General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries

5 General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries
In this chapter we will discuss the function theory and some of its implications. The
theory was originally inspired by ideas put forward by distinguished lexicographers
such as Scerba (1940), Hausmann (1977), Kromann, Riiber & Rosbach (1984), and
Wiegand (1977, 1989), among others, i.e. lexicographers from outside the Anglo-
Saxon tradition. As explained by Tarp (2008: 33f), it developed through various
phases and soon crystallised into an independent school of thought without aban-
doning its theoretical prehistory. From the outset it was conceived as a general the-
ory of lexicography, albeit strongly influenced by specialised lexicography which
provided unique material that helped overcome limitations observed in previous
studies and theories.
One of the things which characterise theories formulated within humanities and
social sciences and distinguish them from most theories belonging to natural sci-
ences, is that the subject field is undergoing constant – and frequently rapid –
changes, not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. In lexicography this is re-
flected, for instance, in the means that have been used to embody its practical prod-
ucts over the millennia, from clay, papyrus and paper (handwritten or printed) to
the various electronic platforms used today. A general theory will necessarily have
to cover all aspects of the discipline including the works presented by means of the
different media. Consequently, if such a theory had existed four thousand years ago
there would be no reason to formulate or reformulate it in the present phase of
gradual transition from printed to electronic dictionaries. However, two different
phenomena interact and determine the need for constant improvement and refor-
mulation of lexicographical theory. The first is common to all scientific work,
namely, that human cognition by definition is a gradual and ever-going process
characterised by a still deeper insight into and understanding of the subject studied,
a process where theory engages in a fruitful interaction with practice. The second
phenomenon appears interwoven with the first, and concerns the various qualita-
tive changes in terms of the technologies employed to produce, present and make
use of lexicographical products. In this respect, it is perfectly possible that elements
which existed from the very outset of lexicography, yet only in embryonic form,
were not sufficiently taken into account, or even ignored, until these previously
“hidden” elements flourished at a later stage. This is, among other things, the case
with elements linked to the concept of information, which did not manifest them-
selves in a fully developed form until the present “information society”, in which it
has become increasingly clear that lexicography shares a lot of elements with in-
formation science and should, therefore, be reformulated as an independent disci-
pline within this science (cf. section 3.4).
Hence, the theory described in the following is an updated version of the func-
tion theory which will probably have to be refined even more in future works, when
Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/12/20 6:07 AM
Utility tools and user needs | 45
more experience has been gained in terms of practical products and confrontation of
ideas.
5.1 Utility tools and user needs
The function theory is based upon the fundamental postulate that lexicographical
works are utility tools. This postulate is the result of observation of practice, incor-
porated in a body of dictionaries produced and consulted over more than 4.000
years. As such, there is no reason to “prove” its correctness by means of falsification
or any other method; it is an axiomatic postulate similar to the ones to be found in
theories within many other disciplines. In addition, it is widely accepted and fre-
quently referred to in lexicographical circles. However, the challenge is not to pay
lip service to an evident fact and accept it in general terms, but to accept the neces-
sary consequences in all their dimensions. The first scholar to do this was Wiegand
(1987), who was later followed by the advocates of the function theory. In fact, the
attitude towards this fundamental postulate represents the first dividing line be-
tween those who defend the need for a lexicographical theory and those who deny
its very existence.
As utility tools, lexicographical works share the same essential characteristic of
any other human-made tool, namely, that they are, or should be, designed with the
purpose of satisfying specific types of human needs. Lexicographical works always
represent a relation between at least two people, the user and the lexicographer; as
such, lexicographical tools are basically social creations and lexicography is a social
discipline. The main challenge is, therefore, to explore and describe the relation
existing between lexicographically relevant needs detected in society – i.e. among
individuals or groups of human beings – and the solutions or intended solutions
provided by lexicographers in tools designed to meet these needs, as the latter can-
not be understood outside the dialectical relation between specific social needs and
their satisfaction. On the other hand, to take the starting point as that of lexicology
(Pérez Hernandez 2002), terminology (Cabré 2003), pragmatics (Piotrowski 2009),
Chomskyan linguistics (Ten Hacken 2009), or any other branch of general or spe-
cialised linguistics, does simply not make sense and runs counter to any serious
scientific approach. Although the knowledge provided by these and other branches
or sub-theories of linguistics may be absolutely necessary for the production of a
number of specific dictionaries, they can never by themselves determine the con-
crete user needs to be solved by a particular dictionary, let alone constitute the basis
for a general theory of lexicography, which takes into account all types of past, pre-
sent and future dictionaries, be they general or specialised.
Hence, the real point of departure for a theory of lexicography are the social
needs giving rise to dictionaries and other lexicographical utility tools, regardless of
their name. In this respect, it should not be forgotten that most scholars within the

