"&'< 7 # ' + / +& # = . > * ' 2 (& " . ! 3 = ? @* 0 6 " % 7 - " % The aim of this article is to present the subject-field or domain labels used in monolingual learner’s dictionaries. Special attention is paid to the analysis of similarities and differences between subject-field labels in different dictionaries and to the rationale for including certain subject-field labels. The first part of the article discusses the development of subject-field labels in OALD and LDOCE and pays attention to the differences in the lists of subject-field labels in print dictionaries and dictionaries on CD-ROM. The numbers of subjectfield labels listed in the print versions and on the CD-ROMs differ in some dictionaries, but an investigation into the microstructure shows that the same subject-field labels are used in each print edition and in its CD-ROM version. Another observation is the use of closely related subject-field labels in some dictionaries. Further, the results of an analysis of subject-field labels across dictionaries are presented and discussed. The conclusion is that subject-field labels should be defined and explained in detail in the front matter of each dictionary, and they should be used more consistently throughout the dictionary. Apart from that, there should be no discrepancies between the print and electronic versions. , & When starting work on any dictionary, the first step lexicographers have to take is to design the headword list. Among other things, they need to make conscious choices about different types of lexical items, especially about lexical items that do not form part of the unmarked, basic, general vocabulary and may not even be known to educated native speakers. $$$ - $ ' & $ + & $) ! " # $% # 0 6 " % 7 - " % These expressions should be considered as belonging to various types of specialized vocabulary. Some dictionaries will include a large number of specialized vocabulary items, some will be selective, some (such as pocket dictionaries) may exclude them. The final decision mostly depends on the market, the user profile and the cost of production. The use of corpora in computational lexicography means that dictionaries, including general-language dictionaries, can be updated more frequently and in a more representative way than is possible with manual methods. Apart from including new senses of already existing lemmas and new general vocabulary items, each update also contains scientific and technological neologisms, as well as more established terms. At this point, we have to define what a term is. A term is a word, an expression or an alphanumeric symbol used by experts in a specialized technical subject to designate a concept. The unity between term and concept is an essential requirement of unambiguous communication (cf. Hartmann and James 1998: 138-139, Ahmad et al. 1995: 7). However, experts as well as laypeople use the same terms or are confronted with them. This is why terms are to be found in general-language dictionaries. But what are the criteria on the basis of which the terms are included in general-language dictionaries? According to Ahmad et al. (1995: 7), this depends on the status of the term in question, since we can make a distinction between field-internal or field internal/ external terms. Fieldinternal terms are not part of the general language, since they are used in expert-to-expert communication. Terms falling into the category of field internal/ external terms are encountered and sometimes used by laypersons as well as experts, thus being the best candidates for inclusion in general-language dictionaries. Certain domains will not be covered in general-language dictionaries. It may also be expected that only subsets of terms from more accessible domains will be included and defined by their usage in communicative situations that are not exclusively fieldinternal (cf. Ahmad et al. 1995: 9). However, lexicographers should be aware that the main problem in selection is consistency. Since the mid-twentieth century the proportion of scientific and technical entries in general dictionaries has increased dramatically. Landau (2001: 33-34) estimates that more than 40 % of the entries in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (an unabridged monolingual dictionary intended for native speakers of English) and 25-35 % of those in college dictionaries are scientific or technical. These estimates made in the 1970s were quite high, and the proportion of scientific and technical entries has certainly not decreased since then. The larger general dictionaries are becoming collections of several subject-field dictionaries on top of compilations of general vocabulary, which is representing an increasingly smaller proportion of the entire work. Landau (2001: 34) gives two reasons for that: firstly, the number of scientific and technical terms is increasing more rapidly than that of general vocabulary items; secondly, ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 there is the prevailing cultural view in our society that science and technology are of the highest importance. When an indication of language type is given in a dictionary, this is normally in the form of a label. In general dictionaries, terms are labelled with subject-field labels marking the field of specialization