But a few “stubborn” scholars, who believe in the potential value of word history to foreign language teaching and learning, insist that it be included in the dictionary entry. This problem will have to be examined from a different angle if a feasible solution is to be worked out.

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

The question may be asked from the standpoint of the user, i.e. why users seldom or rarely consult information about word history. Bilingual dictionary users will say that it is too difficult to read and understand, and the difficulty lies in the strange codes and labels the compiler employs to present etymologies. Many a user has felt frustrated by the difficulty of understanding the codes and labels. It is not uncommon to become puzzled and perplexed by the strange combinations of letters which seem to be so remote from us and so different from modern English and Chinese. It is obvious that the problem with etymologies is a matter for compilers to study. They have to think not only about whether to include etymological information in their dictionary, but more importantly about how to present this part of lexicographic information. Some English monolingual dictionaries, like Chambers Pocket Dictionary (1996), have offered good examples for bilingual lexicographers to follow. They provide the immediate source of the word by means of quite simple symbols and self-evident abbreviations. Etymologies may be provided in all types of dictionaries, but with varying degrees, and in different ways. The question of the amount, the way of presentation and the dictionary type most suitable to hold etymological information are conditional upon the dictionary purpose and its intended users. For the overwhelming majority of bilingual dictionaries it is always appropriate to provide selectively only the immediate source of lexical items with emphasis on culturally-loaded words. Abbreviations like Fr (for French) and L (for Latin) should be avoided, because they will add to dictionary users’ difficulty. Full terms like Latin and French are recommended. Language terms such as Latin and Greek usually consist of only a few letters and will not take up much dictionary space even if they are used in full forms, but they certainly increase the practical utility of etymological information and the efficiency of lexicographic communication. To make etymological information user-friendly, modern English explanations must follow those immediate sources if they are not literally intelligible or morphologically self-evident, e.g. evolution [Latin evolutio, unrolling].

7.11 Revision Lexicographers are concerned both with proofreading the dictionary before it is printed and with its revision when a second or further edition seems to be warranted. The question of checking the final product for spelling and other representational inaccuracies is the same in both stages and is therefore not discussed separately. The making of a dictionary may take several years or several decades, and for some huge projects it may take even longer. The life cycle of a dictionary is as-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

sumed to be around eight to ten years. Revision of dictionaries becomes the most important issue the moment the project is completed. The revision of monolingual dictionaries have been given more attention and they have been revised at a much greater frequency and with a much shorter time interval. The Macquarie Dictionary, for example, was first published in 1981. The second year after its publication, it was reprinted with a supplement, and in the same year the international edition was published, also with a supplement. Only three years after its publication the revised edition met its readers, and in 1987 the second revision made its appearance. So far no bilingual dictionaries are known to have enjoyed such unusual attention and such a high rate of revision. A New English-Chinese Dictionary (Zheng Yili and Cao Chengxiu) made its first appearance in 1950 and was revised for the first time in 1957. Another revision was not possible until 27 years later and it has never had any further revision. This is true of most English and Chinese bilingual dictionaries, which were published before the end of the 1980s. It may also be true of some bilingual dictionaries written in other languages. For both theoretical and practical reasons, the revision of bilingual dictionaries is of greater significance than that of monolingual ones, especially when viewed from the users’ point of view. The application of computer technology has enormously reduced the amount of time required for making a dictionary and has enabled lexicographers to work with greater ease, remarkable accuracy and unprecedented efficiency. However, the process of revising bilingual dictionaries has not accelerated as quickly and has not reached the expected frequency of revision of every three years. Apart from financial, manpower and academic factors, an obvious reason is the compilers’ cultural and linguistic unfamiliarity with the source language and culture, particularly with recent developments and changes. Bilingual lexicographers may not be aware of those developments and changes owing to a lack of direct immersion in the source language and culture. As major projects are almost always the work of teams, this problem could be corrected by adjusting the composition of the team and giving due attention to how the team members should be selected. Their background and knowledge structures should be part of the consideration in forming teams for composition and revision. A fluent command of both languages, a thorough mastery of both cultures, a ready awareness of differences between the language and culture pair and their latest changes and a good composition of project teams are prerequisites for successful revision. Just as Robert Burchfield (1987:20, in Bailey) noted, “the restlessness of the language ensures that no task, however gigantic, is ever completed.” To speak of revision, a certain degree of completion must be assumed, but as language constantly changes so must a dictionary in order to guarantee its faithful reflection of the actual state of language and its development. This final section of the present chapter will focus on four major aspects (i.e. correction, updating, refinement,

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

supplementation) of dictionary revision. The following discussion concentrates on their relevance to bilingual dictionaries. The first aspect of dictionary revision – correction – guarantees the basic truthfulness and accuracy of lexicographic information the compiler transmits to the intended user. It is the first step to be undertaken after the publication of the dictionary. “In spite of all the care that goes into its preparation, the first edition of any dictionary contains numerous errors” (Landau 1989:267). Errors can be of any kind and occur in various aspects of the lexicon and in various stages of dictionary compilation. They range from orthography to pronunciation, from word grammar to lexical definition, from interpretation to presentation, from stylistic labeling to pragmatic annotation. Misspellings, misinterpretations, misarrangements and misplacements are common sources of errors occurring in dictionaries. The following are only a few examples of mispresentation of English idioms in The English-Chinese Dictionary (Lu Gusen Vol. I, 1989, Vol. II, 1991): Word entry

wrong presentation

right presentation

Hand

lie on sb.’s hand(s)

Point

off from the point

Running Weight

out of running take the weight of one’s feet

lie on sb.’s hands lie on hand off the point away from the point out of the running take the weight off one’s feet

Some errors can be discovered and corrected in the proofreading stage, but some are not so easy to handle and have to be marked on the margin of the proofs, and some may not even be detected until after the dictionary has been published and is in use for quite some time. As far as bilingual dictionaries are concerned, lexicographers should especially concentrate on misinterpretation of source language lexical items and mispresentation of equivalence between the language pair, which arise most often from incorrect literal interpretation or inadequate understanding of source language lexical items. The Milky Way (银河, yin he) was once literally mispresented as “牛奶路” (niunailu) in the English-Chinese dictionary, and black coffee as “黑咖啡” (heikafei), which means coffee that is black in color. A bilingual dictionary will have to be combed for all these misinterpretations and mispresentations when it is to be revised. The second aspect of dictionary revision – updating – ensures the timeliness of lexicographic information transmitted in lexicographic communication. Dictionary projects usually require a long span of time. Sometimes the duration may be long enough for lexicographic information to become obsolete and even incor-

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

rect. If there is an entry introducing Bill Clinton in an English-Chinese dictionary, it would read like this: Bill Clinton 美国现任总统(1992年至今)(the present President of the United States, from 1992 to the present) Supposing the dictionary comes out in the year 2001, his presidency will then have become part of American history. And if he had been impeached by the American Congress, more detailed information would have had to be added: 美国历史上第一位被弹劾的总统 (the first US president to be impeached in American history). Lexical entries that need to be updated in dictionary revision are mostly encyclopedic terms, which will have to be redefined frequently as a result of change in the actual situation. This aspect of dictionary revision is especially important and significant for bilingual dictionaries and their users because it is never possible for them to be aware of every change taking place in the outside world and it may take time for them to realize the actual change. In The World Book Dictionary (1981), green card was still defined as follows: U.S. a green-colored permit which allows Mexican and other foreign workers to cross the Mexican border into the United States to work. This definition was adopted by Chinese bilingual lexicographers and reflected in their dictionaries as follows: 绿卡(指允许墨西哥等外国人进入美国工作的绿色许可证) (The English-Chinese Dictionary, 1989:1400). There is apparently a great distance between the dictionary definition and the reality, which will have to be remedied and made up to date when this dictionary is revised: 绿卡 – [美]指在美国永久定居的旅美的外国人的身份证 (an identity card that attests to the permanent resident status of an alien in the U.S.. Encyclopedic terms are not the only dictionary entries that need to be updated. Lexical items are also subject to updating as a result of language change. Let us see how two different editions of an English-Chinese dictionary present the use of like as conjunction and how this information should be reflected and updated. In A Comprehensive English-Chinese Dictionary (1976), the use of like as conjunction was introduced but was considered incorrect usage. This was the attitude most traditional grammarians held towards it and was naturally transmitted into the bilingual dictionary. Like started its use as a conjunction first in American English, which was later accepted as “informal” or “nonstandard” by many British lexicographers (though a few still consider it better to avoid it in good usage). The bilingual dictionary will have to be updated to reflect this change of attitude. In the revised edition of A Comprehensive English-Chinese Dictionary (1988), the use of like as a conjunction was updated and introduced as follows: like conj 1.像，如同(informal, as; in the same way as) 2.好像(nonstandard, as if, as though)

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

By updating lexicographic information, bilingual lexicographers can give current descriptions of the ways lexical items are used in real contexts, and dictionary users can use the bilingual dictionary as a more reliable guide to lexical usage. Refinement – the third aspect of dictionary revision – ensures the exactness and precision of lexicographic information in the dictionary text. Dictionary making is an extremely long, fatiguing and complicated process. Lexicographers are sometimes too exhausted or overwhelmed by lack of time to reflect at length over one particular entry or definition. Inaccuracy and imprecision are not uncommon in lexicographic wording. A comparison between the first definitions of the word panda in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987) and Chambers Pocket English Dictionary (1996) will reveal the latter’s information imprecision and mispresentation: panda 1 a GIANT PANDA (a large bear-like animal from China that has black and white fur) (see Longman, p. 743 and p. 436) panda 1 (also giant panda) a large black and white bear-like animal of Tibet and China (see Chambers, 644) Chambers’ first definition of the word is imperfect in that Tibet is part of China’s territory and no panda (in the first definition) has so far been found in that region. Giant pandas reside in the Wulong Reserve of Sichuan Province in the southwest part of China because giant pandas feed on little else besides arrow bamboo, which grows there. A better version will look something like this: a large black and white bear-like animal which is mainly found in southwest China’s Sichuan Province and feeds only on arrow bamboo. Information imprecision and mispresentation may be common in bilingual lexicographic communication due to its intercultural and heterogeneous nature. Rucksack, for example, refers to “a bag that is usually built on a light frame and carried on the back by means of straps over the shoulders, used especially by climbers, campers and walkers”. The Chinese language has a close equivalent “背包” (beibao) for it, but The English-Chinese Dictionary offers a restricted equivalent “帆布背包” (fan bu bei bao), which can only refer to bags made of canvas. A really equivalent presentation of rucksack in the English-Chinese dictionary should be “(旅行、登山或远足用的)背包”. Its range of reference is made clear by means of bracketed glosses before the Chinese equivalent. Let us cite more examples from two different editions of A Comprehensive English-Chinese Dictionary (1976, 1988) to show how lexicographic information is refined and equivalence is improved in the later edition. 1. dead dead n. 死者(1976) dead n. 死者(与the连用) (1988)

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Comment: Only when preceded by the definite article the can some adjectives like rich and poor refer to a class of people. The bracketed gloss must be added to denote the context in which this meaning of dead is used. The 1976 version leads to the misuse of the word. 2. excursion excursion n. 旅行，旅游(1976) excursion n. （常指团体短程）旅行，旅游(1988)

Comment: Excursion refers to “a short trip made for fun and usually by several people”. The 1976 version is too general and will serve better as the equivalent to journey or travel. The bracketed meaning context in the 1988 version can narrow down its range of reference. 3. expedition expedition n. 旅行，航行(1976) expedition n. （有特定目的的）长途旅行；远征；探险(1988)

Comment: Expedition is used to talk about a long journey made for a certain purpose. The first equivalent in the 1976 edition is too general, and the second one is too narrow in reference because it narrows down its range to “a journey on the sea”. 4. John Doe John Doe [律]诉讼程序中对不知真实姓名的当事人的称呼(1976) John Doe [律]被告某甲(1988) 5.

Richard Roe Richard Roe [律]诉讼程序中对不知真实姓名的当事人（尤指第二当事人）的称呼(1976) Richard Roe [律]被告某乙(1988)

Comment: The 1976 versions for John Doe and Richard Roe are actually word-forword translations. They are right, but they are not succinct or brief. Bilingual lexicographers must strive for both formal and functional equivalence, especially when technical terms are handled. The revised versions are excellent examples. Refinement in dictionary revision should also include eliminating information that is redundant, out of date and irrelevant to the dictionary purpose and function. It may involve various aspects of lexical items, e.g. spelling, pronunciation, entry selection, definitions, labeling, and so on. Supplementation is the last aspect, but not the least significant, of dictionary revision. In fact, it is very often the most important reason for dictionary revision. Language is in a constant state of change. New words are coined, borrowed and added to an existing lexicon. Old words become obsolete and gradually disappear from the language. New meanings are acquired by established words. Dictionaries

Chapter 7. Bilingual dictionaries: problems and reflections 

are revised to keep abreast of these changes in language and faithfully reflect the current state of language use. Supplementation in dictionary revision mainly involves the addition of new words and new meanings of words in the source language. It can be occasional, in which case it involves only the addition of a small number of new words or new meanings of the word here and there in the alphabet. This does not require an overall change of the dictionary format and style, which was often the case with early dictionary compilers, who used to exaggerate the number of words added to the revised edition of the dictionary for advertising purposes. Supplementation can also be thoroughgoing, so that it affects the whole dictionary structure on both macro- and microstructural levels. This applies largely to small and medium-sized dictionaries. In the case of unabridged dictionaries, supplementation throughout the alphabet would be impossible, considering financial factors and the enormous amount of time needed for the task. Separate volumes are very often the best choice. Robert W. Burchfield’s A Supplement to The Oxford English Dictionary is a good case in point. Lu Guosen’s A Supplement to The English-Chinese Dictionary, which came out in 1999, is another. Obviously thoroughgoing supplementation within the covers of the previous edition would be a far more complicated and expensive project than a separate volume. Generally speaking, dictionary revision can be trivial or extensive. Trivial revision is not very demanding financially, academically or intellectually, especially with the aid of the computer. But extensive revision can be as complicated and expensive as making a new dictionary. It may include a complete or at least a partial modification of the dictionary format and style, an extensive reexamination of the previous edition, a great deal of polishing of wording of the dictionary text, and an entirely new typesetting of the whole dictionary. The revised dictionary will meet the public with an entirely new look both as to form and content. Whatever kind of revision is carried out, it must be based on careful studies of the latest developments of the languages involved and well-planned investigations intended to elicit feedback on the use of the dictionary.

chapter 8

Bilingual dictionaries Ways of handling idioms

Language is often described as a living thing because it is in a constant state of change, as is evident from the differences between various periods of language development. The general tendency of language evolution is towards more idiomatic usage and more lexicalized combinations. Idioms constitute a unique part of the lexicon and have proved to be the most difficult part in vocabulary acquisition for both native learners and foreign language learners. Every language in the world has large numbers of idioms, reflecting the culture of the people who use them and their particular way of life. Consequently, the treatment of idioms in dictionaries, particularly in bilingual dictionaries, has become an essential issue in dictionary compilation and research. Idioms began to attract the attention of language researchers only quite lately. Idioms and Idiomacity (Fernando 1996) is one of such recent landmark publications. Examined from the lexicographical perspective, the study of idioms is extremely limited. Some scholars (Cowie 1981:223–235; Liu Shangci 1991:42–49; Yang Qiyu 1994:65–73) have drawn our attention to this part of lexicographical research and practice in relation to monolingual dictionaries. A lot of work still remains to be done, either from the position of compiling a dictionary of idioms or from the position of treating idioms as an essential part of the process of making a dictionary. Idioms “are not a separate part of the language which one can choose either to use or to omit” (Seidl and McMordie 1978:1). They form an essential part of the general vocabulary of language, thus accounting for a large proportion of the dictionary text in both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. The treatment of idioms in bilingual dictionaries has had an extremely long tradition, but so far, the question of how to handle idioms in such dictionaries has remained a largely untouched subject in bilingual lexicography. This chapter is intended to fill this gap. It begins by making an analysis of the features of idioms, considers various principles and methods of handling them and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of adopting them in bilingual dictionaries.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

8.1 Idioms: their features The word “idiom” is derived from the Latin word “idiōma” meaning “peculiarity of language”, but with the passage of time this word has acquired quite different denotations. Modern lexicographers and linguists have attempted to define the word in various ways. Here are some examples:

(1) An idiom is a fixed conventionalized phrase or sentence which is simple in form but succinct in meaning (Lu Suxiang 1996, A Dictionary of Contemporary Chinese, Beijing: The Commercial Press).