Authenticated
46 | General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries
field of lexicography refer in their writings to user needs, although the discussion,
sadly enough, tends to stay at a general level without getting to the bottom of the
issue; as a result, the necessary theoretical and practical measures are not taken.
The function theory proceeds differently, as the main drive behind it was and still is
to formulate a transformative theory, that is, one with the potential to orientate the
development of an efficient methodology that may not only be applied in order to
analyse and describe existing dictionaries but also, and more importantly, to fur-
nish a more accurate picture of real user needs; in this way, it will be possible to
determine the pertinent data to be included in a specific dictionary without the ne-
cessity of resorting to more complex, dubious and time-consuming methods. In fact,
various methods to determine user needs may be observed within lexicography,
among others:
– Business as usual
– Personal knowledge
– User research
– Functional approach
The first type of “method” is probably the one most commonly employed in the
compilation of dictionaries, especially in relation to specialised ones. It consists of
doing business as usual by reusing or plagiarizing already existing dictionary con-
cepts with no or few modifications. This “method” may lead to excellent dictionaries
if the concept copied is of a high quality and suitable for solving the specific needs
of the foreseen user group, but in most cases it results in dubious, low-quality prod-
ucts. As an example of this can be mentioned the many bilingual specialised dic-
tionaries which offer only translational equivalents without meaning discrimina-
tion, definitions and relevant grammatical data, and which, therefore, are seldom
helpful in the situation they claim to cover (mainly translation). Although it is al-
ways recommendable to study and learn from existing practice, this “method” of
business as usual cannot, by definition, provide the innovation and creative solu-
tions required in the present online environment.
The second type of method is applied when the lexicographer has a close per-
sonal knowledge of the needs of the intended user group. One such example was the
Danish priest Jens Høier Leth (1800), who personally observed the many compre-
hension problems among simple-minded children when he tried to teach the cate-
chism whilst preparing their confirmation; he therefore decided to write a Dansk
Glossarium (Danish Glossary), where he explained difficult words and expressions
in a simple way (cf. Pálfi & Bergenholtz 2007). Another example is the British
economist Malachy Postlethwayt (1774) who, according to his own words, had a rich
communication with his users, and on this basis incorporated a lot of surprising
data in the later editions of his Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce; this
represented a lexicographical innovation from which we can learn even today (cf.
Tarp 2013a). It is always an advantage to combine a creative mind with a profound

Authenticated
Utility tools and user needs | 47
knowledge of the real user, and many good dictionaries, mainly monofunctional
ones, may still be produced in this way. However, the personal knowledge of the
user is clearly not sufficient, and as a method appears a shade artisanal when the
challenge is to solve the general and complex problems in the present transition to
the electronic medium.
A third way to provide information about users’ needs is represented by the
various forms of user research, from the simple and easily handled – but strongly
criticised – questionnaires to more complex and time-consuming methods such as
interviews, protocols, tests, and observation of the consulting process, e.g. through
eye tracking or the study of log files in online dictionaries. The relative usefulness of
these methods is illustrated in a book authored by the German-Brazilian scholar
Herbert Andreas Welker (2006), who provides the hitherto sole systematic overview
of user studies published in European languages. These studies have employed
various methods to provide data concerning user needs, the consultation process
and the results of this process. Welker’s book shows that most – but not all – studies
suffer from a very limited number of informants, in many cases less than twenty. If
one accepts the principles of modern statistics, these studies are only representative
for the informant group itself and cannot be considered so for a broader group of
users; as a consequence, they are of little value when planning a specific dictionary.
With this in view, Tarp (2009b: 293) concludes that most lexicographical user sur-
veys represent “a waste of time and money”. Similarly, Bergenholtz & Bergenholtz
(2011: 190) maintain that the majority of these studies have been carried out “in the
most unscientific way imaginable, as they were conducted without any knowledge
and without use of the methods of the social sciences”. It is interesting that Rundell
(2012a: 50), in an attempt to provide arguments against the supporters of the func-
tion theory, explicitly disagrees with these statements, and writes that “this does
not chime with my experience”. In doing so, he uses a few well-performed studies to
justify the bulk of surveys, although he admits that “there are inevitably some un-
evenness in quality”. Thus, Rundell does not only deny the existence and relevance
of lexicographical theory but also tacitly disregards the principles of modern statis-
tics and social sciences. In this respect, it goes without saying that the function
theory does not deny the value of user research conducted according to scientific
standards, especially the research performed with qualitative methods. However, in
most cases it considers this type of research to be too complex, too time-consuming
and too costly to constitute a relevant method for providing the necessary knowl-
edge of the intended users and their needs in terms of each and every new diction-
ary. The general information about user needs provided by a few serious studies,
designed according to genuine scientific principles, is clearly not sufficient to guar-
antee that a particular dictionary turns out to be of a high quality as regards meeting
the concrete needs of the foreseen user group.