with which a particular lemma or one or more of its senses is associated (cf. Hartmann and James 1998: 133). The subject-field or domain labels used in monolingual learner’s dictionaries are the principal topic of this contribution. Special attention is paid to the analysis of similarities and differences between subject-field labels in different dictionaries and to the rationale for including certain subject-field labels. , $' &'< 7 ' The task of the monolingual dictionary is to describe the vocabulary of a language, which includes indicating whether an expression belongs to technical language. Dictionaries differ as to the extent and the manner in which they cover and label technical terms. Subject fields - as given in the preface of a general-language dictionary - are drawn very broadly: e.g., technical, scientific. But sometimes subject-field labels - even when available - are omitted for particular senses within a polysemous entry in a general-language dictionary. In OALD8, for instance, the entry for the noun bridge gives a total of eight senses, five of which could be argued to belong to specialized vocabulary (shaded in the sample entry below): bridge / ... / noun, verb noun OVER ROAD/ RIVER 1 [C] a structure that is built over a road, railway/ railroad, river, etc. so that people or vehicles can cross from one side to the other: We crossed the bridge over the river Windrush. VISUAL VOCAB pages V3, V12 see also SUSPENSION BRIDGE, SWING BRIDGE CONNECTION 2 [C] a thing that provides a connection or contact between two different things: Cultural exchanges are a way of building bridges between countries. OF SHIP 3 [C, usually sing.] (usually the bridge) the part of a ship where the captain and other officers stand when they are controlling and steering the ship VISUAL VOCAB page V44 CARD GAME 4 [U] a card game for two pairs of players who have to predict how many cards they will win. They score points if they succeed in winning that number of cards and lose points if they fail. see also CONTRACT BRIDGE 0 6 " % 7 - " % OF NOSE 5 the ~ of sb’s nose [sing.] the hard part at the top of the nose, between the eyes VISUAL VOCAB page V48 OF GLASSES 6 [C] the part of a pair of glasses that rests on your nose OF GUITAR/ VIOLIN 7 [C] a small piece of wood on a GUITAR, VIOLIN , etc. over which the strings are stretched VISUAL VOCAB page V31 FALSE TEETH 8 [C] a false tooth or false teeth, held permanently in place by being fastened to natural teeth on either side ... OALD8: 181 5 #, ) % %6 4 % , No labels are attached to any of these senses, although technical, anatomy, music and medical are included in the list of abbreviations in the front matter. One would expect the subject-field label technical in senses 1 and 3, anatomy in sense 5, music in sense 7, and medical in sense 8. More specific subject-field labels are, of course, possible in some of these senses (e.g., nautical in sense 3 or dentistry in sense 8), but such precise labelling of sub-fields is beyond the scope of monolingual learner’s dictionaries. If field marking is not indicated for a technical term, for instance on the grounds that the subject field is evident from the definition, this means that the dictionary does not differentiate between technical terms and non-technical expressions. This, in turn, will make the description in some sense incomplete (Kempcke 1989: 845). The use of available labels is therefore inconsistent, and this prevents systematic identification of terms within a particular, if broadly-defined, domain. Here is another example from OALD8 where two related entries are not treated in the same way. As can be seen from the examples below, the lemma hardware is labelled computing, whereas the lemma software fails to be labelled: hardware … noun [U] 1 (computing) the machinery and electronic parts of a computer system compare SOFTWARE … OALD8: 709 software … noun [U] the programs, etc. used to operate a computer: application/ system software design/ educational/ music-sharing, etc. software to install/ run a piece of software Will the software run on my machine? compare HARDWARE OALD8: 1467 5 #, ) % # : -82; ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 , "&'< 7 ' ) +& = , . *) &'< 7 ' 8$#. #.8(? Before presenting detailed results of our research, we should first give a brief overview of the development of subject-field labels in two monolingual learner’s dictionaries: OALD and LDOCE. Historically speaking, these are the oldest among the learner’s dictionaries. OALD was the first monolingual learner’s dictionary and was first published in 1948. It has seen eight editions so far, i.e. in 1948, 1963, 1974, 1989, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010. LDOCE appeared on the market as the second monolingual learner’s dictionary in 1978 and was revised in 1987, 1995, 2003 and 2009. Since OALD is a pioneering work in the field of learner lexicography, its revised editions have witnessed numerous changes, simplifications and improvements in all aspects, including subject-field labels. A similar observation can be made with respect to LDOCE, but the number of changes this dictionary has undergone is much smaller given the fact that its lexicographers could draw ideas from OALD. On the inside cover of OALD3 (cf. Cowie 