(2) An idiom is a phrase which means something different from the meanings of the separate words from which it is formed (Della Summers et al 1987, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman Group UK Limited).

(3) An idiom is a number of words which, taken together, mean something different from the individual words of the idiom when they stand alone (Jennifer Seidl and W McMordie 1978, English Idioms and How to Use Them, Oxford University Press).

(4) An idiom is a group of words which, when they are used together in a particular combination, has a different meaning from the one they would have if you took the meaning of all the individual words in the group (John Sinclair et al 1987, Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language, Williams Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.).

(5) An idiom is an expression which functions as a single unit and whose meaning cannot be worked out from its separate parts (Jack Richards et al 1985, Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Longman Group Limited).

(6) Idiom is a term used in grammar and lexicography to refer to a sequence of words which is semantically and often syntactically restricted, so that they function as a single unit (David Crystal 1985, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Although the term “idiom” is defined from slightly different angles, lexicographers and linguists hold quite similar views about the peculiar features idioms have and the scope the term covers. Idioms are the evolutional product of national culture and social life. They are conventionally lexicalized linguistic units and “readymade utterances” (Crystal 1985:152). Structurally, the elements in idioms are usually bound together. They “often do not permit the usual variability they display in other contexts” (Crystal 1985:152), though some idioms may have modifiers and their constructions may be altered to suit special needs. From the semantic point of view, idioms must be interpreted in connection with the historical and cultural

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

contexts from which they emerged. Their meaning cannot be inferred from the literal meanings of the individual words that form the idioms. Idioms are semantically opaque and unified. One can never guess at the right meaning of kick the bucket without knowing its sociocultural context, even if one knows the meaning of the individual words in it. This is because most idioms are already decontextualized when they gain wide currency in language use. As a result, words in the idiom no longer have the original literal meanings which they had when they were used for the first time in the combination. Idioms also show differences in register, formal or informal, slang or colloquial. As regards the scope the term “idiom” covers, two different views can be distinguished. One view holds that the term “idiom” should be understood in a broader sense to include both phrases and sentences, as in definition (1). Richard A. Spears, chief editor of NTC’S American Idioms Dictionary (1992) shares the same view. In To the Reader, he also thinks that idioms can be phrases or sentences. The other view holds that an idiom is a phrase, as in definition (2). It is interesting to note that although Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987) defines the idiom as “a phrase” in the dictionary text, it changes its wording in the middle matter. It uses a comparatively vague expression – “a fixed group of words” in “Language Note: Idioms” (p.518) and included in “Recognizing Idioms” are sayings, many of which “are complete sentences” (p. 519). Instead of using specific terms like “phrase” and “sentence”, definitions (3), (4), (5) and (6) turn to more general and more vague diction like “an expression”, “a group of words”, “a number of words” and “a sequence of words”. These may refer to either a phrase or a sentence. So in essence, these definitions do not differ considerably in terms of their coverage. In the light of the above analysis, idioms can be classified into two types: phrasal idioms and sentence idioms. Phrasal idioms can be structurally described as fixed combinations like “verb + noun”, “verb + noun + preposition”, “preposition + noun”, “adjective + preposition + noun”, and so on. They do not display characteristics of sentences, e.g. subject-verb agreement, verb inflections. Sentence idioms are in many cases complete sentences (e.g. Fine feathers make fine birds), but they can also be conventionalized elliptical sentences (e.g. No pain, no gain).

8.2 Idioms: their status The identification of idioms does not appear to be so problematic to metalexicographers as to practical lexicographers. The difference between them lies in that the former can choose to deal with only a small proportion of idioms in language while the latter will have to take into account every expression which is likely to be

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

identified as an idiom. In the course of dictionary making, practical lexicographers are very unlikely to have any obvious problem with expressions like kick the bucket, put up with, and have one’s head in the clouds, which are obviously “pure idioms”, as Cowie et al (1983:xii) call them. They are structurally closed and semantically opaque. No internal variation and substitution are possible. Semantic opaqueness and syntactic restrictions are important criteria for identifying this category of idioms, but these criteria cannot be pressed too hard, for an approach based simply on the semantic opaqueness (or transparency) of whole combinations yields a very small class of idioms. It leaves out of account, for example, an important group of expressions which have figurative meanings (in terms of the whole combination in each case) but which also keep a current literal interpretation (Cowie et al 1983:xii).

Problems will certainly arise with expressions like for the good of, come into vogue and to one’s appetite, which are categorized as figurative idioms and restricted collocations (Cowie et al 1983:xii-iii). For lexicographers, these expressions are borderline cases where real difficulty exists. The difficulty lies in identifying them either as idioms or as non-idioms and in adopting a consistent policy in presenting them in their work. Lexicographers should treat them as a special category and decide whether to treat them either as idioms or as open collocations before moving on to the treatment of individual expressions. Both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries vary in their treatment. Some dictionaries treat them in the same way as “pure idioms”, some merely reflect and/or highlight them in exemplification, and others adopt an inconsistent policy, treating some of them as idioms, and some as non-idioms and showing them in exemplification, and ignoring others. From a structural point of view, all expressions are combinations of individual components. In terms of stability, these combinations can be grouped into open and closed classes. In open class combinations, individual components are “freely recombinable” and are “used in a common literal sense” (Cowie et al 1983:xiii). As co-occurrence of individual components is expected of this class of combinations, both their meaning and structure are predictable and amenable to analysis. However, the case is quite different with closed class combinations. They are characterized by semantic opaqueness, syntactic restrictions and structural stability. As a result, their meaning is not predictable, and their structure is not variable. It must be noted that “idioms are not divided as a small water-tight category from non-idioms but are related to them along a scale or continuum” (Cowie et al 1983: xii). The “scale” or “continuum” is marked by different degrees of substitutability. Paradigmatically, the greater the degree of substitutability of individual components in combination is, the greater is its openness, and vice versa. If an expression has completely lost its substitutability, it then becomes a closed class combi-

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

nation (pure idiom). “Figurative idioms” and “restricted collocations” still have some degree of substitutability. They lie in between these two classes of combinations. It is these “borderline” combinations that lexicographers must pay special attention to when dealing with idioms. When determining the status of an expression, lexicographers will have to consider whether this combination has strong substitutability, limited substitutability or no substitutability at all. Combinations of strong substitutability should undoubtedly be treated as free (or open) combinations and be handled like many other ordinary expressions, and combinations of no substitutability must be listed in their relevant entries as pure idioms. However, caution is advisable when handling “borderline” combinations (i.e. combinations of limited substitutability), where consistency in treatment is required throughout the dictionary. The basic principle for treating combinations of limited substitutability is that expressions of similar structures and meanings must be treated consistently and in similar ways. For instance, expressions like for the benefit of, in flower, in / out of (the) fashion, on exhibition and to one’s liking are all “borderline” combinations. Components in these expressions are substitutable, but only to a limited extent. If they are treated as idioms in their respective entries in a dictionary, so should such relevant expressions as for the good of, in bloom / in blossom, in vogue / come into vogue / go out of vogue, on show / on display and to one’s taste / to one’s appetite. If they are not entered as idioms, they must be explained and/or reflected in examples. From the position of dictionary users, especially bilingual dictionary users, it is preferable to treat these “borderline” cases as idioms since they are italicized or bold-typed in the dictionary text. It will be easier for bilingual dictionary users to recognize these “ready-made utterances” and learn them by heart. Learning “readymade utterances” is one of the short cuts foreign language teachers would prefer to recommend to their students. By highlighting and grouping these combinations together, bilingual lexicographers call for more serious and conscious attention to them. In the long run, it will inevitably facilitate the process of achieving foreign language proficiency and fluency and the idiomatic use of the language. Kind of combination

Choice of treatment

Combination of strong substitutability Combination of no substitutability Combination of limited substitutability

Open combination Pure idiom “Borderline” combination

The proper treatment of idioms in bilingual dictionaries presupposes a sound analysis of various aspects of idioms and their proper identification. The failure to

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

make a correct analysis and identification of idioms will not only cause serious inconsistencies in dictionary making, thus reducing the dictionary quality and impairing intercultural lexicographical communication. It will also cause non-idioms, in particular open collocations, to be inappropriately entered in the dictionary text as idioms. A survey of Lu Gusun’s The Chinese-English Dictionary shows that a certain portion of open collocations are misrepresented as idioms, and treated with inconsistency. For example, in the entries of sight and thought, both at the sight of and at the thought of are listed as idioms. If this way of handling such expressions is acceptable, then expressions of a similar structure should be treated in the same manner. Consequently, such expressions as at the mention of, at the sound of, at the call of, at the request of and many others must all be regarded as idioms (fortunately, they are not given a similar treatment). Another surprising example is the treatment of to sb’s disappointment as an idiom in the entry disappointment. To in this expression denotes “result” or “consequence”, meaning “so as to cause (some sort of feeling or emotion).” It can be used together with a number of words indicating “feeling” or “emotion”, e.g. amazement, amusement, annoyance, astonishment, delight, discomfort, disgust, disillusionment, dismay, distress, embarrassment, entertainment, gratification, horror, irritation, joy, pride, regret, relief, satisfaction, surprise, terror and so on. Needless to say, the abovecited expressions all have a high degree of substitutability and should be treated as free combinations. If expressions of this kind were all to be listed as idioms, the dictionary would turn out to be extremely bulky and the consequences would be disastrous. The rational way of treating expressions of the above kind is to regard them as open collocations and reflect the combination of to with these verbal nouns in exemplification. Some sort of sum-up in the form of “language notes” or “usage notes” is also possible to highlight such habitual combinations. Now that the status of an idiom and the general principle for their identification are established, the next problem to consider is how to select idioms for inclusion in lexicographical work. Like entry selection, the selection of idioms is also affected by a variety of factors, such as dictionary size, purpose or function, intended users, subject coverage and frequency of use of idioms. A bilingual dictionary for college students will certainly have different criteria for its selection of idioms from an unabridged dictionary for general purpose. The former is intended for college students, which means that the dictionary will be medium-sized and that there will be less dictionary space for idioms than collegiate bilingual dictionaries. If it is designed for decoding it will include more idioms than a bilingual dictionary for encoding.

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

Decisions must be made as to what criteria to follow in selecting idioms for inclusion in the dictionary text before the project starts. It is of primary importance to maintain consistency in using the same criteria throughout.

8.3 Idioms: their location Generally speaking, lexicographers have three ways of presenting idioms in the dictionary text. Some dictionaries distinguish between phrasal idioms and sentence idioms. Phrasal idioms of an entry word are collected and entered as subentries at the end of the entry, while sentence idioms are reflected in examples, which appear after definitions. Some dictionaries do not make this distinction. Both phrasal and sentence idioms are collected and handled altogether at the end of the entry. A few other dictionaries treat idioms as lexicalized linguistic units and enter them like other headwords in the alphabetical order in the dictionary macrostructure. The first method of treating idioms is scientifically based, but it does not seem to be congruous with their semantic opaqueness, because individual components in an idiom do not have their own meanings. In most cases they are deprived of their original or literal meanings. But idioms as an integrated whole have acquired their socio-cultural meanings, which are completely and sometimes partially different from the literal or original sense in which they were used. It is often difficult to tell what an individual word means when it is combined with other elements in an idiom. Even if the original or literal meaning of an individual word can be traced in an idiom (with all the work that would entail for dictionary makers), it may still be inappropriate to affiliate the idiom to the relevant meaning of the entry word, for there remain obvious differences in time, implication and association. The third method, though employed in several dictionaries, is impractical and difficult to follow, especially for bilingual dictionary compilers and users. As indicated above, some idioms are structurally complicated and variable. They may have several variations. No consistent system can be devised to deal with such variable idioms without leaving behind serious defects. From the position of the dictionary user, lookup will be a big problem. If the user happens to have only a vague idea of what the idiom looks like or does not know the various forms an idiom may take, which is often the case, it is impossible to find the idiom to be consulted. Furthermore, this method upsets the semantic connections between the entry word and the idiom containing the word and between different idioms containing the same component words. Judging from the perspective of the bilingual dictionary, the second method is the most advisable. Instead of distributing idioms throughout the alphabet or separating phrasal and sentence idioms and handling them in two different places in

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

one entry, bilingual lexicographers should treat idioms as tightly as possible and enter them as subentries in their dictionaries. This macrostructural presentation of idioms in bilingual dictionaries is easy for both compilers and users to follow, which explains why this system is adopted in most dictionaries. As idioms are always formed by two or more words, the next problem to be encountered is: under which entry word should an idiom be entered? Before a dictionary project is under way, decisions must be made as to the general principles governing the location of idioms in specific entries of the dictionary, in an English-Chinese dictionary, for example. English is abundant in idioms, which take up a large proportion of its lexicon. The proper treatment of idioms in a bilingual dictionary will not only greatly promote its quality but also enhance information transmission from the compiler to the user. To avoid using too much dictionary space for the repetition of the same idiom and looking up identical idioms in several different places, the decision as to where to put an idiom or a group of idioms will have to be made on the basis of a structural description and analysis of English idioms. As Landau (1989:82) has remarked, “no form of alphabetization can successfully deal with all types of idioms without listing each in several places, and no dictionary can afford the luxury of such repetition.” For instance, should the idiom take to the bottle be treated in the entry take or bottle? In which entry word should the idiom flog a dead horse be treated, in flog, dead or horse? Traditionally, idioms are listed under the key component and then cross-referenced to less important words. Thus, take to the bottle is entered under bottle and cross-referenced to take, and flog a dead horse is entered under flog and cross-referenced to horse. However, this traditional approach has serious flaws. First of all, this approach is hard to follow in the course of dictionary making. Both in theory and in practice, it is very often difficult to decide which component of the idiom is important, more important or less important. Secondly, considering that large dictionaries are usually collaborative projects, there should be more clear-cut principles or rules for compilers to follow so as to avoid confusion and inconsistency in the treatment of idioms, in particular those idioms of similar structure. Thirdly, this approach entails unnecessary repetitions and cross-references of the same idiom in different entries even if that idiom does not have variants and thus consumes a great deal of dictionary space. In cases where several variations are possible with one idiom (e.g. shed/throw light on/upon, play/wreak/raise/work/make havoc among/with), this idiom will have to appear in the dictionary text several times and in several different places, which should be avoided as much as possible. Finally, from the user’s point of view, this approach puts the user to the trouble of hunting through dictionary pages for one single idiom, and the user would never succeed if he did not know the exact form of the idiom. In the light of the above analysis a structural

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

approach to locating idioms in the dictionary is provided on the basis of a structural description and categorization of idioms. According to their formation, English idioms may be structurally analyzed into six major categories. In every structural combination under each of the following categories, one of its components (in most cases content words) must play a prominent role in the semantic configuration of the idiom. Modifying components and functional words like articles in idioms are not generally taken into consideration. It is under this component entry that the relevant idiom is located: (1)

idioms which are to be located at noun entries: 〈v + n〉e.g. take place 〈v + n + prep〉e.g. beat the pants off 〈v + prep + n〉e.g. sleep on both ears 〈v + n + prep + n〉e.g. wash one’s hands with invisible soap 〈v + adv + n〉e.g. bark up the wrong tree 〈v + n + adv〉e.g. beat one’s brains out 〈n + prep〉e.g. a far cry from 〈n + prep + n〉e.g. with the exception of 〈prep + n〉e.g. e.g. out of date 〈prep + n + prep〉e.g. in relation to

(2)

idioms which are to be located at verb entries: 〈v + prep〉e.g. look at 〈v + adv〉e.g. turn on 〈v + adv + prep〉e.g. put up with

(3)

idioms which are to be located at adjectival entries: 〈v + adj〉e.g. go wrong 〈v + adj + prep〉e.g. run short of 〈adj + n〉e.g. chinless wonder 〈adj + prep〉e.g. full of 〈adj + prep + n〉e.g. green about the gills 〈adj + prep + pron〉e.g. second to nothing 〈prep + adj〉e.g. in particular

(4)

idioms which are to be located at adverbial entries: 〈adv + prep〉e.g. well up in 〈adv + prep + adv〉e.g. little by little 〈adv + prep +n〉e.g. once in a while 〈prep + adv〉e.g. as always

(5) idioms which are to be located at pronominal entries: 〈v + pron〉e.g. catch it

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

〈v + prep + pron〉e.g. stop at nothing 〈v + pron + prep〉e.g. cast oneself (up)on 〈pron + prep〉e.g. something like 〈pron + prep + n〉e.g. something of the kind 〈pron + prep + pron〉e.g. all to nothing 〈prep + pron〉e.g. as such

(6) idioms which are to be located at numeral entries: 〈prep + num〉e.g. like sixty, at sixes and sevens 〈num + prep + num〉e.g. one in a thousand