Authenticated
5.2 Concept of user needs
From what we have seen above it is evident that lexicography needs an efficient
methodology which, in a relatively easy, quick and cheap way, can be applied to
develop specific concepts for specific dictionaries without compromising their qual-
ity. Such a methodology is provided by the function theory. It is based upon the
encirclement and subsequent analysis of lexicographically relevant user needs, i.e.
the dissection of these needs into their smallest meaningful parts.
The first step in determining the concept of lexicographically relevant user
needs involves delimiting and separating them from other types of human need. The
fact is that human beings may experience countless needs, of which only a few can
be met by lexicographical works. The very nature of these creations reduces the
types of need they are able to satisfy to those of information. Besides, lexicographi-
cal works are designed to be consulted in one way or another. If one applies the
terminology used by Hausmann (1977) and distinguishes between global and punc-
tual user needs, then it is evident that lexicographical works are primarily conceived
to meet the users’ punctual information needs in a linear perspective, where the
binomial “global-punctual” should not be understood as a relation between “big
and small”, but between “the whole and the part”. In this way, even a dictionary
with fairly long articles, such as The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, provides
punctual and concentrated vanguard information about a part of economics con-
ceived as a whole.
It goes without saying that lexicographical works are not the only tools de-
signed to give punctual information on various subjects, as the same holds true for
manuals, telephone guides, train and flight timetables etc. In this respect, it is inter-
esting that Rodríguez (2013) shows how the methodology developed by the function
theory may also be applied to describe and design other categories of utility tools,
such as user guides and manuals of economics, which are not traditionally regarded
as lexicographical works. This fact once more documents lexicography’s close affin-
ity with information science, as discussed in section 3.4. However, it should not be
ignored that information needs are not the only lexicographically relevant needs.
They are the ones which initially lead to a lexicographical consultation, but this
consultation itself may give rise to a new type of need different from the former and
related to the correct handling and use of the lexicographical tool, with the specific
purpose of retrieving the information required to satisfy the original needs.
Once the concept of lexicographically relevant user needs in the broadest sense
of the word has been clarified, the function theory proceeds to a more detailed de-
scription of these needs. Two fundamental factors interact in the formation of these
needs which should never be considered abstract needs, that is, needs as such,
because they always appear in a very concrete and specific form (although lexicog-
raphers, as a rule, have to take their point of departure in types of need; cf. section
6.2 for a discussion of the complex relation between concrete, individual needs and

Authenticated
Concept of user needs | 49
types of needs). The first of these factors is the characteristics of the concrete person
experiencing the information needs, and the second is the social situation or context
where these needs occur.
As regards the first factor, it is evident that the precise content of the user’s
needs depends on the specific characteristics of each and every person. In order to
study these characteristics the function theory resorts to the relevance criterion
originally developed in the framework of information science, cf. Saracevic (1996),
Cosijn & Ingwersen (2000), Borlund (2003), Cosijn & Bothma (2005), and Bothma &
Tarp (2012). Any human being has countless personal characteristics of which only a
small minority are lexicographically relevant; for instance, from a lexicographical
perspective whether a person is red-haired, left-handed, beautiful, physically strong
or choleric, etc., is totally irrelevant. In the final analysis, it is the dual nature of
dictionaries as both information tools and consultation tools which determines the
user needs that may be relevant from a lexicographical point of view. Therefore, it is
necessary to distinguish between the user’s characteristics relevant to the informa-
tion needs originally giving rise to a lexicographical consultation, and those perti-
nent to the consultation itself. For instance, a Danish and a Namibian school child
with the same level of proficiency in English as a foreign language (one specific type
of user characteristics) may need the same kind of information when they have text-
production problems in English. But the lack of correlation in social and economic
development – and the corresponding unfortunate reality that the former is more
likely to be constantly online with a particular device, while the latter will very often
not even have access to electricity – determines the type of vehicle for a lexico-
graphical solution. This vehicle may, in the first case, be the Internet while in the
second case it will no doubt be a printed book with letters which are not too tiny. As
a consequence of these reflections, a list of lexicographically relevant user charac-
teristics may be drawn up based on the following questions:
– Function-relevant user characteristics:
Which language is the user’s mother tongue or first language?