1999: 165), a list of labels and abbreviations can be found denoting ‘Specialist English registers’ (i.e. specialist or technical fields) with a further list referring to ‘Stylistic values’. Terms appearing in the ‘Specialist English registers’, such as botany (bot), nautical (naut) and rugby, are self-explanatory and refer to as many as 58 different fields or sub-fields. When going through the list of subjectfield labels in OALD3, the label computers (comp) captured our attention, since this dictionary was published in 1974, i.e., in the early days of computers. One might wonder which technical terms used in the field of computer technology would merit inclusion in a learner’s dictionary, given the fact that no corpora and consequently no frequency counts were easily available at that time. With the help of a computer expert, we compiled a list of ICT terms that were known and used at the end of the 1960s and at the beginning of the 1970s, i.e., in the period of time when the headword list for this edition of OALD was compiled. These terms include: microprocessor, processor, bus, ISA bus, I/ O, drive, floppy drive, diskette, floppy diskette, printer, laser printer, FTP, CD, VoIP, mainframe, EPROM, memory, monolithic main memory, ATM, file, disc, Ethernet. These terms are either not included at all or included but without the specialized sense referring to the ICT field. On the other hand, terms such as computer, computerize, programme, programmer, hardware and software are included in the wordlist of OALD3, but they are not labelled comp. Interestingly, the lemma computer is defined as “electronic device which stores information on discs or magnetic tape, analyses it and produces information as required from the data on the tapes, etc.”, but the lemma disc is not treated in the sense of “a device for storing information on a computer, with a magnetic surface that records information received in 0 6 " % 7 - " % electronic form”. The lemma programme is another interesting example. OALD3 includes just the British English spelling as a headword and gives program as a variant spelling in brackets without further explanation. Sense 3 of the lemma programme is defined as “coded collection of information, data, etc. fed into an electronic computer”. In the fourth edition of OALD as well as in all subsequent editions of OALD, two lemmas are included: programme and program. The latter has two senses: the American English spelling for programme and the specialized sense used in computing. Considering all this, the question arises why the label comp is listed among the subject-field labels. It is not to be found in the dictionary, so it seems to be redundant. Is it there simply to impress the target user of that time, given the fact that in the early 1970s computer technology was still in its infancy at least as regards general use of computers? The fourth edition of OALD, however, does not include a list of subject-field labels, but on p. 1574 there is a short paragraph entitled “Technical fields”. The lexicographers claim that a large number of words and senses included in this dictionary are normally confined to technical use. These labels are believed to be self-explanatory; therefore, only examples of six entries with different subject-field labels are provided. Interestingly, on the inside cover of the latest (i.e. the eighth) edition, we come across only one subject-field label: technical. If, however, we browse through the dictionary, it quickly becomes evident that numerous other subject-field labels are used. Why is this so? Why are most of the subjectfield labels not enumerated in the list of labels? This topic is examined in greater detail in Section 3.2. The compilers of the first edition of LDOCE (1978) gave careful thought to the selection and categorization of labels for words or phrases whose use was in some way restricted (cf. Cowie 1999: 162-163). Among other things, the range of categories also included technical field. Nevertheless, in the second edition, as in the first, there were few labels relating to specific technical or scientific fields (with the exception of such longestablished fields as law and medicine), and not even the generic tech was applied in all cases. The latest, i.e. the fifth edition, of LDOCE also includes very few subject-field labels (see 3.2). , # &'< 7 ' * (.7 8/ In order to find more information about subject-field labels, a small-scale study has been conducted into the subject-field labels covered in the following monolingual learner’s dictionaries: OALD7 (the seventh edition is used in this study because the Advanced search of the CD-ROM of the eighth edition lacks subject-field labels), LDOCE5, CALD3, COBUILD5 and MED2. These were analysed in order to discover the degree of overlap between the inventory of fields in each publication. Account has been ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 taken only of the subject fields listed in the ‘Abbreviations’ section of each dictionary. Additional ad hoc fields used in the entries have not been considered. Apart from that, the list of subject-field labels as found in the print version of each dictionary was compared to the list of subjectfield labels provided on the CD-ROM that accompanies the print version. A question posed