Although this structural categorization and location of idioms may be considered somewhat arbitrary, there are several advantages that make this approach worthy of serious consideration. First, it is easy for lexicographers to follow in the course of dictionary making. They will not need to argue or hesitate about where to place an idiom. What they are supposed to do is to follow the guidelines laid down before compilation commences. Second, this approach saves a lot of dictionary space, as the position of an idiom is decided and illustrated in the guidelines and almost no cross-reference is needed. The deletion of cross-references avoids a large number of unnecessary repetitions. Third, this system is also easy for dictionary users to follow, but the important thing is that they must be advised to read the guidelines carefully and familiarize themselves with the rules before they start to use the dictionary. The above categorization is obviously not complete. It does not exhaust all structural possibilities due to the extremely complicated nature of internal structural variation in idioms. It also leaves out of account a small number of idioms whose structures do not easily fit into any existing pattern. But these defects can certainly be remedied either in the light of this categorization or by means of individual treatment. Viewed from the user perspective, this structural categorization and location may be more demanding upon dictionary users, especially when they are not well acquainted with structural aspects of language or word classes, and when they have only a vague idea of how an idiom is formed. So far attention has been paid exclusively to the treatment of phrasal idioms, and no mention has been made of sentence idioms. With regard to the macrostructural location of sentence idioms, most bilingual lexicographers follow the principle of placing them in the entry word which functions as subject in the sentence. Thus, A fair face may hide a foul heart is entered in the entry word face. However, this principle has to be refined to get rid of its ambiguity. The subject in a sentence is generally a noun phrase. A noun phrase may be a word (e.g. Money is a good servant but a bad master), a group of words (e.g. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush) or a sequence of words containing a clause (e.g. Those who

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

are quick to promise are generally slow to perform). If the subject is a single word, there will not be any problem with locating an idiom. However, when the subject is a group of words or a sequence of words, disagreement will arise as to where the sentence idiom should be placed. In this case the idiom may be entered under the entry word which serves as the headword in the noun phrase. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush should be listed in the entry bird, not hand. But when the subject is a pronoun rather than a noun, where should the idiom go then? Most bilingual lexicographers will enter them under the key word in the idiom. The problem is how to decide the key word. If there happens to be several “key” words, where should the idiom be placed? It is the main verb in the sentence that counts here. Such idioms should be entered in the main verb entry, the headword or the first weighty word in the subject. Therefore, quick, not promise, is the right entry for the idiom Those who are quick to promise are generally slow to perform. The principle of placing idioms in the verb entry does not apply to verbless sentence idioms (e.g. More haste, less speed), which should be entered under the first key word, i.e. haste in this example. The above cited idiom should be placed under the haste entry. This principle applies to idioms with complex sentence structures as well. Accordingly, idioms like As a man sows, so shall he reap and If the sky falls, we shall catch larks should be placed under sow and fall entries. As suggested, the above categorization has left idioms with complex internal structural variations out of the scene, because it is never possible to give an exhaustive description of their structural possibilities and variations. Nevertheless, this kind of idiom shares some features of verbless sentence idioms and, as a result, may be treated in the same way. For instance, the idiom something nasty in the woodshed may be entered in the first key word entry nasty, and a trick worth two of that should then be entered in the noun entry trick, which is the first key word in the idiom. The above is a detailed discussion of the macrostructural location of idioms in bilingual dictionaries. Now we shall turn to the microstructural arrangement of idioms. It is not unusual for one entry word to be used in more than one idiom (some common words may be found in a large number of idioms) and thus for one entry to contain more than one idiom. Ways have to be worked out concerning how to arrange these idioms under a single entry. This is especially necessary when one entry contains quite a number of idioms. The most common method of arranging idioms under a single entry is to follow the alphabetical order of the initial word(s) of idioms. For example, under the entry faith, The English-Chinese Dictionary gathers altogether eleven idioms, which are arranged as follows:

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

bad ∽/ break ∽/ by (or upon) my ∽/ good ∽/ in ∽/ keep ∽/ keep the ∽/ on ∽/ on the ∽ of/ pin one’s ∽ on (or to)/ put one’s ∽ in

The alphabetical arrangement of idioms inside entries has the advantage of easy reference and quick retrieval. Note that articles and the verb to be are usually left out of account when such an arrangement is followed, however, other functional words like prepositions and pronouns are usually taken into consideration. Idioms account for a large part of the English vocabulary and the English bilingual dictionary. Their proper arrangement in macrostructure constitutes part of the artery of the system of information transmission between the compiler and the user. It will enhance lexicographic communication, guarantee ease of reference and avoid possible information losses.

8.4 Idioms: their translation Idioms may originate from various sources, e.g. from everyday life, from nomadic and agricultural life, from political and religious life, from nautical and military life. Many idioms denote cultural implications of specific human species, plants, animals and even parts of the human body. Historically, pure idioms form the end-point of a process by which word-combinations first establish themselves through constant re-use, then undergo figurative extension and finally petrify or congeal. (Cowie et al 1983:xii)

This statement portrays the general path of the historical evolution of idioms. But one other feature – decontextualization – a result of “constant re-use”, will have to be specified, because it is essential to the transition of a common and perhaps spontaneous expression to a fixed block phrase (an idiom). An expression that embodies the sparks of human thought and the originality of human ideas is in a better position to be repeated, quoted and spread in a speech community. Through continual trial use, it becomes detached from the original context in which it was used and gains gradual currency as a ready-made utterance. After some time, it acquires a general meaning that may have nothing to do with its original meaning and original context of use. By this stage the expression has completed its process of decontextualization and becomes a “pure” idiom. This explains why some idioms have developed an unusual arrangement or choice of words. The way in which the words in an idiom are put together is “often odd, illogical or even grammatically incorrect” (Seidl and McMordie 1978:4). Idioms, if they are not cliches, are usually forcible, succinct and vivid. The same idea may be expressed in many other ways, but not with equal force and succinctness. This characterisitc of idioms, together with decontextualization, makes it difficult for monolingual lexicogra-

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

phers, and even more difficult for their bilingual counterparts, to trace the original meaning and provide an adequate translation. The following passage is taken from Zhong Shukong’s A Handbook of Translation: Sam is a real cool cat. He never blows his stack and hardly ever flies off his handle. What’s more, he knows how to get away with things. … He takes care of the hot dog stand like a breeze until he gets time off. Sam’s got it made; this is it for him.

The quoted passage contains no difficult words, but it is difficult to figure out what it means. “Indeed, if one ‘understands’ every individual word in a text and still fails to grasp what the text is about, ‘chances are one is having trouble with the idioms’” (Zhong Shukong 1983:44)! Now let us see how those italicized idioms are translated in English-Chinese dictionaries: a cool cat (尤指嗜好节制型冷爵士乐的)时髦人；嗜好摇滚乐的人；做出孤傲冷漠样子的人 blow one’s stack 发脾气，勃然大怒 fly off one’s handle 大发雷霆，勃然大怒 get away with 做成（某坏事或错事而未被发觉或受处分）；偷走 hot dog （尤指用来夹在面包中吃的）熏红肠；热狗（一种中间夹热的熏红肠并配有芥未、作料等的面包） like a breeze 毫不费力地，不费吹灰之力地 time off 休假（或病假等）时间 get it made 获得成功

In the course of English-Chinese dictionary making, bilingual lexicographers have to depend on one or more monolingual dictionaries and attempt to provide the closest translation equivalents on a comparative basis to match their monolingual definitions in both denotation and connotation. The techniques employed to achieve this end often include literal translation, free translation, a combination of literal and free translation, literal translation plus explanation or transferred translation. English and Chinese belong to two entirely different language families. They came into being in different social circumstnaces and cultures. They have different historical origins, national peculiarities and reflect different ways of life. Social, cultural and linguistic environments may provide idioms in each language with similar cultural implications and associations, but more often they are the source of differences in these aspects. When establishing equivalence between idioms in the language pair, bilingual lexicographers will have to pay equal attention to linguistic aspects of idioms and their cultural aspects. Literal translation is possible with only a small number of idioms with corresponding relations between the two languages in both form and content. They usually denote basic facts about human life and activities shared and discovered in

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

almost all societies. Of the above idioms taken out of the passage, get it made and time off are literally translated into “获得成功” (huo de cheng gong) and “休假（或病假等）时间” (xiu jia huo bing jia deng shijian). They correspond to each other in both basic structure and meaning. The following are similar examples:

suck dry 吸干；耗尽 burn one’s boats 破釜沉舟 change hands 转手，易主 fish in troubled water 混水摸鱼 rack one’s brains (or head, wits) 绞尽脑汁，搜索枯肠 pour cold water on 对…泼冷水，使…气馁 Laugh and grow fat. 常笑发福。

Corresponding relations also exist between idioms that are borrowed from either the source or the target languages. In such cases, it is not only the meaning of the idiom that is borrowed. Its cultural features and social associations go from the source language into the target language as well. For instance, there are quite a few such idioms in Chinese that are borrowed and literally translated from English, e.g. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (以眼还眼，以牙还牙, yi yan huan yan, yi ya huan ya), armed to the teeth (武装到牙齿, wu zhang dao ya chi), a wolf in sheep’s clothing (披着羊皮的狼, pi zhe yang pi de lang). Likewise, there are also such idioms in English that are borrowed and literally translated from Chinese, e.g. lose face (丢面子, diu mian zi), save face (保面子, bao mian zi). Free translation is often employed when no obvious structural and semantic correspondences can be established due to differences between languages in linguistic representation and cultural associations. It is especially necessary when there is no way or necessity to trace the source of the idiom and its current meaning cannot be guessed from the way the words in the idiom are combined and used. Of the above listed idioms, blow one’s stack (发脾气，勃然大怒, fa pi qi, bo ran da nu), fly off one’s handle (大发雷霆，勃然大怒, da fa lei ting, bo ran da nu), like a breeze (毫不费力地，不费吹灰之力地, hao bu fei li de, bu fei chui hui zi li de) and get away with (做成坏事或错事而未被发觉或受处, zuo cheng huai shi huo cuo shi er wei bei fa jue huo shou chu) are defined through free translation. Free translation may require addition, deletion and/or change of words, but basically the essence of the meaning in the idiom must be retained. Let us cite some more examples:

kick the bucket 死，去世 rain cats and dogs 下倾盆大雨 see daylight 有希望；弄明白 take to the bottle 开始嗜酒

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

A combination of literal and free translation is required in cases where only semicorresponding relations can be established between source and target language idioms. Their original and extended meanings need to be presented in the definition but are separated from each other by semi-colons. In most cases, literal translation is used for the original meaning of the idiom and free translation is adopted for its extended or figurative meaning. For instance, can (or could) be counted on the fingers of one hand has two Chinese translation equivalents in A Comprehensive Dictionary of English Idioms and Phrases. One of them is the literal meaning of the idiom (屈指可数, qu zhi ke shu) and the other is the extended meaning (寥寥无几, liao liao wu ji), which is a free translation. Likewise, on thin ice has also two translation equivalents in The English-Chinese Dictionary. The first definition “如履薄冰地” (ru lu bo bing de) is a direct literal translation of the English idiom, but the second definition “处于危险（或困难）境地” is clearly a free translation, denoting its extension. Literal translation plus explanation is very often used for idioms with a heavy cultural load. In cases where both literal and free translation cannot get the meaning across to the user, explanation (often in the form of glosses in brackets) becomes a useful supplementary technique to make the meaning intelligible. A cool cat may be literally translated as “冷猫” (leng miao). As this term is strange to the Chinese readership, it is advisable to add the explanation “尤指嗜好节制型冷爵士乐的时髦人或嗜好摇滚乐的人” to make the meaning more easily understandable. A hot dog is literally translated into “热狗” (re gou), but if it is not accompanied by the explanation “一种中间夹热的熏红肠并配有芥未、作料等的面包”, this translation equivalent will not make any sense to the Chinese reader, as they do not know what it actually refers to and what it is made of. Transferred translation is not involved in the above passage but is often used when English and Chinese idioms use different words for quite similar denotations and connotations. When the idea of “achieve two things with a single action” is meant, English speakers will say kill two birds with one stone, but the Chinese will say “kill two birds with one arrow (一箭双雕, yi jian shuang diao)”. When the English idiom kill two birds with one stone is translated into Chinese, stone will have to be transferred to arrow. The arrangement of word definitions may be based on historical sequences, logical ordering and frequency of usage. The choice of methods of arrangement largely depends on the function the dictionary intends to fulfil and the readership it intends to meet. In the case of idioms, the historical arrangement should be the most suitable choice. Idioms are endowed with rich social implications and cultural features which are specific to one particular society and nation. The arrangement of definitions of idioms on the historical principle will help to identify the trace of their semantic evolution and their context of use.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

8.5 Idioms: their grammar and usage In the previous discussion idioms were structurally classified into sentence and phrasal types. This way of classifying idioms has the obvious advantage of enabling idioms to be arranged and located in macrostructure in a consistent and unified manner and to be placed under the most convenient entries as is generally expected, but it is not conducive to the grammatical description of idioms, which needs a functional analysis to be used as its basis. As sentence idioms are used as an integrated whole and do not usually display grammatical variations, thus causing no serious trouble to dictionary users, phrasal idioms naturally become the focus of grammatical description in this section. Phrasal idioms may be classified functionally into four major types: nominal idioms, verbal idioms, adjectival idioms and adverbial idioms. Different types of idioms may display different morphological, syntactical and stylistic features. Most monolingual dictionaries and dictionaries of idioms are far more advanced in this aspect than bilingual dictionaries and can be used as the starting-point for the grammatical description of idioms, but the point to bear in mind is that what is recorded in monolingual dictionaries should not all be transferred indiscriminately. Bilingual lexicographers will need to make evaluations concerning users’ language needs before they decide what information is to be utilized and what features of these idioms should be described in their work. The grammar or style of usage may not be a problem to monolingual dictionary users, but it can be a serious hurdle to intercultural lexicographic communication. To establish and keep up effective communication with the user, bilingual lexicographers will have to conduct careful investigations of users’ language needs and reflect them in their lexicographic choices and their description of the grammar of idioms. Based on observations of Chinese students learning foreign languages, bilingual lexicographers should concentrate on the above four types of idioms, whose morphological, syntactic and stylistic features, which are considered deviations from norms, should be noted with careful thought. Glosses must be provided in relation to the following questions regarding each of the four major types of idioms. They do not need to be very comprehensive, but must be succinct and to the point. What is more, labels should be given only to marked idioms and not to unmarked ones. Nominal idioms a. Do they admit determiners like definite and indefinite articles? Does it make any difference whether they are used with or without determiners? For example, how is in case of different from in the case of? Do in fashion and in a fashion

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

make a difference in meaning? Is it correct to say take a fancy to or take the fancy of or both? Do they differ in meaning? b. Are they used in the singular or the plural form? Here are three sets of idioms containing the word limit: off limit, off limits; within limit, within limits; without limit, without limits. The first two sets require limit to be in the plural form (i.e. off limits and within limits), while the third set requires it to be in the singular form. c. What syntactic function do they perform in the sentence? Most nominal idioms may appear anywhere in the sentence without restrictions, but there are rules restricting a small number of idioms to certain positions in the sentence. d. What preposition is used before and after the idiom if it is required in constructing a sentence? Both semantic and structural factors will have to be considered in deciding what preposition to use if the preposition is not an inherent part of the idiom. Verbal idioms a. Are they transitive or intransitive? Transitivity of verbal idioms is one of the basic considerations in using such idioms. Information concerning this aspect of the use of verbal idioms must be provided to serve as a guide. b. Are they often used in the simple present or progressive form? Most verbal idioms can take whatever form is necessary for the context, but it is habitual for some idioms to appear in the simple present form and for some others to appear in the progressive form. c. Are they usually used in the passive form? The majority of verbal idioms can appear in both active and passive forms, but a limited number of idioms often appear in the passive form only. d. What subjects and objects do they usually take? Although there are no restrictions on the kind of subject and object most verbal idioms can take, their subjects and objects in some contexts are predictable. A P Cowie and R Mackin did very good work in this field in their Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English (1975). e. Are they often used in negative constructions? Most verbal idioms can be affirmative and negative in form, but a small number usually occur in negative construction only. f. Can they be taken apart if they are of “verb + particle” formation? This depends on whether the particle is a preposition or an adverb. A “verb + prep” combination does not allow objects to be inserted between them, but it is possible to insert nominal objects into a “verb + adv” combination, and it must be

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

inserted if the object is a pronoun. Extensive research has been undertaken in Rosemary Courtney’s Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs (1986). Adjectival idioms a. Are they used predicatively or used as modifiers or both? Some adjectival idioms can only appear after linking verbs like to be, some others can only be used as modifiers, but most of them can function as both predicatives and modifiers. b. Can they appear in the comparative form? Adjectives can normally take the comparative form, but can they still take that form in idiomatic constructions? Adverbial idioms a. Are they used as adjuncts, disjuncts or conjuncts? b. What position do they usually take in a sentence, initial, middle or end position? c. Do they require inverted sentence order when they are used to begin a sentence? No attempt is made to give a comprehensive list of features these types of idioms display. Nor can claims be made that all language points concerning the use of idioms are covered. Take active and passive transformation for example. There still remains much to be discussed. In active-passive transformation, multi-word verbs make up a special group, which includes:

(a) v + adv

(b) v + prep

(c) v + adv + prep

(d) v + n

(e) v + n + prep

It is assumed that foreign learners of English will have no difficulty with the first four types in active-passive transformation. But the last type presents special problems. Four cases are discussed and illustrated here: (1) Some “v + n + prep” idioms are extremely tight in structure and must be treated as an integrated whole. Under no circumstances can they be broken up to form new arrangements. The noun in the idiom is part of the idiom and does

Chapter 8. Bilingual dictionaries: ways of handling idioms 

not admit modifiers. It cannot be transformed into subject in active-passive transformation. E.g. He made fun of me. → Right: I was made fun of (by him). Wrong: Fun was made of me (by him).