What is the user’s proficiency level in the mother tongue?
With which method is the user learning the mother tongue or first language?
What is the user’s proficiency level in a second, third, etc., language?
With which method is the user learning a second, third, etc., language?
What is the user’s general cultural and encyclopaedic level?
What is the user’s experience in translation between a specific set of languages?
What is the user’s knowledge of a specific discipline (layman, semi-expert or
expert)?
What is the user’s comparative knowledge of a specific culture-bound discipline
as expressed in two specific language areas?
What is the user’s proficiency level in a specific specialised language?

Authenticated
What is the user’s experience in translation between a specific set of specialised

languages?
Etc., etc…
– Consultation-relevant user characteristics:
What is the user’s experience of lexicographical consultations?

Is the user blind, deaf, or suffers from any other handicap which may limit the
use of specific types of lexicographical tools?
Does the user have electricity and electric light?
Does the user possess a device with access to the Internet?
Does the user know to distinguish between right and left?
Etc., etc…
The answers to the questions listed above may help to create a detailed user profile.
A crucial question is, nevertheless, how to obtain the answers. Basically, there are at
least three different ways to proceed, one of which is very time-consuming and
complex:
– One way is to approach an amorphous group of potential users and let them
answer the questions by means of questionnaires, interviews, etc. As this
method implies problems in terms of statistical representativeness and reliabil-
ity, as well as the time and money needed to conduct this kind of user research,
it should generally not be recommended when doing preparatory work for a
specific dictionary.
– Another and more efficient method is to take a reasonably well-defined group of
potential users, e.g. school children of a specific grade, university students of a
specific discipline, a specific group of specialists or professionals, etc., and then
consult someone with an intimate knowledge of this group, for instance, a
school teacher, a university professor, a professional translator, etc.
– Finally, a very efficient method is that in which the lexicographers define the
predicted user group and its characteristics on the basis of their general knowl-
edge of the subject and the list of questions given above; in other words, they
themselves simply decide to which specific user group they will dedicate the
planned dictionary. The resulting user profile could, for instance, be a group
composed of semi-experts and experts in microbiology, with Spanish as their
first language and a low proficiency level in both general and specialised
(microbiological) English, with access to Internet and experience in the use of
dictionaries.
This last method, which, so to speak, represents the opposite of normal commercial
market analysis, has frequently been applied by supporters of the function theory
when preparing concepts for specialised online dictionaries, and has generally

Authenticated
yielded good results. When, therefore, a user profile is being designed for a specific
specialised dictionary, it may be considered recommendable to use one of the two
last methods, or a combination of them; for instance, the first version of the concept
is prepared according to the third method, and then it is refined by means of the
second. In comparison with the first of the three methods mentioned, the latter two
are relatively quicker, easier and cheaper to apply, whilst being efficient as a solid
basis for ensuring correspondence between the foreseen and real needs of the in-
tended user group. This, or course, does not exclude feedback from a selected group
of actual users of the alpha or beta version, i.e. before an online dictionary is made
available to the public in general or even afterwards, but it should not be forgotten
that conceptual changes at this stage may imply time-consuming and costly repro-
gramming of the dictionary.
The above list of questions aimed at defining the characteristics of the foreseen
user group of a specific dictionary is, obviously, an open list to which more lexico-
graphically relevant questions may be added in each specific case. At the same time
it is evident that not all the questions are relevant for all dictionaries. What deter-
mines the specific relevance of each question is the social situation in which the user
needs originally occur. This means that it is not enough to do user research in order
to produce a profile of someone with specific lexicographically relevant characteris-
tics for a specific dictionary. It is also imperative to take into account the foreseen
type of user situation in order to determine which characteristics are relevant to the
profile required in each case. This situation represents the second of the two factors
determining the specific content of the lexicographically pertinent needs in each
case.
When one observes and generalises social practice, that is, the immense empiri-
cal material continuously made available, or one’s own personal experience (intro-
spection), at the highest level of abstraction, three main types of situation can be
observed in which a person may experience precise information needs:
– When a person needs information either to store in the memory as knowledge or
as background knowledge in order to solve a specific task, for instance, the cur-
riculum of a specific person when writing about him or her in an article.
– When a person needs information in order to understand or interpret a specific
phenomenon, sign, symbol, text, etc.
– When a person needs information in order to perform an action of a physical,
mental or linguistic nature.
These three main types of lexicographically relevant situation may be called cogni-
tive, interpretive and operative situations. However, as a large number of dictionar-
ies have traditionally been conceived and consulted with a view to solving problems
of text communication, the function theory has, for convenience reasons, operated
from the very outset with a fourth fundamental situation. This is represented by
everything that concerns the production, reception, translation, and revision of oral