at the beginning of our study was whether the number of subject-field labels and types of subject-field labels are similar and/ or comparable in all the dictionaries under consideration. To establish this, a list of abbreviations and labels, which is usually provided on the inside cover of each dictionary, was consulted (see Table 2). Surprisingly, we found that a very small number of subject-field labels is used in four out of five dictionaries, since OALD7, for example, gives only one subject-field label (technical), which is very general and does not refer to any specific field or sub-field (the same holds true of OALD8). OALD7 is followed by CALD3, where three subject-field labels are listed (legal, specialized, trademark), and it can be claimed that legal refers to a very specific subject field, whereas specialized is a quite general label and in this respect resembles technical as used in OALD7. The label trademark is problematic because it belongs neither to style labels nor to subject-field labels proper, but since it is used in four of these dictionaries, it can be classified as one of the subject-field labels. LDOCE5 lists 5 subject-field labels, four of them being very specific (biblical, law, medical, trademark) and one being fairly general (technical). COBUILD7 lists 7 subject-field labels, among them technical as a general label and business, computing, legal, medical, military and trademark as more specific labels. Last but not least, we should mention MED2, which cannot be compared to any other dictionary under consideration in terms of the number of subject-field labels, since it lists as many as 18 subject-field labels on the inside cover. All of them belong to the group of specific labels except for science, which can be classified in the same way as technical and specialized. One would expect the same situation as regards lists of labels on the CD-ROMs, compared with those in the print dictionaries. However, if we have a closer look at the CD-ROMs accompanying the print versions of the dictionaries under consideration (see Tables 1 and 2), we can see marked differences in some dictionaries. As opposed to one single subject-field label in the print version of OALD7, the Advanced search tool lists as many as 27 subject-field labels under “Subject areas”. The reason why not all the subject-field labels are listed in the print version may be sought in the fact that they are self-explanatory, but that does not justify their omission. Therefore, the question of why they are not included remains unanswered. The CD has to include the entire list of subject-field labels because otherwise the Advanced search function would not enable the user to find words or senses belonging to a specific subject field (this is exactly what happens in OALD8). 0 6 " % 7 - " % In CALD3, the difference between the print version and the CD-ROM lies only in the subject-field label internet, which is listed on the CD-ROM but not in the print dictionary. MED2 lists 18 subject-field labels in the print version and 19 in the CD-ROM version, the difference being negligible; LDOCE5 lists the same number of subject-field labels in the print and electronic versions, while COBUILD5 does not provide a list of subjectfield labels in the electronic version, so a comparison cannot be drawn. Dictionary Version No. of SFLs OALD7 Print dictionary 1 CD-ROM 27 LDOCE5 Print dictionary 5 CD-ROM 5 CALD3 Print dictionary 3 CD-ROM 4 COBUILD5 Print dictionary 7 CD-ROM no list included MED2 Print dictionary 18 CD-ROM 19 % ) ! *% %6 4 % + <24 &: 0, , $ ! &'< 7 ' Another point of interest is to consider which subject-field labels are used in different dictionaries. A question can be posed whether the same or similar subject-field labels are used in all five dictionaries or whether there are differences in the subject-field labels used in the dictionaries under scrutiny. ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 Subject-field label OALD7 LDOCE5 CALD3 COBUILD5 MED2 PD CD PD CD PD CD PD CD PD CD anatomy n o t i n c l u d e d architecture art astronomy biblical biology T business chemistry T cinema clothing T colours T communications & technology T computing economics education T environmental issues T feelings T finance finance & business T food & drink T geology geometry grammar internet U law legal crime & law U T linguistics literature mathematics maths measures & quantities T medical medicine T military music T philosophy phonetics 0 6 " % 7 - " % Subject-field label OALD7 LDOCE5 CALD3 COBUILD5 MED2 PD CD PD CD PD CD PD CD PD CD physics T plants & animals T politics politics & government T psychology religion T science specialized U sport sports & games T statistics technical theatre tourism trademark U travel & transport T weather & climate T PD = print dictionary CD = dictionary on CD-ROM T = topic (CALD3 on CD-ROM, Advanced search) U = usage (CALD3 on CD-ROM, Advanced search) % ) ( %6 4 % * # 9 , Only two subject-field labels are used in all five dictionaries: law/ legal and medicine/ medical. These two subject-field labels refer to two wellestablished fields; therefore, it is logical to find them in all the dictionaries. Trademark is a label that appears in four dictionaries (LDOCE5, CALD3, COBUILD5 and MED2) and comes as a surprise, since