Similar phrases: catch/get/lay/lose/seize/take hold of, catch/lose sight of, find fault with, give chase to, keep pace with, lose track of, make game/sport of, pay/take heed to, poke fun at, set fire to, take compassion/pity on, take refuge in, etc.. (2) Some “v + n + prep” idioms are relatively loose in structure. The noun in the idiom is not only semantically important but permits modifiers as well. In active-passive transformation prominence is given to the noun in the idiom. Thus, the noun in the idiom, rather than the prepositional complementation, usually occupies the position of “subject” in the passive sentence. E.g. That professor laid special emphasis on the choice of words. → Right: Special emphasis was laid on the choice of words. Wrong: The choice of words was laid special emphasis on by that professor.

Similar phrases: attach importance to, make allowance for, make allusion to, make mention of, make reference to, raise objection to, set value on, take possession of, etc. (3) Some “v + n + prep” idioms are extremely loose in structure. The noun in the idiom and the prepositional complementation are given equal emphasis. Thus, both can be made the subject of the passive sentence. E.g. They did not take notice of the little girl. → Right: The little girl was not taken notice of (by them). Right: Notice was not taken of the little girl (by them).

Similar phrases: make a mess of, make use of, pay attention to, set store by, take advantage of, take care of, take exception to, etc.. (4) Some “v + n + prep” idioms, though similar to the other three types in structure, do not permit active-passive transformation. E.g. He shook hands with his teachers. Wrong: Hands were shaken with his teachers (by him). Wrong: His teachers were shaken hands with (by him).

Similar phrases: bear witness to, join hands with, keep company with, make friends with, rub shoulders with, set foot on, take example by, take leave of, etc..

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Even in these subcategories, deviation from normal practice can still be found. For example, make use of is listed in group (3), which means it permits two passive forms, either with use or with the prepositional complementation used as the subject of the passive sentence. Real English use shows that the second form does not sound natural, though it may be grammatically correct. It is open to question what amount of information is appropriate for bilingual lexicographers to present in their work. It is probably not necessary to list the above four cases together with their deviations in the dictionary. Apart from the grammar of idioms, the style of use of idioms, e.g. formal, informal or colloquial, may also be a problem to foreign learners of English. It is “seen as the reflection of certain factors in the situations in which that expression is habitually used” (Cowie and Mackin 1985:lviii). Learners of English may know what the idiom means but may not know the appropriate situation for its use, just as they may know the meaning of a lexical item without knowing its appropriate context of use. Idioms whose style of use is restricted must be marked for usage (For relevant discussion see 7.6).

chapter 9

Bilingual dictionaries Recommendations and samples

Viewed within the communicative framework, lexicography is the theory and practice of encoding and transmitting information and knowledge concerning socialized linguistic forms of a given speech community and/or extralinguistic reality from the compiler to the user so as to affect the user’s perception of the language(s) and the world. The encoding may be done within the same language and culture, in which case macrostructural lemmata are treated in the same linguistic and cultural background as the language of entry words (intra-cultural lexicographic communication). It may also be done across languages and cultures, in which case macrostructural lemmata are treated in the target language and its cultural background (intercultural lexicographic communication). Lexicographic communication is realized through a series of options reflecting lexicographers’ policies and best suiting the dictionary purpose and intended users. Thus bilingual dictionaries differ from monolingual ones, not simply because the number of languages they contain is different, as some metalexicographers explain, but because different sets of options operate and are selected for each participant in the communicative model. The selection of options that determine lexicographic communication is rule-governed. In addition to descriptive, linguistic, structural, relevant and aesthetic principles, which apply to general lexicographic communication, intercultural lexicographic communication is also governed by equivalence and comparative principles. Up until now, the present study has focused its attention almost exclusively on major theoretical aspects and practical problems of intercultural lexicographical communication. No sample entries have been provided to show how the principles and methods can really be put into operation and how solutions to those problems function in real contexts. In the light of the previous chapters, the following sections will highlight some major points in “recommendation” boxes, build up realistic images of active and passive bilingual dictionaries and provide examples and sample entries to show what future bilingual dictionaries may look like.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

9.1 Recommendation one: lexicographic purposes and choices Bilingual lexicographic communication is mainly conducted for “encoding” and “decoding” purposes and is realized through series of options relating to various aspects of the communicative process. From the very onset, bilingual lexicographers should have a clear idea of what purpose their work is intended for and how the options they select will best suit the dictionary purpose and reflect their lexicographic policies and decisions. The bilingual dictionary is conceived as a system for intercultural communication between the compiler and the user and is designed chiefly for “encoding” and “decoding” activities. As is evident from actual lexicographic practice, this functional differentiation between the active type (dictionaries for production or encoding) and the passive type (dictionaries for comprehension or decoding) has not been so widely recognized for monolingual dictionaries as for bilingual ones. Even for bilingual dictionaries, this differentiation has not been put into wide practice, as is commonly acknowledged. As early as 1960, James E. Iannucci (1967:204, in Householder and Saporta), based on previous research, recognized four possible uses for bilingual dictionaries: native-to-foreign and foreign-to-native on each side. Although his discussion was mainly limited to meaning discrimination in bilingual dictionaries, the user distinction and the functional differentiation led Hans-Peder Kromann and many others (see Kromann et al 1989:2711–2725, in Hausmann et al) to conceive for each language pair four bilingual dictionaries, as outlined below:

active type native to foreign use SL-TL for native users TL-SL for foreign users passive type foreign to native use TL-SL for native users SL-TL for foreign users (SL: source language; TL: target language)

The above differentiation has generally gained recognition among lexicographers and has been considered an ideal pattern for bilingual dictionaries to serve different lexicographic purposes and meet the expectations of different user groups. But this pattern still remains at its theoretical stage. So far no language pair has enjoyed such unusual attention that four dictionaries have been compiled for it with such a clear identification of lexicographic functions and user differentiation for each dictionary in lexicographers’ minds. This is not even found in language pairs

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

like English and French or English and Chinese, let alone less widely used languages. At the present stage it is perhaps most practical and realistic to maintain the division of bilingual dictionaries into active (encoding) and passive (decoding) types. It is essential for bilingual lexicographers to have a general picture of what each of the two dictionary types should be like and highlight the features and functions of the two respective types when they are being designed and to select lexicographic options accordingly.

9.2 Recommendation two: active and passive dictionary designs Different bilingual dictionary types differ in information focus and selection. Bilingual dictionaries for “encoding” should focus on such information varieties as to promote active language use and enhance linguistic output. Bilingual dictionaries for “decoding”, on the other hand, should concentrate on what will best facilitate textual interpretation. The differentiation between the passive and the active types can be summed up as either focusing on lexical equivalents between the source and the target languages to aid comprehension in the passive type or being oriented towards lexical usage of the source language to facilitate production in the active type. This basic distinction leads to systematic variations in lexicographic choices and functional focuses. A bilingual dictionary for “encoding” should be an active dictionary plus a thesaurus. The reason for such a combination is that an active dictionary must help produce texts, which requires not only the effective use of the grammar and vocabulary of the source language but also a good choice of source language lexical items to express ideas appropriately and idiomatically. If there is dictionary space available important usage notes and collocational hints should be added to the listed thesaurus so as to distinguish between different meanings and uses. Thus, the microstrucutral presentation of a bilingual dictionary for “encoding” should include such information varieties as follows: Headword → pronunciation (IPA) → inflectional forms + word classes + grammatical features → stylistic and register labels → translation / explanatory equivalents, preceded or followed by semantic, cultural and pragmatic glosses or annotations → sense relation indicators → collocational glosses → SL examples, with or without TL translation → (etymologies: immediate sources) ⇓ + a thesaurus: a list of words semantically related to the headword or each of its sense units and grouped and numbered in the same sequence as the sense units.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary come // v. (came, come) vi. 1.来;来到;到来:Come and have a cup of tea.来喝一杯茶。 / The train slowly came into the station.火车慢慢地驶进了车站。 / The bitter winter was coming. 严冬渐渐地来临。2.出现;产生;来自♦后接from: This dress comes in four sizes.这衣服有4个尺码。 / An idea suddenly came to me.我突然想起一个主意。 / Where do you come from?你是哪里人？3.开始;碰巧 ♦后接不定式构成谓语:He came to realize that he was mistaken. 他终于明白他错了。 / I wonder how you came to miss your way?我想知道你是怎么迷路的。 4. (指高度、位置等)达到：The water came (up) to my neck. 水漫到我的颈部。5.变成；成为♦后接easy, loose, right, true等形容词：Things will come right in the end.情况最终会得到扭转。 /The handle has come loose.手柄已经松动了。6.进展；生长♦常用进行式:How’s your new book coming along?你的新书进展如何？ / The wheat is coming well.麦子长势喜人。7. （性交时）达到高潮 Thesaurus: 1. advance, move; arrive, appear, turn up; approach, draw near, be around the corner, be close at hand 2. appear, emerge, materialize, show up; be available (made, offered, produced); arise, originate, emanate, be born 3. begin, start; happen 4. arrive, attain, reach, turn up 5. become, turn out, end up 6.get on; grow 7. reach, get to

The bilingual dictionary for “decoding” should focus as much on semantic functions as possible to promote text comprehension. Meaning discrimination and translation equivalents should become the major concern, and the bilingual lexicographers’ primary task is to help dictionary users to overcome anisomorphism in intercultural communication. Information concerning lexical usage should be limited. The description of word grammar, for example, should be restricted to word classes, their division into subclasses and their morphological features. Thus, the microstructural presentation of a passive bilingual dictionary should go as follows: Headword → pronunciation (IPA) → word classes → stylistic and register labels → translation equivalents, which may be preceded or followed by semantic, cultural and pragmatic glosses → SL examples, with TL translation → (etymologies: distant or immediate sources)

Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary come // v. (came, come) vi. 1.来;来到;到来:Come and have a cup of tea.来喝一杯茶。 /The train slowly came into the station.火车慢慢地驶进了车站。 /The bitter winter was coming.严冬渐渐地来临。2.出现;位于:The index of a book comes at the end.索引附在书末。3.产生,来自:An idea suddenly came into my mind.我突然想起一个主意来。 /Where do you come from?你是哪里人？4.开始;碰巧: He came to realize that he was mistaken. 他终于明白他错了。 /I wonder how

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

you came to miss your way.我想知道你是怎么迷路的。5. (指高度、位置等)达到：The water came (up) to my neck.水漫到了我的颈部。6.成形：The butter will not come.黄油不凝固。7.变成；成为：Things will come right in the end. 情况最终会得到扭转。 /The handle has come loose.手柄已经松脱。8.进行,进展: How’s your new book coming?你的新书进展如何？9.生长:The wheat is coming well.麦子长势喜人。10.降临,发生: Success came to him early in life. 他早年得志。11.被供应;被出售;被生产: This dress comes in four sizes.这衣服有 4个尺码。12. （性交时）达到高潮

9.3 Recommendation three: macrostructural organization In active bilingual dictionaries the nest alphabetic arrangement of entry words should always be favored over the straight alphabetic method or the letter-byletter arrangement, and derivatives and compounds should be treated in the nest under the lemma. Passive bilingual dictionaries, however, should adopt the straight alphabetic or the letter-by-letter arrangement of entry words and list derivatives and compounds as lemmata in the macrostructure if their meaning structure is relatively independent of the lemma. Let us take the macrostructural arrangement of baby and baby-related lexical items (derivatives and compounds) as an example and see what differences the word-byword and the letter-by-letter arrangements make in macrostructural organization: word-by-word arrangement

letter-by-letter arrangement

baby baby carriage baby carrier baby-minder baby-sit baby-sitter baby-sitting baby-talk baby-tooth baby-walker babyhood babyish

baby baby carriage baby carrier babyhood babyish baby-minder baby-sit baby-sitter baby-sitting baby talk baby tooth baby walker

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Now baby and baby-related lexical items are arranged by the nest-alphabetic method: Sample 1: baby… ║ baby carriage… baby carrier… baby-minder… baby-sit… baby-sitter… baby-sitting… baby-talk… baby-tooth… baby-walker… babyhood… babyish… Sample 2: Indented nest-alphabetic arrangement baby baby carriage baby carrier baby-minder baby-sit baby-sitter baby-sitting baby-talk baby-tooth baby-walker babyhood babyish

9.4 Recommendation four: lexical classes discriminated The lexicon is one of the subsystems constituting the language system and comprises various categories. Bilingual dictionaries should distinguish between these categories of lexical items in the source language and adopt consistent lexicographic policies and methods of treatment within the same category and treat different categories of lexical items according to their respective characteristics. The lexicon is one of the subsystems making up the language system. It consists of a variety of categories and classes, which may be classified on the basis of their grammatical features, their functions and their usage. In the course of intercultural communication, bilingual lexicographers should distinguish between such categories as content and function words, culturally-bound and non-culturallybound words, and active and passive words. These lexical items should be treated in ways that vary with their categories. In dealing with content words, for instance,

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

the focus should be on how they mean, while in dealing with function words, the focus should be on how they are used. In dealing with active words, greater attention should be paid to how they are used in various ways while in the treatment of passive words more attention should be given to how they basically mean in language. The traditional method of treating all lexical items consistently and uniformly must be abandoned, because different classes and categories of lexical items pose different problems to dictionary users and therefore require different methods of treatment. The ways of treating these lexical items must be to reflect their basic common features and to agree with the practical need of dictionary users. However, within the same class and category consistency and uniformity should be maintained. There is no reason for sister and brother being dealt with in different ways. Neither should there be any reason for content words such as diamond and function words such as about to be handled in the same manner. Sample entries for an active English-Chinese dictionary diamond // n. c 1.金钢石;钻石;金钢钻: a diamond mine钻石矿 2.人造金钢石;（已经琢磨或用于切割工具的）钻石♦常指人工钻石;（戒指、项链等）钻石饰物: I am going to wear my diamonds tonight.我今晚要佩戴钻石饰物。3.钻石似的东西;菱形 4.（纸牌的）方块;方块牌: the 4 of diamonds方块4 /I have only one diamond left in my hand. 我手里只有1张方块。 (Thesaurus omitted) about // prep.【表示位置】围绕;在...的附近;在...周围♦正式用语,在口语中一般用round替代: fold one’s arms about sb.’s neck双臂搂着某人的脖子/I dropped the key somewhere about here.我把钥匙丢失在这附近了。/The crowds gathered about the scene of the disaster.人群聚集在灾难现场的周围。【表示对象】对,对于: Sally is careless about the risks she runs in her business.萨利对自己的生意风险漫不经心。/They must have been wrong about my age.他们肯定把我的年龄搞错了。【表示原因】由于,因为: We are very concerned about our father’s illness. 我们对父亲的病情很是担忧。/I was uneasy about leaving her alone in that state.我对把她一个人那样单独留着感到不安。【表示论及】关于;涉及;在...方面: a book about lions 论述狮子的书 /This program is all about nuclear power.这个节目都是关于核能的。/These events have been argued about and written about so much that I know them by heart.这些事件已经争论很多,也发表了不少文章,我已铭记于心。【表示所属】(某种特征、性格等)属于;体现在…身上: What I like about him is his sense of humor.我喜欢他的幽默感。/There's something peculiar about mankind.人类有其特别的地方。【表示过程】忙于,从事: go about one's day-to-day business 进行日常事务/I do not like to be interrupted when I am about an important piece of work.我忙于重要工作时不喜欢有人打扰。 (Thesaurus omitted)

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Sample entries for a passive English-Chinese dictionary diamond // n. c 1.金钢石;人造金钢石 2.（已经琢磨或用于切割工具的）钻石;金钢钻 3.（戒指、项链等）钻石饰物 4.钻石似的东西 5.（纸牌的）方块;方块牌 6. 菱形;（道路的）菱形交叉7. [数学]菱形 about// prep.1.围绕;在...周围: The streets about the castle are full of places of historic interest.城堡四周的街道上到处都是名胜古迹。2.在...的各处;在...的一带;在...的附近: The papers were scattered about the floor.文件散落在地板上。3.对,对于: You don’t seem very enthusiastic about the suggestion.你好像对这项建议不太热心。4.由于,因为: Your father is furious about the damage you have done to the flower beds.你爸爸对你损坏花坛大为恼火。5.关于;涉及;在... 方面: a book about lions 论述狮子的书/ There's some confusion about whether the preposition can be left out.关于这个介词能否省略,有一些含混不清之处。 6.(某种特征、性格等)属于;体现在…身上: There's something about her that I really don’t like.她特性的有些方面我确实不喜欢。7.忙于,从事: What have you been busy about today?你今天一直在忙什么?

9.5 Recommendation five: equivalence presentation Ways of equivalence presentation should vary with active and passive bilingual dictionary types. The active type should mainly employ translation and explanatory equivalents to present the signification of source language lexical items and the passive type should employ translation equivalents as the major technique. Bilingual dictionaries are mainly designed to serve encoding and decoding. For encoding, dictionary users need help in putting their ideas into a foreign language. They must be able to express their ideas appropriately and idiomatically. They need information about the source language lexical item itself as well as related information. In bilingual dictionaries for “encoding”, lexicographers should provide translation and explanatory equivalents for the source language lemma so that users are allowed more room for association and reflection about appropriate contexts of use and select the most appropriate equivalent from the thesaurus in the relevant entry to express the idea in their minds. Passive bilingual dictionaries are mainly made to provide users with assistance in understanding source language texts. As equivalents in bilingual dictionaries do not usually correspond exactly with the immediate contextual meaning of source language items, lexicographers will not be able to provide users with direct keys to

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

text comprehension. Instead they provide the most likely translation equivalents that will guide users towards the right understanding of source language texts. By providing explanatory equivalents in the active type, lexicographers can give the user the advantage of learning word meanings from their contexts of use and present to them a more realistic picture of how words mean and how they are used in real situations. By providing translation equivalents in the passive type, on the other hand, lexicographers can provide possible clues to word meanings in source language contexts so that users can make use of contexts and figure out how particular words may mean in specific contexts. Here are two samples to show how active and passive bilingual dictionaries can be made to differ in equivalence presentation: Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary engage // v. 1. vt.（用契约、诺言等）约束(某人的行动、计划等)�;（通过仪式等）使订婚♦常用被动结构，后接to：He engaged himself as an apprentice to a printer. 他签约当了印刷学徒工。 /Dick is engaged to Mary. 狄克与玛丽订婚了。2.vt. 雇用，聘请：engage a gardener to mow the lawn once a week雇用园艺工每周除草一次 /The typist is engaged for a week on trial.打字员被聘试用一周。3.vt. 预订,租用（房间、座位等）: She has engaged a room at the Garden Hotel.她在花园酒店订了一个房间。4. vt. & vi. 吸引；占用（时间、精力等）：Her attention was engaged by the display of new hats in the shop window. 她的注意力被商店橱窗里的新帽子吸引了。/Her work engaged her completely.她整天忙于工作。/He engaged in a serious study of the problem.他认真研究了这个问题。5. vt. & vi.（使）忙于,（使）卷入♦后接in：They engaged in trade for several years. 他们忙着做了好几年生意。/The strikers engaged the policemen in a fierce fight.罢工者使警察陷于激烈的打斗中。6. vt. & vi. (使)交战，(使)交火♦正式用语: The troops engaged (with) the enemy and drove them away. 军队与敌人交了火，把他们赶走了。 Thesaurus: 1. bind, commit, contract; betroth (obsolete); guarantee, obligate, oblige, pledge, vouch 2. appoint, employ, enlist, enroll, hire, take on 3. book, charter, hire, lease, rent, reserve, secure 4. allure, arrest, attract, captivate, catch, draw, enchant, fascinate, win 5. absorb, engross, grip, involve, occupy, participate, preoccupy, take part (in), tie up 6. assail, attack, combat, encounter, come to close quarters with, fight with, give battle to, join battle with Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary engage // v. 1.vt.约束；约定： He engaged himself as an apprentice to a printer. 他签约当了印刷学徒工。2.vt.使订婚: John is engaged to Mary.约翰与玛丽订婚了。3.vt.雇用，聘请：engage a gardener to mow her lawn once a week雇用园艺工每周除草一次 4.vt.预订,租用（房间、座位等）: She has engaged a

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

room at the Garden Hotel. 她在花园酒店订了一间房。5.vt. & vi.吸引；从事，参加; 占用（时间、精力等）：The work engaged her completely. 她整天忙于工作。6. vt. & vi.(使)卷入；（使）交战：The strikers engaged the policemen in a fierce fight. 罢工者使警察陷于激烈的打斗中。 /The troops engaged (with) the enemy and drove them away. 军队与敌人交了火，把他们赶走了。7.vt. & vi.（使）（齿轮等）啮合，接合；（使）紧密结合：engage a gear使齿轮啮合 /This wheel engages with that wheel and turns it. 这个车轮与那个车轮啮合，并使之转动。

9.6 Recommendation six: meaning discrimination Meaning discrimination can facilitate textual comprehension. In distinguishing between meanings, bilingual lexicographers should use one or more time-tested monolingual dictionaries as the base and concentrate on what lexical items basically mean rather than what they mean in individual contexts. Only rarely do lexical items have one-to-one semantic correspondence between languages. Several equivalents may be found in the target language to match one monosemous lexical item or one sense unit of a polysemous item and vice versa. However, no dictionary can present every use of a word in all possible contexts. Bilingual dictionaries should provide their users with the basic conventionalized meaning of the word and guide them towards the right understanding of the word rather than offering full substitutes for the word defined. In meaning discrimination, bilingual lexicographers should distinguish core meaning from contextual meaning. They should start with one or more time-tested monolingual dictionaries and concentrate on the conventional semantic components of lexical items agreed upon by all members of the given speech community rather than on what is presented by one individual member (e.g. authors) in a specific context. Bilingual lexicographers must look at what is around the word, but more importantly they must first look at what the word means in itself. Thirty-four definitions are provided for the word run as an intransitive verb in Lu Gusun’s The English-Chinese Dictionary (unabridged). A close study will show that some of the definitions are actually derived from the contexts illustrated through exemplification. They are descriptions and translations of the lexical combination of run with other sentence elements in the illustrative examples rather than definitional equivalents of run itself. The first twenty-nine definitions are quoted from its intransitive uses and given below. In the revised and restructured version of these definitions, contextual explanations in the original version are

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

sorted out for synthetic treatment. The basic meanings are retained of the word run as an intransitive verb and the number of definitions is reduced from twentynine to nineteen without any obvious loss of information. A comparison of the original version with its restructured revision will tell how Chinese bilingual lexicographers should distinguish between core and contextual meanings and identify basic meanings of polysemous words like run. Sample entry from The English-Chinese Dictionary (unabridged) 自由）走动； run // vi. 1.跑，奔；(马等) 奔驰 2.赶快 3.逃，逃跑；逃避 4. (�� 到处跑，东奔西走 5.（和…）交往，结伴；（尤指雄性动物和雌性动物）交配 6.跑步；参加赛跑；赛跑得名次 7.竞选，当候选人 8.快速游动；（鱼在产卵期）洄游 9.（车、船）行驶；快速行进；定时行驶，（在两地间）往来 10.（雪橇等）滑动；（球、车轮等）滚动，转动；（机器等）开动, 运转；（电影胶卷、录音带等）卷动；（电影）被放映；（录音带等）被放音 11.（河水、潮水等）流动 12.（水、眼泪等液体）流出 13.（眼、鼻等）排出液体；（水斗等）排水；（水龙头等）渗漏；腹泻 14.流满液体；（浴缸）被放满水 15.（固体）融化流动 16.（墨水等）渗开；（织物上染料）渗化；（织物落水后）渗色 17.（道路等）伸展，延展 18.蔓延；（藤本植物）蔓生，攀缘 19.（谣言等）迅速传播，扩散 20.（针织品等）脱针；（长统袜等）抽丝，纵向脱散 21.（活动、报道等）继续，持续；（戏等）连演 22.（工作等）进行 23.（性格、特征等）反复重现，世代相传；（往事、曲调等）反复浮现，萦绕于脑际 24.（在大小、数量等方面）大体上具有共同特点；（在一个时期内生产率等）保持在特定水平 25.包括所有项目（或各种类别） 26.（后接形容词）变得 27.（时间）流逝 28.（在报刊上）登出，刊出 29.（话语的内容）被表达 Revised and reconstructed version: run // vi.1.跑，奔跑；到处走动 2.跑步；参加赛跑；逃跑 3.（车辆等）快速行进；（机器等）开动, 转动 4.（水等液体）流出，流动；（固体）融化流动；腹泻 5.流满液体；（浴缸）被放满水 6.快速游动；（鱼在产卵期）洄游 7.（墨水等）渗开；（织物上染料）渗化；（织物落水后）渗色 8.（道路等）延申；（藤本植物）蔓生，攀缘 9.（谣言等）迅速传播，扩散 10.（针织品等）脱针；抽丝 11.（活动、报道等）继续，持续；（戏等）连演 12.（性格、特征等）反复重现，世代相传；（往事、曲调等）反复浮现 13.（工作等）进行；（后接形容词）变得 14.（时间）流逝 15.（在报刊上）登出，刊出 16.（话语的内容）被表达：17.（和…）交往，结伴；交配 18.（在大小、数量等方面）大体上具有共同特点；（在一个时期内生产率等）保持在特定水平 19.包括所有项目（或各种类别）

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

9.7 Recommendation seven: grammatical description Active and passive bilingual dictionaries display a marked difference in their needs for grammatical description. For passive bilingual dictionaries, grammatical description should be restricted to the most rudimentary levels (e.g. labels of word classes, their classification into subclasses and the indication of morphological features). For active bilingual dictionaries, however, it should be extended to include such “larger” information items as syntactic, combinatory and contextual features and idiomatic usage. Word grammar was not considered an essential part of the early bilingual dictionary. As greater emphasis is now being given to the productive aspect of the dictionary function, more and more strenuous efforts are being made to provide a more effective and penetrating description of the word grammar. The bilingual dictionary has become not only a tool for text comprehension but also an aid for text production in the source language. Active and passive bilingual dictionaries differ markedly in their needs of a description of the word grammar and in their degrees of description. For passive bilingual dictionaries, labels of word classes, their classification into subclasses and the indication of morphological features will suffice to meet the basic needs for comprehension. For active bilingual dictionaries, however, some “larger” information items must be added to enable the dictionary user to build up larger language units like phrases and sentences and produce connected speech. These “larger” information items should include syntactic, combinatory and contextual features and idiomatic usage of source language lexical items. Two samples are provided to show how the word grammar should be treated in bilingual dictionaries and how active and passive types may differ in this aspect. Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary remember // 1.vt. & vi. 记得；回想起♦一般不用进行式，后接动名词，表示“记得做过某事”: Do you remember her name?你记得她的名字吗？ /I can’t remember discussing it with you before. 我想不起来曾跟你商量过这件事。2. vt. & vi.牢记，记住，不忘记♦一般不用进行式，后接动词不定式，表示“记住要做某事”: I shall always remember your kindness to me.我会永远铭记你的好意。 /I will remember to water the flowers in the afternoon.我会记住下午浇花。♦比较：I remember watering the flowers in the afternoon.我记得下午浇过花。3.vt.代…问候♦后接to；为…求神保佑: Don’t forget to remember me to your parents.别忘记代我向你父母问好。4.vt.给…小费；给…谢礼；向…送礼；给…遗赠: She always remembers him on his birthday. 她总是在他生日那

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

天送他礼品。5.vt. 纪念；记下，留下♦后接as或for: The thing for which he will be remembered by history is his honesty.后人会铭记他的诚实。 /He will be remembered as a hero in the war.他会作为战斗英雄而为人敬仰。 6. vt. & vi.[技] 记忆，凭记忆恢复（或重现） (Thesaurus omitted) Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary remember // 1. vt. & vi.记得；回想起: Do you remember her name?你记得她的名字吗？2. vt. & vi.牢记，记住，不忘记: I shall always remember your kindness to me. 我会永远铭记你的好意。3. vt.代…问候♦后接to；为…求神保佑: Don’t forget to remember me to your parents. 别忘了代我向你父母问好。4. vt.给…小费；给…谢礼；向…送礼；给…遗赠: She always remembers him on his birthday. 她总是在他生日那天送他礼品。5. vt.纪念；记下，留下♦后接 as或for: The thing for which he will be remembered by history is his honesty. 后人会铭记他的诚实。 /He will be remembered as a hero in the war. 他会作为战斗英雄而为人敬仰。6. vt. & vi.[技] 记忆，凭记忆恢复（或重现）7.vt.使记起，提醒

9.8 Recommendation eight: lexical combination Bilingual lexicographers must tell dictionary users what lexical items habitually co-occur to form larger linguistic units. It is particularly important to reflect this habitual co-occurrence and remind dictionary users to avoid possible lexical mismatch�� es�� and traps in the active bilingual dictionary. Languages may differ in their ways of combining words into larger linguistic units. The combination of one word with another may be casual or habitual. One major concern of bilingual lexicographers is to describe habitual word combinations in the source language. Lexical selection and lexical mismatch are two hard problems bilingual lexicographers will encounter in dealing with habitual lexical collocations. To solve these problems, bilingual lexicographers need to make comparative studies of source language lexical items and their possible target language equivalents, discriminate between different types of lexical items and sort out lexical items that may give rise to lexical mismatch or other combinatory difficulties. Where lexical traps may exist, bracketed glosses or notes are always necessary to act as warnings to dictionary users. The following sample entries are provided to show how habitual lexical combinations may be handled and presented in active bilingual dictionaries and how they may be indicated in passive dictionaries.