it is not really a subject-field label but rather a piece of information about the etymology and use of the lemma. Seven subject-field labels (biology, business, chemistry, computing, music, physics and technical) appear in three out of five dictionaries, and nine subject-field labels (art, astronomy, economics, finance or finance & business, linguistics, mathematics/ maths, politics or politics & government, religion and sport or sports & games) are used in two dictionaries only. The greatest number of subject-field labels (24) appear in only one of the dictionaries discussed, most of them being very specific and some of them even rather unusual. The CD-ROM of CALD3 needs to be commented upon in greater detail. The Advanced search tool allows users to customize their search using “Topic” and “Usage” tools. Under “Usage”, both register and subject-field labels are listed. “Topic”, however, lists 22 items, which correspond to ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 guidewords as far as typography and function are concerned, but if we take a closer look at these, we can establish that most of them could easily function as subject-field labels (e.g., biology, chemistry, finance & business, medicine, music and physics). There is, for example, a set of guidewords for the noun base: base ... noun MATHEMATICS 6 [C usually singular] SPECIALIZED the number on which a counting system is built A binary number is a number written in base 2, using the two numbers 0 and 1. ... base ... noun CHEMISTRY 7 [C] SPECIALIZED a chemical that dissolves in water and combines with an acid to create a salt ... CALD3: CD-ROM 5 #, ) = *% %6 4 % > % # %6 4 % + + , Some of these are justifiably classified as topics (e.g., clothing, colours, feelings, food & drink or travel & transport). Interestingly, the subjectfield label legal is listed under “Usage” and crime & law is enumerated under “Topic” although both refer to the same field. Browsing through the dictionary, one quickly establishes that very often, an item from the “Topic” list and a subject-field label from the “Usage” list are both used to refer to one and the same sense of the entry word. This amounts to giving the same piece of information twice, which can be regarded as redundant, as in this example: appeal ... verb … LEGAL 2 [I] LEGAL to request a higher law court to consider again a decision made by a lower court, especially in order to reduce or prevent a punishment: The teenager has been given leave (= allowed) by the High Court to appeal against her two-year sentence. They're appealing to the High Court to reduce the sentence to a fine. ... CALD3: 60 5 #, ? ) # * + * = , A comparison of a list of subject-field labels on the CD and in the printed version of the latest (i.e. fifth) edition of LDOCE shows that the number 0 6 " % 7 - " % of labels is the same. All subject-field labels used in this dictionary are predictable (law, medical, technical and trademark), with the exception of one: biblical. The Advanced search shows that only seven lemmas in this dictionary are labelled biblical (art 2 , -eth, Israelite, saith, sinner, spake and verily). One might reasonably ask why a label that is used in so few cases is used at all. The information that a specific lemma belongs to a specific subject field can be incorporated within the definition with an introductory phrase, such as “In the Bible ...” (e.g., art, sense 2). In many cases, the delimitation of two or even three seemingly related labels is unclear. Most such labels can be found in OALD7. One can wonder about the utility of the subject-field labels anatomy and medical. Is anatomy not a subfield of medicine? Is it necessary to bother a general dictionary user who is not a specialist with such specific subject fields? The same can be said of labels such as linguistics, grammar and phonetics or mathematics, geometry and statistics or economics, business or finance. On the other hand, OALD7 uses the label biology, but not, for instance, botany or zoology, which means that some subject-field labels are used more generically to refer to the entire field of the science, whereas some subject-field labels refer to sub-fields themselves. A similar lack of delimitation of two labels is encountered in MED2, an example being business and economics. In the other three dictionaries, there are no subject-field labels referring to fields of science or their sub-fields. Another label that needs to be mentioned is the generic technical. In OALD7, for instance, technical is used to label lemmas, such as denotation and antonym, which could more logically be labelled linguistics, or crustacean, mollusc, vent (sense 2), which could be labelled biology, or IVF, medial, menses, organic, which could be labelled medical given the fact that the subject-field labels linguistics, biology and medical are used in this dictionary. Similar examples can be found in CALD3, which uses the general label specialized, instead of more specific ones (which are also included in the list of subject-field labels in this dictionary), for instance biology in ammonite, legume, medicine in abdomen, anvil, bronchiole, carbuncle (sense 1), chemistry in lactose, polymer, and many more. MED2, however, uses the subject-field label science with no further