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary help // v. 1. vt. & vi. 帮助，扶助，救助♦后接in, into, out of, with; (对…)有帮助；促进：She helped me in (或with) the translation.她帮助我做了这翻译。 / They helped the elderly lady into the ambulance.他们扶着老太太上了救护车。 /I helped her out of the car [her difficulties].我帮着她下了汽车[度过困难]。 / Can you help me up [down] the stairs?你能扶我上[下]楼梯吗？ /What you said helped enormously.你讲的话起了很大作用。 /Foreign trade helps the development of industry.外贸促进了工业发展。2. vt. 协助…得到（或找到、达到） ♦后接to：This clue helped me to the solution.这条线索帮助我找到了解决问题的办法。3. vt. 治疗;缓解;抑制,忍住♦与can或cannot连用，后接动名词： Have you got anything to help a cold?你有治感冒的药吗？ /Humor often helps a tense situation. 幽默常常能缓和紧张气氛。 /He can’t help his rather loud voice. 他无法控制自己相当高的嗓门。 /She couldn’t help smiling at the news.听到这消息，她禁不住地笑了。4.vt.给…夹菜（或斟饮料等）♦后接to：He helped himself to some grape wine.他给自己倒了些葡萄酒。 /May I help you to some more vegetables?我给你多夹些蔬菜吧。5. vt.招待（顾客等）♦常见于Can I help you等用语中 (Thesaurus omitted) 用法说明：help 后接动词不定式做宾语或宾语补足语时都可以省略不定式符号to, 如She helped (to) cook the meal.她帮助做了那饭。Will you help us (to) move the furniture?请帮我们移一下家具行吗？但在被动结构中，动词不定式都要保留to, 如The elderly lady was helped to get on the bus.老太太被扶上了公共汽车。 Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary help // v. 1. vt. & vi. 帮助，援助，扶助，救助♦后接in, with：She helped me in (或with) the translation.她帮助我做了这翻译。They helped the elderly lady into the ambulance.他们扶着老太太上了救护车。2. vt. & vi. (对…)有帮助；对…有好处（或用处）；助长，促进：All this has helped (to) raise farm yields steadily.所有这些都有助于稳步提高产量。3. vt. 协助…得到（或找到、达到）♦后接to：This clue helped me to the solution.这条线索帮助我找到了解决问题的办法。4. vt. 治疗；缓解；补救；改进：Have you got anything to help a cold?你有治感冒的药吗？5. vt. 避免，阻止，防止；改变；抑制，忍住，控制住♦与can或cannot连用： We couldn’t help the accident.我们当时无法避免事故。 /She couldn’t help smiling at the news.听到这消息，她禁不住地笑了。6. vt. 给…夹菜（或斟饮料等）♦后接to：He helped himself to some grape wine.他给自己倒了些葡萄酒。7. vt. 招待（顾客等）: Can I help you? 需要我来招待你吗？

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

9.9 Recommendation nine: labels and glosses Complete equivalents between languages are extremely rare. What bilingual dictionaries can provide are usually approximate equivalents, which fail to present a complete semantic picture of the source language item. To make up for this, labels and glosses are employed to specify, reinforce, supplement and/ or delimit the semantic content of target language equivalents and to indicate the stylistic and register range of the source language item. Due to linguistic and cultural anisomorphism, it is extremely difficult to establish complete equivalence between lexical items in the source language and those in the target language. What bilingual lexicographers can do most often is provide approximate and explanatory equivalents between languages. These target language equivalents need to be supplemented or restricted by means of glosses and labels, which can specify, reinforce, and/or delimit information contents of target language equivalents and to indicate the stylistic and register range of the source language item. Labels and glosses are important supplementary means of creating equivalence between the language pair and facilitating text comprehension and production. The following is a sample entry that shows how labels and glosses perform their functions in information transmission. Sample entry for an English-Chinese dictionary baby // n. c1.婴儿，婴孩♦尤指尚不会说话或走路的新生儿: a newborn baby 新生儿 /have a baby by natural childbirth平产 2.幼仔；幼畜；幼鸟♦可以指一切动物或植物: a mother cat and her babies母猫和猫仔 3.（家庭或集体中）年龄最小的人: the baby of the graduating class毕业班上年龄最小的学生 4.孩子气的人；幼稚的人: play the baby耍孩子脾气 /Don’t be such a baby; it didn’t hurt.别耍孩子气，这没有弄痛你。5.宝贝，亲爱的人♦用作对妻子、丈夫、恋人等的爱称，尤用于非正式美国英语；姑娘，小妞♦非正式用语，许多人认为带有冒犯的意味：Hi, baby. 嗨，小妞。6.(某人或某团体的）主意；计划；职责♦非正式用语: The plan for a citywide cleanup was the mayor’s baby. 全城大扫除的计划是市长的点子。 (Thesaurus omitted)

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

9.10 Recommendation ten: exemplification Bilingual dictionaries need examples to demonstrate the semantic content and morphosyntactic behavior of source language items. It is purpose and effectiveness that determine the choice between authentic and invented examples, and regard�� ing�� their arrangement�� ,�� it is advisable to adhere �� to�� the principle of “examples immediately after definitions” in both active and passive bilingual dictionaries. Bilingual dictionaries need examples to illustrate source language items and demonstrate their lexical usage. Examples, as extensions of definitions and demonstrations of usage, may be natural quotations from well-known authors and from computerized databases (authentic examples). They may also be phrases and sentences invented by lexicographers (introspective examples). Authentic examples are regarded as models of correct usage. They illustrate source language lexical items and provide reliable examples for dictionary users to follow in speaking and writing English. Invented examples, on the other hand, do not have the authority of authors behind them, but they can serve similar purpose if they are linguistically natural and effective in performing their functions. In some special cases invented examples are preferable, especially when authentic examples are too long and would take up too much dictionary space. Examples in bilingual dictionaries may be arranged in two ways. One way is to provide examples immediately after the definitions they illustrate. The other way is to collect examples and present them all together in corresponding numbers after lexical definitions. In active bilingual dictionaries it is always advisable to follow the principle of “examples immediately after definitions”, but in passive dictionaries bilingual lexicographers can choose between the first and the second method of arranging examples. The second method requires that examples be arranged and numbered in the same way as lexical senses. Compare the following two entries and see how they differ in arranging and presenting examples: Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary remember // 1.vt. & vi. 记得；回想起♦一般不用进行式，后接动名词，表示“记得做过某事”: Do you remember her name?你记得她的名字吗？ /I can’t remember discussing it with you before. 我想不起来曾跟你商量过这件事。2. vt. & vi.牢记，记住，不忘记♦一般不用进行式，后接动词不定式，表示“记住要做某事”: I shall always remember your kindness to me.我会永远铭记你的好意。 /I will remember to water the flowers in the afternoon.我会记住下午浇花。♦比较：I remember watering the flowers in the afternoon.我记得下午浇过

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

花。3.vt.代…问候♦后接to；为…求神保佑:Don’t forget to remember me to your parents.别忘记代我向你父母问好。4.vt.给…小费；给…谢礼；向…送礼；给…遗赠: She always remembers him on his birthday. 她总是在他生日那天送他礼品。5.vt. 纪念；记下，留下♦后接as或for: The thing for which he will be remembered by history is his honesty.后人会铭记他的诚实。 /He will be remembered as a hero in the war.他会作为战斗英雄而为人敬仰。 6. vt. & vi.[技] 记忆，凭记忆恢复（或重现） help // v. 1. vt. & vi. 帮助，扶助，救助♦后接in, into, out of, with; (对…)有帮助；促进：She helped me in (或with) the translation.她帮助我做了这翻译。 / They helped the elderly lady into the ambulance.他们扶着老太太上了救护车。 /I helped her out of the car [her difficulties].我帮着她下了汽车[度过困难]。 / Can you help me up [down] the stairs?你能扶我上[下]楼梯吗？ /What you said helped enormously.你讲的话起了很大作用。 /Foreign trade helps the development of industry.外贸促进了工业发展。2. vt. 协助…得到（或找到、达到） ♦后接to：This clue helped me to the solution.这条线索帮助我找到了解决问题的办法。3.vt.治疗;缓解;抑制,忍住♦与can或cannot连用，后接动名词： Have you got anything to help a cold?你有治感冒的药吗？ /Humor often helps a tense situation. 幽默常常能缓和紧张气氛。 /He can’t help his rather loud voice. 他无法控制自己相当高的嗓门。 /She couldn’t help smiling at the news.听到这消息，她禁不住地笑了。4.vt. 给…夹菜（或斟饮料等）♦后接to：He helped himself to some grape wine.他给自己倒了些葡萄酒。 /May I help you to some more vegetables?我给你多夹些蔬菜吧。5. vt.招待（顾客等）♦常见于Can I help you等用语中 Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary Examples immediately follow definitions: help // v. 1. vt. & vi. 帮助，援助，扶助，救助♦后接in, with：She helped me in (或with) the translation.她帮助我做了这翻译。 /They helped the elderly lady into the ambulance.他们扶着老太太上了救护车。2. vt. & vi. (对…)有帮助；对…有好处（或用处）；助长，促进：All this has helped (to) raise farm yields steadily.所有这些都有助于稳步提高产量。3.vt.协助…得到（或找到、达到）♦后接to：This clue helped me to the solution.这条线索帮助我找到了解决问题的办法。4. vt. 治疗；缓解；补救；改进：Have you got anything to help a cold?你有治感冒的药吗？5. vt. 避免，阻止，防止；改变；抑制，忍住，控制住♦与can或cannot连用： We couldn’t help the accident.我们当时无法避开事故。 /She couldn’t help smiling at the news.听到这消息，她禁不住地笑了。6. vt. 给…夹菜（或斟饮料等）♦后接to：He helped himself to some grape wine.他给自己倒了些葡萄酒。7. vt. 招待（顾客等）: Can I help you? 需要我来招待你吗？

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

Examples appear altogether after definitions: help // v. 1. vt. & vi. 帮助，援助，扶助，救助♦后接in, with： 2. vt. & vi. (对…)有帮助；对…有好处（或用处）；助长，促进： 3. vt. 协助…得到（或找到、达到）♦后接to： 4. vt. 治疗；缓解；补救；改进： 5. vt. 避免，阻止，防止；改变；抑制，忍住，控制住♦与can或cannot连用： 6. vt. 给…夹菜（或斟饮料等）♦后接to： 7. vt. 招待（顾客等）: Examples: 1.She helped me in (或with) the translation.她帮助我做了这翻译。 /They helped the elderly lady into the ambulance.他们扶着老太太上了救护车。 2. All this has helped (to) raise farm yields steadily.所有这些都有助于稳步提高产量。3. This clue helped me to the solution.这条线索帮助我找到了解决问题的办法。4. Have you got anything to help a cold?你有治感冒的药吗？5. We couldn’t help the accident.我们当时无法避开事故。 /She couldn’t help smiling at the news.听到这消息，她禁不住地笑了。6. He helped himself to some grape wine.他给自己倒了些葡萄酒。7. Can I help you? 需要我来招待你吗？

9.11 Recommendation eleven: idiom treatment Instead of distributing idioms throughout the alphabet or separating phrasal and sentence idioms and handling them in two different places in one entry, bilingual lexicographers should treat them as �� closely together �� as possible and enter them as subentries arranged in alphabetic order. Idioms constitute an essential part of bilingual dictionaries. They are lexicalized forms of expressions and consist of two or more words. Most of them always appear in one form (e.g. kick the bucket), but some may have variant forms (e.g. make/play/raise/work/wreak havoc among/with). In dealing with idioms, bilingual lexicographers are faced with two fundamental problems: location and translation. In the course of dictionary compilation, bilingual lexicographers will have to depend on one or more time-tested monolingual dictionaries and strive to provide the closest translation equivalents on a comparative basis to match their monolingual definitions conceptually and non-conceptually. The major techniques include literal translation, free translation, a combination of literal and free translation, literal translation plus explanation and transferred translation. Lexicographic practice varies as to how to locate idioms in bilingual dictionaries. Some dictionaries treat idioms in the same way as lexical items and distribute them throughout the alphabet; some separate phrasal and sentence idioms and handle them in two different places in one entry (i.e. treating the former as subentries and reflecting the latter in exemplification). It is advisable to treat and locate

Chapter 9. Bilingual dictionaries: recommendations and samples 

both phrasal and sentence idioms as closely together as possible on the basis of a structural categorization and to enter them as subentries and to arrange them in alphabetical order in the lemma article. The following examples show how active and passive English-Chinese dictionaries may differ in the selection and treatment of English idioms. Sample entry for an active English-Chinese dictionary faith // n. (lexical definitions omitted) bad faith不诚实，欺诈♦常见于in bad faith：The government has conducted the negotiations in bad faith.政府在谈判中缺乏诚意。/break faith不守信义;背弃信仰♦后接with：Once again he has broken faith with them.他再一次对他们失信。 break faith with a political organization背弃某政治组织/good faith真诚，善意♦常见于in good faith : I signed the agreement in good faith, and I expect you to live up to it.我真心实意地在协议上签了字，同时也希望你能履行协议。/keep faith守信，践约; 恪守信仰♦后接with: You cannot expect your friends to trust you if you do not keep faith with them.如果你对朋友不守信，你就不可能指望他们信任你。/lose faith in对…失去信心: She began to lose faith in herself. 她开始对自己失去信心。/on faith不加怀疑地，未经证实地: He looked so honest that we accepted his story on faith.他看上去很诚实，我们不加怀疑地相信了他的话。/pin one’s faith on (或to, in) = put one’s faith in/put （或place）one’s faith in信任，对…有信心:I advise you not to put your faith in such a remedy. 我劝你不要相信这种疗法。 They always place blind faith in weapons.他们总是盲目地相信武器的作用。 Sample entry for a passive English-Chinese dictionary faith // n. (lexical definitions omitted) bad faith不诚实，欺诈：The government has conducted the negotiations in bad faith.政府在谈判中缺乏诚意。/ break faith1.不守信义，毁约：Once again he has broken faith with them.他再一次对他们失信。2背信弃义,背弃信仰:break faith with a political organization背弃某政治组织 /by (或upon) my faith我担保，千真万确 /good faith真诚，善意: I signed the agreement in good faith, and I expect you to live up to it.我真心实意地在协议上签了字，同时也希望你能履行协议。/in faith千真万确 ♦系陈旧用语/keep faith1守信，践约: You cannot expect your friends to trust you if you do not keep faith with them.如果你对朋友不守信，你就不能指望他们信任你。2恪守信仰/keep the faith恪守信仰♦系美国英语用语/ lose faith in对…失去信心：She began to lose faith in herself. 她开始对自己失去信心。/ on faith不加怀疑地，未经证实地: He looked so honest that we accepted his story on faith.他看上去很诚实，我们不加怀疑地相信了他的话。/on the faith of凭…的保证，凭…的信用 / pin one’s faith on (或to, in) = put one’s faith in/put （或place）one’s faith in信任，对…有信心: I advise you not to put your faith in such a remedy. 我劝你不要相信这种疗法。

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective

9.12 Recommendation Twelve: Word Histories For most bilingual dictionaries it is always appropriate to provide the immediate source rather than the distant source of lexical items and it should be done only selectively, with emphasis laid on culturally-loaded and morphologically difficult words. Etymological information should be part of the information the compiler transmits to the user in lexicographic communication. Word histories in bilingual dictionaries can help to trace the historical evolution of the meaning and use of lexical items, cultivate cultural awareness, increase vocabulary power and facilitate text comprehension. Etymologies can be provided in all types of dictionaries, but with varying degrees and in different ways. For the overwhelming majority of bilingual dictionaries it is always appropriate to provide only the immediate source of lexical items and this should be done only selectively. Prominence should be given to culturally-loaded and morphologically difficult words. For highly scholarly bilingual dictionaries distant sources may also be given to present a picture of the historical path of the source language lexical item. Etymological labels should be given in full rather than in abbreviations so that they will not add to dictionary users’ difficulty. Sample entries for etymological labeling For active type: detriment // n. (other parts omitted) [Latin detrimentum rubbing off, damage] For passive type: detriment // n. (other parts omitted) [Latin detrimentum rubbing off, damage] or: detriment // n. (other parts omitted) [Latin detrimentum rubbing off, damage → detritus →deterere rub away →terere rub] For active type: panorama // n. (other parts omitted) [Greek pan all + horama view] For passive type: panorama // n. (other parts omitted) [为全景画创使人爱尔兰画家Robert Barker (1739–1806)所造→Greek pan all + horama view →horn see]

Bibliography

Aitchison, Jean 1990. Words in the Mind – An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell ---1991. Language Change: Progress or Decay? (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Akmajian, Adrian et al 1984. Linguistics, an introduction to language and communication. Cambridge, MASS.: MIT Press Al-Kasimi, Ali M. 1977. Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries. Leiden: E.J. Brill Andersen, James David 1972. The Development of the English-French, French-English Bilingual Dictionary: A Study in Comparative Lexicography, Supplement to WORD (Vol. 28, No. 3). London: William Clowes & Sons Limited Atkins, Beryl T. 1985. Monolingual and Bilingual Learners’ Dictionaries: A Comparison. in Ilson (ed., 1985) Ayto, J.R. 1983. On Specifying Meaning: Semantic Analysis and Dictionary Functions. in Hartmann (ed., 1983) Baatar, D. 1988. The Developing Situation of Compiling Mongolian Bilingual Dictionaries. Lexicographic Studies, Issue No. 6, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Bailey, Richard W. 1986, Dictionaries of the Next Century. in Ilson (ed., 1986) ----(ed.),1987, Dictionaries of English, The University of Michigan Press Barnhart,C.L. 1967. Problems in Editing Commercial Monolingual Dictionaries. in Householder and Saporta (1967) Bartsch, Renate 1987. Norms of Language: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. Longman Group UK Limited Bartholomew, Doris A. and Louis C. Schoenhals. 1983. Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous Languages. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Linguistico de Verano Baxter, James 1980. The Dictionary and Vocabulary Behavior: a Single Word or a Handful? Tesol Quarterly Vol. 14 No. 3 Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to Textlinguistics. Longman Group Limited Bejoint, Henri 1981. The Foreign Student’s Use of Monolingual English Dictionaries: A Study of Language Needs and Reference Skills. Applied Linguistics: Vol. II, No. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press ----1994. Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries. Oxford: Clarendon Press Bergenholtz, Henning and Sven Tarp 1995, Manual of Specialized Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Berkov, Valeriy 1996. Passive vs. Active dictionary: A Revision. in Gellerstam et al (eds., 1996) Bjarkman, Peter C. and Victoria Raskin (eds.) 1986. The Real-World Linguist. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective Boisson, Claude et al 1991. Aux origines de la lexicographie: les premiers dictionnaires monolingues et bilingues. International Journal of Lexicography, Vol.4 No. 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press Bool, Hilary and Ronald Carter 1989. Vocabulary, Culture and the Dictionary. in Tickoo (ed., 1989) Brewer, S. D. 1988. Lexicographical and Linguistic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Burchfield, Robert W. 1987. The Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary: The End of the Alphabet. in Bailey (ed.,1987) Carnap, Rudolf 1939. Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol.1 No. 3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Carr, Michael 1997. Internet Dictionaries and Lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, Vol.10 No. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press Carter, Ronald 1987. Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin Cherry, Colin 1990. What is communication? In Corner and Hawthorn (eds., 1990) Chien, David and Thomas Creamer 1986. A Brief History of Chinese Bilingual Lexicography, in Hartmann (ed., 1986) Chierchia, Gennaro et al 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MASS.: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press Collison, Robert L. 1982. A History of Foreign-Language Dictionaries. London: Andre Deutsch Limited Corner, John and Jeremy Hawthorn 1990. Communication Studies, an introductory reader (third edition). London: Edward Arnold Cowie, A.P. 1981. Lexicography and its Pedagogic Applications: An Introduction. Applied Linguistics: Vol. II, No. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press ----1983. On Specifying Grammatical Forms and Functions. in Hartmann (ed., 1983) ----(ed.) 1987. The Dictionary and the Language Learners. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag ----1989. The language of examples in English learners’ dictionaries. in James (ed., 1989) Cowie, A.P. et al 1983. General Introduction. in Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, Vol. 2: Phrase, Clause & Sentence Idioms, Oxford: Oxford University Press Cowie, A.P. and R Mackin 1985. General Introduction. in Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, Vol. 1: Verbs with Prepositions & Particles, Oxford: Oxford University Press Crystal, David 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Basil Blackwell Ltd Davis, S. 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press Dolezal, Fredric F.M. 1995. The Dictionary as Philosophy: Reconstructing the Meaning of Our Father. in Kachru and Kahane (1995) Dubois, Jean 1981. Models the Dictionary: Evolution in Dictionary Design. Applied Linguistics: Vol. II, No. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press Dunn, Robert 1977. Chinese-English and English-Chinese Dictionaries in the Library of Congress: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington: Library of Congress Evens, Martha Walton 1988. Relational Models of the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fernando,Chitra 1996. Idioms and Idiomacity. Oxford: Oxford University Press Fiske, John 1990. Introduction to Communication Studies (Second Edition). London: Routledge Fox, Gwyneth 1989. A Vocabulary for Writing Dictionaries. in Tickoo (ed., 1989) Frawley, William 1989. The Dictionary as Text. International Journal of Lexicography, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bibliography 

Fromkin, Victoria et al 1983. An Introduction to Language. London: Rinehart and Winston Garvin, Paul 1947. L.V.Shcherba Opyt obšcej teorii leksikografii. Etjud I. Osnovnye tipy slovarej. Word, Vol. 3 Nos. 1–2, Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York Geeraerts, D. 1984. Dictionary Classification and the Foundations of Lexicography. I.T.L.: Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol.63 ----1989. Principles of Monolingual Lexicography. in Hausmann et al (eds., 1989) Gellerstam, Martin et al (eds.) 1996. Euralex’96 Proceedings I-II: Papers submitted to the Seventh EURALEX International Congress on Lexicography in Goteberg, Sweden, Goteborg University, Department of Swedish Gleason, H.A. 1965. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. ----1967. The Relation of Lexicon and Grammar. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Gove, Philip B. 1972. English Dictionaries of the Future. in Weinbrot (ed., 1972) Green, Jonathon 1996. Chasing the Sun. London: Jonathan Cape Greenbaum, Sydney et al 1984. The Image of the Dictionary for American College Students. Dictionaries, No.6, Indiana: Indiana State University Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. in Davis (1991) Haas, Mary 1967. What Belongs in the Bilingual Dictionary. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan 1986. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University (1985) Harrel, Richard S. 1967. Some Notes on Bilingual Lexicography. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Hartmann, R.R.K. 1981. Style Values: Linguistic Approaches and Lexicographical Practice. Applied Linguistics: Vol. II, No. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press ----(ed.). 1983. Lexicography: Principles and Practice. London: Academic Press Inc. (London) LTD ----(ed.). 1984. LEXeter’83 Proceedings. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag ----1985. Contrastive Text Analysis and the Search for Equivalence in the Bilingual Dictionary. in Hyldaard-Jensen and Zettersten (eds., 1985) ----(ed.). 1986. The History of Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company ----1987. Dictionaries of English: The User’s Perspective. in Bailey (ed., 1987) ----1989. Lexicography, Translation and the So-called Language Barrier. in Snell-Hornby et al (eds., 1989) Hartmann, R.R.K. and Gregory James 1998. Dictionary of Lexicography. London: Routledge Hausmann, Franz Josef and Margaret Cop (eds.). 1985. Short History of English-German Lexicography, in Hyldgaard-Jensen and Zettersten (1985) Hausmann, Franz Josef 1986. The Training and Professional Development of Lexicographers in Germany. in Ilson (ed., 1986) Hausmann, Franz Josef et al (eds.). 1989. Dictionaries: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Householder, Fred W. and Sol Saporta (eds.). 1967. Problems in Lexicography. Bloomington: Indiana University Huang Jianhua. 1987. Establishing a Typology for Bilingual Dictionaries. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 2, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press ----(ed.). 1992. Studies in English, Russian, German, French, Spanish and Japanese Language Dictionaries. Beijing: The Commercial Press

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective Huang Jianhua and Chen Chuqiang (eds.). 1998. Chinalex ’96 Proceedings: Papers submitted to the second national conference on bilingual lexicography. Chengdu: Shichuan Education Press Hudson, Richard 1988. The Linguistic Foundations for Lexical Research and Dictionary Design. International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 1, No. 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press Hulbert, J.R. 1955. Dictionaries British and American (revised by Simeon Potter). London: Andre Deutsch Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl and Arne Zettersten (eds.). 1985. Symposium on Lexicography II: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Lexicography May 16–17, 1984 at the University of Copenhagen, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag Iannucci, James E. 1967. Meaning Discrimination in Bilingual Dictionaries. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Ilson, Robert (ed.). 1985. Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press ----(ed.). 1986. Lexicography, An Emerging International Profession. Manchester: Manchester University Press ----1987. Illustration in Dictionaries. in Cowie (ed., 1987) Jackson,Howard 1988. Words and Their Meaning. London: Longman Group Limited James, Gregory (ed.). 1989. Lexicographers and Their Works. Exeter: University of Exeter ----1998. Towards a Typology of Bilingualised Dictionaries. in Huang & Chen (eds., 1998) Ji Yonghai 1982. The History of Manchu Lexicography. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 2, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Johnson, Samuel 1755. Preface to A Dictionary of the English Language (2 vol.). London Kachru, Braj B. and Henry Kahane (eds.). 1995. Cultures, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: Studies in Honour of Ladislav Zgusta. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag Gmb. H & Co. KG Kang Zhijie 1998. The Jesuits and the Compilation of Dictionaries. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 1, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Kay, Martin 1983. The Dictionary of the Future and the Future of the Dictionary. in Zampolli and Cappelli (eds., 1983) Kipfer, Barbara Ann 1984. Workbook on Lexicography: A Course for Dictionary Users with a Glossary of English Lexicographical Terms. Exeter: University of Exeter ---- 1984(a). Methods of Ordering Senses within Entries. in Hartmann (1984) Kraske, Robert 1975. The Story of the Dictionary. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Kress, Gunther 1988. Communication and Culture: An Introduction. Sydney: New South Wales University Press Kromann, Hans-Peder et al 1983. “Active” and “Passive” Bilingual Dictionaries: The Scerba Concept Reconsidered. in Hartmann (ed., 1984) Kromann, Hans-Peder et al 1989. Principles of Bilingual Lexicography. in Hausmann et al (1989) Laird, Charlton 1974. Language and the Dictionary. in David B. Guralnik’s Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, New York: William Collins World Publishing Co., Inc. Landau, Sidney I. 1989. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Laursen, Anna Lise 1995. Systematic Macrostructure. in Bergenholtz and Tarp (1995) Leech, Geoffrey 1983. Semantics: The Study of Meaning (second edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd Leith, Dick 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd

Bibliography 

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara and Jerzy Tomaszczyk 1987. Introduction. in Tomaszczyk and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds., 1990) Li Nanqiu 1982. A History of Chinese Bilingual Lexicography. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 1, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Li Yinhua 1985. Explorations in English Dictionaries. Beijing: The Commercial Press Liu Shangci 1991. Tracing Idioms in the Compilation of Dictionaries of Idioms. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 4, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Long, P.W. 1909. English Dictionaries before Webster. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (IV) Louw, Johannes P. 1995. How Many Meanings to a Word. in Kachru and Kahane (eds., 1995) Lyons, John 1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ----1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press McCawley, James D., 1986, What Linguists Might Contribute to Dictionary Making if they could Get their Act Together, in Bjarkman and Raskin (eds., 1986) McDavid, Raven I. and Audrey R. Duckert (eds.). 1973. Lexicography in English. New York: New York Academy of Sciences McDavid, R.I. 1980. The Social Role of the Dictionary. in Varieties of American English, Stanford: Stanford University Press Maley, Alan 1998. Preface. in Wright (1998) Malkiel, Yakov 1967. A Typological Classification of Dictionaries on the Basis of Distinctive Features. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Manley, James 1985. Process Excerpts for the Bilingual Dictionary. in Hyldaard-Jensen and Zettersten (1985) Marckwardt, Albert H. 1963. Dictionaries and the English Language. English Journal, No. 52 Martin, Samuel E. 1967. Selection and Presentation of Ready Equivalents in a Translation Dictionary. in Householder and Saporta (eds., 1967) Miller, George A. 1996. The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1985. Authority in Language – Investigating language prescription and standardization. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd Moon, Rosamund 1987 Monosemous Words and the Dictionary. in Cowie (ed., 1987) Morris, Charles William 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. vol.1 No. 2, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1984. The Manifold Obligations of the Dictionary to its Users. Dictionaries, No.6, Indiana: Indiana State University Murray, James A.H. 1900. The Evolution of English Lexicography. Oxford: The Clarendon Press Nation, Paul 1989. Dictionaries and Language Learning. in Tickoo (ed., 1989) Nesi, Hilary 1989. How Many Words is a Picture Worth? A Review of Illustrations in Dictionaries. in Tickoo (ed., 1989) Newell, Leonard E. 1995. Handbook on Lexicography. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines Nielsen, Sandro 1995. Dictionary Structures. in Bergenholtz and Tarp (1995) O’Connor, Desmond 1989. A History of Italian and English Bilingual Dictionaries. Leo S. Olschki Editore Osselton, N.E. 1973. The Dumb Linguists: A Study of the Earliest English and Dutch Dictionaries. Leiden University Press

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective ----1995. Chosen Words: Past and Present Problems for Dictionary Makers. Exeter: University of Exeter Press Palmer, F.R. 1983. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1976) Palmer, Harold 1938. A Grammar of English Words. London: Longmans & Co. Pemberton, Richard et al (eds.). 1993. Studies in Lexis. The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Language Centre Peng Xuanwei 1996. On the Development of English-Chinese Dictionaries. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 3, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Piotrowski, Tadeusz 1989. Monolingual and Bilingual Dictionaries: Fundamental Differences. in Tickoo (ed. 1989) Quirk, Randolph et al 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman Group Ltd ----1972a The Social Impact of Dictionaries in the U.K.. International Conference on Lexicography in English, in McDavid & Duckert (eds, 1973) ----1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman Group Ltd Rey, Alain 1970. Typologie Genetique des Dictionnaires. Langages, No.19, Paris ----1977. Le Lexique Images et Modeles du Dictionnaire a la Lexicologie. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin ----1986. Training Lexicographers: Some Problems. in Ilson (ed., 1986) Richards, Jack et al 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman Group Limited Sampson, Geoffrey 1980. Schools of Linguistics. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd Sebeok, Thomas A. 1962. Materials for a Typology of Dictionaries. Lingua International Review of General Linguistics, Vol. XI, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company Seidl, Jennifer and W. McMordie. 1978. English Idioms and How to Use Them. Oxford: Oxford University Press Shannon, C.E. and Warren Weaver 1949. Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press Shi Jinbo 1980. A Brief Discussion on Tangut Dictionaries. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 2, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Sinclair, John M. 1984. Lexicography as an academic subject. in Hartmann (ed., 1984) ----(ed.). 1987. Looking Up: An account of the COBUILD Project in lexical computing and the development of the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd Sledd, James and Wilma R. Ebbitt (eds.). 1962. Dictionaries and That Dictionary. Scott, Foresman and Company Snell-Hornby, Mary 1984. The Bilingual Dictionary – help or hindrance? in Hartmann (ed., 1984) ----(ed.). 1986. Zurilex’86 Proceedings. Tübingen: Francke Verlag GmbH ----(ed.). 1988. ZuriLEX’86 Proceedings: Papers read at the EURALEX International Congress. University of Zurich, 9–14 September 1986, Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag GmbH Snell-Hornby, Mary et al (eds.). 1989. Translation and Lexicography: Papers read at the EURALEX Colloquium held at Innsbruck 2–5 July 1987, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Spencer, John 1983. General editor’s preface. in Leith (1983) Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blakwell ----1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blakwell Starnes, DeWitt T. 1954. Renaissance Dictionaries English-Latin and Latin-English. Austin: University of Texas Press

Bibliography 

Starnes, DeWitt T. and Gertrude E. Noyes 1991. The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Stein, Gabriele 1991. Introduction. in Starnes and Noyes (1991) ----1985. English-German/German-English Lexicography: Its early beginnings, Lexicographica. Issue No 1, International Annual for Lexicography Steiner, Roger J. 1970. Two Centuries of Spanish and English Bilingual Lexicography (1590–1800). Mouton & Co.N.V., Publishers, The Hague Stock, Penelope F. 1984. Polysemy. in Hartmann (ed., 1984) Sutton, Clive 1992. Words, Science and Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press Svensen, Bo 1993. Practical Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sweet, Henry 1972. A Practical Study of Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press Tarp, Sven 1995. Distribution Structure. in Bergenholtz and Tarp (eds., 1995) Tickoo, Makhan L. (ed.). 1989. Learners’ Dictionaries: State of the Art. Singapore:Seameo Regional Language Centre Tomaszczyk, J. 1979. Dictionaries: Users and Uses. Glottodidactica (12) ----1983. On Bilingual Dictionaries: The Case for Bilingual Dictionaries for Foreign Language Learners. in Hartmann (ed., 1983) ----1988. The Bilingual Dictionary under Review. in Snell-Hornby (ed., 1988) Tomaszczyk, Jerzy et al (eds.). 1990. Meaning and Lexicography. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing Co. Toope, Michael 1996. Examples in the Bilingual Dictionary. School of Translation and Interpretation, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Urdang, Laurence 1963. Review of Problems in Lexicography. Language Issue No. 39 Weinbrot, Howard D. (ed.). 1972. New Aspects of Lexicography: Literary Criticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change. Southern Illinois University Press Weinreich, Uriel 1964. Webster’s Third: A critique of its semantics, International Journal of American Linguistics. Issue No. 30 Whitcut, Janet 1986. The Training of Dictionary Users. in Ilson (ed., 1986) Wright, Jon 1998. Dictionaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press Xu Zhenzhong 1995. A Practical Guide to English Dictionaries. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press Yang Qiyu 1994. A Commentary on Dictionaries of Idioms. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 6, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Yang Zuxi and Xu Qingkai 1991. Introduction to Specialized Lexicography. Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Yong Heming 1997. Aesthetic Principles in Dictionaries and Lexicography. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 1, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press ----1999. On Idioms and their Treatment in Bilingual Dictionaries: Methods and Principles. Lexicographical Studies, Issue No. 2, Shanghai: Shanghai Lexicographic Press Zampolli, A. and Cappelli, A.(ed.). 1983. The Possibilities and Limits of the Computer in Producing and Publishing Dictionaries. Rome: Linguistica Computazionale Zgusta,Ladislav 1971. Manual of Lexicography. Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Science ----1984. Review of Doris A. Bartholomew and Louis C. Schoenhals, Bilingual Dictionaries for Indigenous Languages. Dictionaries, No.6, Indiana: Indiana State University Zhang Houchen (ed.). 1994. Bilingual Lexicographical Studies. Beijing: Higher Education Press Zhong Shukong 1983. A Handbook of Translation. Beijing: The Commercial Press