explanation of its detailed use. One can only wonder about which branches of science it encompasses, since the same dictionary also uses subject-field labels, such as biology, chemistry and physics. In MED2, science is used instead of chemistry in the entries for saturation point, free radical, chromatography or instead of physics in quantum theory and gamma rays. 1, ( & After careful study of the subject-field labels in five monolingual learner’s dictionaries and the accompanying CD-ROMs, several conclusions can be ( %6 4 8 % # 0 # 8 9 2 drawn. It has come as a surprise that the numbers of subject-field labels listed in the print versions and on the CD-ROMs differ in some dictionaries. An investigation into the microstructure, however, shows that the same subject-field labels are used in each print edition and in its CD-ROM version. This discrepancy may be misleading for dictionary users, since they will find more subject-field labels than expected when browsing through the dictionary. The lists of subject-field labels in print versions and on CD-ROM should contain all the subject-field labels used in the microstructure, and there should be no differences in the number of subject-field labels listed. Another observation that can be made is the use of closely related subject-field labels (e.g., economics vs. business) in some dictionaries. A general dictionary user is not expected to recognize the subtle differences between such subject-field labels. If such labels are used, one would expect an explanation of the distinction between them, but taking account of the type of dictionary and the target audience, we can say with a high degree of certainty that this is an unnecessary complication. In monolingual learner’s dictionaries, one would expect that the subject-field labels refer to fields of science only and disregard the sub-fields. On the other hand, all the dictionaries under scrutiny make use of one general subjectfield label (technical, specialized or science), which is also only vaguely defined (if at all). It is recommendable to use this type of subject-field label only to mark entries common to several domains, i.e., as a higherlevel domain marker. Otherwise, lemmas belonging to lower-level domains should be labelled using a more specific subject-field label that is also listed as a subject-field label in a given dictionary (technical vs. biology or chemistry). A final remark concerns the labelling of a lemma by means of a definition. A dictionary user may be puzzled that some lemmas are assigned to subject-field labels whereas in other lemmas, this function is taken over by a definition. A more consistent policy in this respect should be expected. To sum up, subject-field labels should be defined and explained in detail in the front matter of each dictionary, and they should be used more consistently throughout the dictionary. Last but not least, there should be no discrepancies between the print and electronic versions. $, . Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2008). Walter, Elizabeth, Woodford, Kate (eds.). 3 rd ed. Cambridge: CUP. (= CALD3) Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (2006). Sinclair, John, Clari, Michela (eds.). 5 th ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers. (= COBUILD5) 0 6 " % 7 - " % Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2009). Mayor, Michael (ed.). 5 th ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. (= LDOCE5) Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2007). Rundell, Michael (ed.). 2 nd ed. Oxford: Macmillan Education. (= MED2) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1974). Hornby, A.S., Cowie, Anthony P., Windsor Lewis, J. (eds.). 3 rd ed. Oxford: OUP. (= OALD3) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (2005). Wehmeier, Sally (ed.). 7 th ed. Oxford: OUP. (= OALD7) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (2010). Turnbull, Joanna (ed.). 8 th ed. Oxford: OUP. (= OALD8) , 8 & Ahmad, Khurshid, Willy Martin, Martin Hölter, Margaret Rogers (1995). “Specialist terms in general language dictionaries” http: / / 209.85.129.132/ search? q= cache: felngsLWmIMJ: ftp: / / ftp.ee.surrey.ac.uk/ pub/ research/ AI/ pointer/ diction. ps.gz+SPECIALIST+TERMS+IN+GENERAL+LANGUAGE&cd=1&hl=sl&ct= clnk&gl=si (26 June 2010). Atkins, B.T. Sue, Michael Rundell (2008). The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: OUP. Cowie, Anthony P. (1999). English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners: A History. Oxford: OUP. Hartmann, Reinhard R.K., Gregory James (1998). Dictionary of Lexicography. London & New York: Routledge. Kempcke, Günter (1989-91). “Probleme der Beschreibung fachsprachlicher Lexik im allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch.“ In: Franz Joseph Hausmann et al. (eds.) Wörterbücher / Dictionaries / Dictionnaires: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie / An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography / Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie I-III. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 5.1-5.3. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 842-849. Landau, Sidney I. (2001). Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. 2 nd ed. Cambridge: CUP. ! "# $ % ! "# & ! "# ' " " $ % ! "# &