List of major dictionaries cited

Airne, C.W. 1981. A Simplified Dictionary (edited by Oswald Harland). Huddersfield: Schofield & Sims Allen, R.E. 1990. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press Atkins, Beryl T. et al 1987. Robert Collins Dictionnaire Francais-Anglais. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert ----1995. Collins Robert Comprehensive French-English Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins Bailey, Nathan 1721. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. London; E. Bell, etc. Baller, F.W. 1900. An Analytical Chinese-English Dictionary. Shanghai: China Inland Mission Barnhart, Clarence L. et al 1981. The World Book Dictionary. Chicago: Thorndike-Barnhart Burchfield, Robert W. 1972. A Supplement to The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press Chapman, Robert L. 1992. Roget’s International Thesaurus. London: Harper Perennial Crystal, David 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell in association with Andre Deutsch Dai Mingzhong and Dai Weidong 1993. A Comprehensive Chinese-English Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press Davidson, George 1996. Chambers Pocket Dictionary. Edinburgh: W & R Chambers Ltd DeFrancis, John 1997. ABC Chinese-English Dictionary. New York: Richmond Curzon Delbridge, Arthur 1997. The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd edition). The Macquarie Library Dieter, Solf. 1980. The Oxford-Duden Pictorial German-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press Douglas, Carstairs. 1873. Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy. London Durand, Micheline 1976. Diccionario Moderno Espanol-Ingles. Librairie Larousse Ferrel, Peter et al 1997 Collins German-English English-German Dictionary (unabridged, 3rd edition). Earnest Klett Verlag Giles, Herbert A. 1892. A Chinese-English Dictionary. London: B. Quaritch Glazier, Stephen 1992. Random House Word Menu. New York: Random House Gove, Philip Babcock 1961. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MASS.: Merriam Grainger, Adam 1900. Western Mandarian, or the Spoken Language of Western China. Shanghai: China Inland Mission Gu Chuangui et al 1972. A New English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Publishing House Hanks, Patrick 1986. Collins Dictionary of the English Language (second edition). London: Collins

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective Hilpert, Joseph Leonhard 1857. A Dictionary of the English and German, and the German and English Language. Carlsruhe Hornby, A.S. et al 1963. The Advanced Learners’ Dictionary of Current English (second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press ----1948. Idiomatic and Syntactic English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press Huang, Parker Po-fei 1970. Cantonese Dictionary, Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese. New Haven: Yale University Press Johnson, Samuel 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. London: Victor Gollancz Landers, William Maxwell 1978. Dictionnaire Moderne Francais-Anglais. Paris: Librairie Larousse Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short 1962. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press Liang Shih-chiu 1971. A New Practical Chinese-English Dictionary. Taipei Lin Yutang 1972. A Chinese-English Dictioanry of Modern Usage. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Liu Dah-jen 1978. A Chinese-English Dictionary. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Lu Gusun 1989–1991. The English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Publishing House ----1999. A Supplement to The English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai; Shanghai Yiwen Publishing House Lu Suxiang 1996. A Dictionary of Contemporary Chinese. Beijing: The Commercial Press Maclay, R.S. and C.C.Baldwin 1898. An Alphabetic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Foochow Dialect. Foochow: Methodist Episcopal Mission Press Makins, Marian 1993. Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus. Glasgow: HarperCollins Masuda, Koh 1985. Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary. Tokyo: Kenkyusha Mathews, R.H. 1931. A Chinese-English Dictionary (2 vol.). Shanghai: China Inland Mission Morris, William 1981. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (third edition) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Morrison, Robert 1815–1823. A Dictionary of the Chinese Language (Wu Chu Yun Fu). Macao Proctor, Paul 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman ----1988. Longman English-Chinese Dictionary of Contemporary English. Hong Kong: Longman Publishing Co. Ltd Richards, Jack et al 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman Group Limited Rodale, J.I. 1976. The Word Finder. Emmaus: Pa. Rodale Books Schwarz, Catherine et al 1988. Chambers English Dictionary. Cambridge: W & R Chambers Ltd Simpson, J.A. and John Andrew 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary (second edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press Sinclair, John et al 1987. Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language. Williams Collins Sons & Co. Ltd Spears, Richard A. 1992. NTC’s American Idioms Dictionary. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Co. Summers, Della et al 1987. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (new edition). Longman Group UK Limited Treffry, Diana et al 1998. Collins English Dictionary (4th edition). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers Villatte, Cesaire and Charles Sachs 1881. Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Francais-Allemand et Allemand-Francais Berlin

List of major dictionaries cited 

Whitney, W.D. 1889. The Century Dictionary, An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Langauge (9 vol., 1889–1909). New York: Century Co. Williams, S.W. 1874. A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language, arranged according to the Wu-fang Yuen yin, with the Pronunciation of the Characters as heard in Peking, Canton, Amoy and Shanghai. Shanghai: China Inland Mission Woolf, Henry Bosley 1973. Definition: Practice and Illustration. in McDavid and Duckert Wood, Frederick T. 1967. English Prepositional Idioms. London: Macmillan Yong Heming 1997. A Comprehensive Dictionary of English Prepositions. Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House Zhang Fangjie 1984. Oxford Advanced Learners’ English-Chinese Dictionary. Hong Kong: Qi Si Publishing Co. Ltd Zheng Yili and Cao Chengxiu 1950. A New English-Chinese Dictionary. Beijing: The Comercial Press

Index A academic bilingual dictionary 72 acknowledgments 85 active bilingual dictionary 46, 70, 103, 120, 199, 206, 210 active-learning user 29, 79 addressee 7–8 addresser 7–8 adjectival idiom 192 adverbial idiom 192 alphabet 93–94 alphabetical presentation 26 alphabetization 2, 93, 99 101 analytical equivalent 130, 142 analytical ordering 103 anisomorphism 135–140, 143, 153 approximate equivalent 130, 140–141, 209 authentic example 159–160, 210 B back matter 5, 32–33, 88, 90 bidirectional bilingual dictionary 16, 76, 107 bidirectionality 106–8 bilingual dictionary 10, 15, 22, 24, 26, 73, 106–107, 123, 125, 128, 136, 169, 180, 196–7 bilingualization 20, 27, 77, 99 bilingualized dictionary 77 bracketed gloss 143, 154, 158, 172, 207 Burchfield, Robert 128, 168, 173 C CD dictionary 78 closed class combination 178 code 6, 8, 33, 37, 88, 111, 123, 149 collocational function 158 complete correspondence 151 complete equivalent see full equivalent componential analysis 49, 51–52, 139

componential anisomorphism 139, 143 composite illustration 161–162 conceptual meaning 47–48, 51, 57 contact 7–8 context 7–9 contextual meaning 145, 162, 202, 204 cooperative principle 124 core meaning 162–164, 204 cross-reference 99–100 cultural anisomorphism 137– 138, 140, 153, 209 cultural gloss 164 cyberdictionary see internet dictionary cyberlexicography 28, 78 D decoding 22, 65, 70, 121 decontextualization 186 defining method 27 descriptive function 3, 18 descriptivism 19, 21, 112–113, 116 dictionary design 18, 38, 68, 197 dictionary function 18, 67 dictionary on CD-ROM see CD dictionary dictionary text 5, 8, 83–84, 92, 121, 125–126 dictionary typology 67, 72 dictionary user 8, 15, 28–39, 78–80 didactic bilingual dictionary 71–72 didactic function 3, 18 directionality 26, 76 dual arrangement 97 E e-dictionary see internet dictionary electronic dictionary 27, 78 encoding 9, 22, 35, 123, 195–197, 202

encyclopedic bilingual dictionary 73 entry selection 24, 79 equivalence 27, 128–142 etymology 164–167 exemplification 156–160, 210 explanatory equivalent 139, 202–203, 209 explicit context 162–163 explicit cross-reference 100 extralinguistic anisomorphism 139 F field 8, 9, 23, 72–75 figurative idiom 178–179 foreword 86 free translation 187–189, 212 front matter 5, 90, 84–88 full equivalent 129, 143 G Geeraerts, D. 121 general reference bilingual dictionary 75 general-purpose bilingual dictionary 68, 71, 74 general-purpose dictionary 68 Giles, Herbert A. 86 gloss 37, 56, 142, 158, 162–164 grammatical function 157, 159 grammatical gloss 163 group illustration 161–162 H harmony 126–128 headword 26, 93, 95, 102, 185 Hornby, A. S. 43, 159 Huang, Jianhua 66 I ideological function 3, 18 idiom 54, 152, 175–194 implicit context 162–163 implicit cross-reference 100 indexation 99, 102 indexing 100–102

 Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective information coverage 23, 73 intercultural communication 10, 83, 112, 132, 153, 196 internet dictionary 27, 78 interpretability 161 intracultural communication 10, 112, 153 introduction 5, 86 introspective example 159, 210 invented example 159–160, 210 isomorphism 131, 136–137 J Johnson, Samuel 42, 114, 159 L Landau, Sydney I. 64–65, 74, 86, 165, 182 language coverage 23 language need 29–30, 39, 190 language note 56 language pair 14, 27, 70, 128, 132–133, 136–137, 139, 151, 163, 169, 187, 196, 209 Leech, Geoffrey 47 lemma 95 lemma article 92, 95, 102 lemmata 92–109, 195 lexical coverage 24, 74 lexical gap 131, 137 lexical meaning 133, 139, 145–146 lexical mismatch 152–154, 207 lexical selection 127, 152, 207 lexicographic choice 15, 17–29, 122 lexicography 7, 11–13 Liang, Shih-chiu 101 Lin, Yutang 90, 101 linguistic anisomorphism 138, 140 literal translation 140, 143, 151, 187, 189 Liu, Dah-jen 90 logical ordering 103–104 M macrostructure 92–101 Malkiel, Yakov 62 Mathews, R. H. 90 meaning context 162–163 meaning discrimination 143–147 megastrucutre 16, 83 microstructure 102–105

mode 25–28 monodirectional bilingual dictionary 76, 108 monolingual dictionary 10, 22, 24, 77, 112 morphemic presentation 26, 93 multimedia bilingual dictionary 77 N nest lemma 95 nest lemmata see subheadword nest-alphabetic method 95, 200 nominal idiom 190–191 non-conceptual meaning 47– 49, 51–52, 57 nonverbal illustration 160–162 O online dictionary see internet dictionary onomasiological dictionary 53 open collocation 152, 180 oral communication 121 P pagination 99, 101–102 paper dictionary see print dictionary paradigmatic structure 94–95, 99, 101 partial equivalent 129–130, 139–140, 161 passive bilingual dictionary 54, 70, 76, 103, 199, 202, 206 phrasal idiom 177, 181, 190 pictorial bilingual dictionary 75 pictorial dictionary see picture dictionary pictorial illustration 26, 80, 161 pictorial presentation 75–76 picture dictionary 76 pinyin system 26, 89, 96 polysemy 36, 103, 130 pragmatic function 158 pragmatic gloss 164 preface 86–87 prescriptivism 112–117 presentation 62, 75–76, 140 print dictionary 77–78 pseudo-correspondence 151, 153–154 R receiver 5–7

reference function 2–3, 99 reference skill 17, 29–30, 39 reference-oriented user 29, 79, 128 register labeling 154–155 restricted collocation 178–179 reversibility 108 romanization system 26, 96–97, 100–101 S semantic function 157, 198 semantic gloss 164 semasiological special-aspect dictionary 53 sender 6–7, 123, 125 sense division 105, 144–145, 158 sense relation 3, 94–95, 97–98, 139, 161–162, 197 sentence idiom 177, 181, 185, 190, 212 sentence linguistics 4 single illustration 161 special-aspect bilingual dictionary 71, 75, 123 special-aspect dictionary 21, 25, 75 special-field bilingual dictionary 71, 75 special-field dictionary 25, 75, 157 specialized anisomorphism 139, 143 special-purpose bilingual dictionary 68, 71 special-purpose dictionary 68 standardization 42, 116, 155 straight-alphabetic method 95 structural grammar 4 stylistic function 157–158 stylistic gloss 164 stylistic labeling 141, 169 subentry 95, 181–182, 212 sub-head 95 subheadword 95 subject coverage 25, 75 sublemmata see sub-head subordinate equivalent 130, 142 superordinate equivalent 131, 142 symmetry 126, 128 synchronicity 21 syntagmatic structure 84, 126 synthetic equivalent 130, 142

systemic functional linguistics 4, 41 T target language equivalent 19, 24, 50–52, 207, 209 tenor 28, 78 text linguistics 4–5 thesaurus 26, 52–53, 99, 123 Thorndike, Edward L. 80, 127 title page 79, 84–85 traditional grammar 3, 170 transferred translation 187, 189, 212

Index  transformational generative linguistics 4, 41 translation dictionary 129, 165 translation equivalent 17, 212 transmission media 27, 77, 133 U usage note 56, 149, 158, 180 user aspect 17, 29, 39, 69, 122 V verbal idiom 190–191 verbal illustration 160

W Wade-Giles romanization system 89, 96–97, 100 Way, Albert 13 Williams, S.W. 87, 90, 101 word grammar 42, 45, 147–149, 206 written communication 121, 135 Y Yong, Heming 53, 99 Z zero correspondence 151–153 zero equivalence 131–132, 140 Zgusta, Ladislav 64, 98

In the series Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Yong, Heming and Jing Peng: Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective. 2007. ix, 229 pp. Antia, Bassey Edem (ed.): Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP. Studies in honour of Heribert Picht. 2007. xxii, 236 pp. Görlach, Manfred: English Words Abroad. 2003. xii, 189 pp. Sterkenburg, Piet van (ed.): A Practical Guide to Lexicography. 2003. xii, 460 pp. Kageura, Kyo: The Dynamics of Terminology. A descriptive theory of term formation and terminological growth. 2002. viii, 322 pp. Sager, Juan C.: Essays on Definition. With an introduction by Alain Rey. 2000. viii, 257 pp. Temmerman, Rita: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The sociocognitive approach. 2000. xvi, 258 pp. Antia, Bassey Edem: Terminology and Language Planning. An alternative framework of practice and discourse. 2000. xxiv, 265 pp. Cabré Castellví, M. Teresa: Terminology. Theory, methods and applications. Edited by Juan C. Sager. Translated by Janet Ann DeCesaris. 1999. xii, 248 pp.

Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology in Everyday Life (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

A Practical Guide to Lexicography (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Lexicography: A dictionary of basic terminology

Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Pedagogical Specialised Lexicography: The representation of meaning in English and Spanish business dictionaries (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Dictionary Visions, Research and Practice: Selected Papers from the 12th International Symposium on Lexicography, Copenhagen 2004 (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of Practice and Discourse (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Systematic Lexicography

Systematic Lexicography

Practical Lexicography: A Reader

Text Corpora and Multilingual Lexicography

Dictionary of Lexicography

Chinese Lexicography: A History from 1046 BC to AD 1911

Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications

The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography

Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek

Hallucinations: Research and Practice

Hallucinations: Research and Practice

Computability and complexity from a programming perspective

Computability and Complexity: From a Programming Perspective

Computability And Complexity From A Programming Perspective

Computability and complexity from a programming perspective

Mapping and analysing crime data: lessons from research and practice

REST: From Research to Practice

Learning and Development for Managers: Perspectives from Research and Practice

Verrius, Festus, and Paul: Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society (BICS Supplement 93)

Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology in Everyday Life (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

A Practical Guide to Lexicography (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Essays on Definition (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Lexicography: A dictionary of basic terminology

Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Approach (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Pedagogical Specialised Lexicography: The representation of meaning in English and Spanish business dictionaries (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Dictionary Visions, Research and Practice: Selected Papers from the 12th International Symposium on Lexicography, Copenhagen 2004 (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of Practice and Discourse (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice)

Systematic Lexicography

Systematic Lexicography

Practical Lexicography: A Reader

Text Corpora and Multilingual Lexicography

Dictionary of Lexicography

Chinese Lexicography: A History from 1046 BC to AD 1911

Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications

The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography

Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek

Hallucinations: Research and Practice

Hallucinations: Research and Practice

Computability and complexity from a programming perspective

Computability and Complexity: From a Programming Perspective

Computability And Complexity From A Programming Perspective

Computability and complexity from a programming perspective

Mapping and analysing crime data: lessons from research and practice

REST: From Research to Practice

Learning and Development for Managers: Perspectives from Research and Practice

Verrius, Festus, and Paul: Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society (BICS Supplement 93)

Recommend Documents