Authenticated
or written texts, and which has been separated and merged into a joint overall cate-
gory, the communicative situation. For this reason, the theory distinguishes be-
tween four fundamental and lexicographically relevant situations where concrete
information requirements may occur:
– Communicative situations
– Cognitive situations
– Operative situations
– Interpretive situations
These fundamental user situations can be further divided into a number of sub-
situations, as already indicated for the communicative situation (text production,
reception, translation, etc.). In this respect, it should be stressed that the term
knowledge in relation to a cognitive situation (cognition) is not used in its vulgar,
daily meaning where it also very often includes skills. In the terminology applied by
the function theory it is compared to and enters into a dialectical relation with skills,
which are the user qualities required in the communicative, operative and interpre-
tive situations mentioned. For instance, all normal people have mother tongue skills
allowing them to communicate with other speakers of the same language, but it is
only relatively few of them who, through their studies, have acquired a learned
knowledge of this language. One may have skills without having any knowledge of
a specific subject, in the same way that one may have knowledge without having
any skills, as already shown more than 250 years ago by the German poet and phi-
losopher Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, in the dialogue between the young, well-read
Damis and his more prosaic servant Anton, cf. Lessing (1747: 8-9). A top profes-
sional journalist reporting on the famous Tour de France may, for instance, possess
a profound knowledge of cycling, its history, great achievements, business model,
social status, etc., without being able himself to climb Alpe d’Huez or any of the
other legendary mountains on the route. In most situations a person will be better
equipped when possessing both skills and knowledge, but this does not imply that
the concepts should be confused. Through practice, knowledge can be transformed
into skills, while a systematic observation and study of the latter can lead to knowl-
edge. The information acquired through consultation of dictionaries can be stored as
knowledge but it cannot be directly transformed into skills. This information can
assist users in performing specific mental, physical and linguistic tasks related to
interpretive, operative or communicative situations and, in this way, it may be
gradually internalised and reappear in the form of skills. Of course, many of these
tasks, e.g. specialised translation, cannot be performed without a certain amount of
background knowledge; this, however, does not mean that skills and knowledge
should be confused but rather that specialised lexicography should take cognisance
of the fact that they are interrelated and even interdependent in specific situations;
cf. Tarp (2008: 131-136) for a more detailed discussion of the concepts of information,

Authenticated
knowledge and skills and the complex relation existing between them in a lexico-
graphical environment.
In each of the situations and sub-situations mentioned above specific types of
punctual information need may occur. However, it is not the situation alone which
determines the needs relevant to a specific dictionary. The analysis of the types of
need occurring in each type of user situation may help to draw up of a list of needs,
some of which may be relevant and others irrelevant, for a specific type of user with
specific characteristics. In addition, it is also these characteristics that determine the
specific content and shaping of each data category to be incorporated into a specific
dictionary, as well as its overall design in terms of access possibilities etc.
So, how are the needs determined once the type of user and the type of situation
have been defined? In this respect, there are at least three different ways to proceed:
– By means of questionnaires, interviews or similar methods: A number of users of
the specific type in question can be asked about their needs in their specific
type of situation.
– By means of observation: A number of users belonging to the specific type can
be observed in order to detect the problems and needs they may experience in
the specific type of situation in question.
– By means of deduction: Lexicographers in collaboration with the subject-field
experts can, based upon their experience and profound knowledge of the sub-
ject matter, deduce the relevant types of need which may occur for the specific
type of user in the specific type of situation.
None of these methods are perfect:

The questionnaires are reasonably easy to handle, also in terms of the needed
amount in order to meet the requirements of modern statistics. However, they may
at the same time be vitiated by the usual errors referred to by social science and
certain lexicographers, e.g. Hatherall (1984) and Welker (2006). Besides, the follow-
ing points should not be ignored regarding the users: 1) although fully aware that
they experience a need, they may be unaware of its specific nature, or 2) they may
not even be aware that they have any relevant needs, cf. Tarp (2009b). Well-
prepared interviews may remedy some of these deficiencies. In this respect, a dis-
tinction should be made between interviews with predetermined questions, and the
type of interview which Welker (2006: 26) calls “open interviews” and Zikmund
(1997: 122) “in-depth interviews”; the latter author characterises these as “relatively
unstructured, extensive interviews”, where the respondents may speak their mind
and where the interviewers do not base themselves on predetermined questions.
The first kind of interview represents quantitative research and in social science is
frequently regarded as a special form of questionnaire suffering from many of the
same problems as questionnaires (cf. Hansen & Andersen 2000: 98). The second
kind represents qualitative research, and may as such furnish interesting hints and

Authenticated
indications of what potential users may need; however, should it be employed to

offer statistically significant information on the relevant types of need to be covered
by a specific dictionary, then it is a very time-consuming and costly method to be
used in the preparation of such a dictionary.
Observation may be an efficient method, at least in connection with certain
types of user situation (communicative, operative, and interpretive, though proba-
bly not cognitive ones). If it is followed by an interview which takes an in-depth look
at the action patterns observed, then it may certainly bring forth relevant informa-
tion. If, on the other hand, it is expected to be statistically significant and provide a
reliable basis for a concrete dictionary, then it must be regarded, once again, as a
highly time-consuming and costly method.
Consequently, although they may generate some interesting information, nei-
ther the first nor the second method can be recommended when preparing the con-
cept for a concrete dictionary. This is the reason why supporters of the function
theory generally use the third method mentioned, i.e. deduction. When this is em-
ployed by lexicographers in collaboration with subject-field experts, it may result in
a relatively easier, quicker and cheaper way to detect most types of relevant need;
hence, it can generally be recommended, especially in the preparation of special-
ised dictionaries. Deduction should not be confused with introspection, which is a
completely different method. If, for instance, a person teaching specialised transla-
tion has, over the years, marked thousands of translated LSP texts and read stu-
dents’ protocols relating to this activity, and if the same person has then discussed
the corresponding problems, including those related to the use of reference works,
with the students, then that teacher will surely possess a deep knowledge of the
problems and needs of this particular group of potential users in terms of LSP trans-
lation. As a result, if this person works in collaboration with an expert trained in
lexicographical theory and practice, then it will be perfectly possible for the two of
them to typologise these needs and determine which of them are lexicographically
relevant, i.e. which of them may be solved by consulting a specialised dictionary
with the corresponding function. The thousands of marked LSP translations, proto-
cols and subsequent discussions with students will in most cases constitute much
better background material than the result of a few dozen observations or the dubi-
ous data provided by hundreds of questionnaires. This type of deduction is based
upon real knowledge rather than introspection. However, it should not be forgotten
that there will almost always exist some non-detected types of need, especially
those which rarely appear among the predicted users. In this regard, deduction is
not a one-hundred-per-cent-perfect method, but the possible lacunae or gaps may
largely be filled by the various techniques developed to meet the individual needs
foreseen in advanced online dictionaries (cf. chapter 6).
In this connection, it is important to stress that it is not a user situation in gen-
eral, but rather the specific situation that gives rise to a specific number of relevant
types of need. For instance, there may not be the same types of text-production need

Authenticated
in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and African languages just as it is not the
same types of cognitive need which exist in relation to the study of biology, chemis-
try, history, etc. In order to determine the needs based upon a specific combination
of user type and situation, it is therefore necessary that the person (the lexicogra-
pher or a collaborator), who is in charge of this task, has a profound knowledge of
the subject matter whether this is a specific language or a specific scientific disci-
pline.
The same kind of expert knowledge is required when the user situation(s) to be
covered by a planned dictionary has to be defined. Here there are basically two ways
to proceed: the lexicographers or their collaborators can either decide themselves
which user situation(s) they want to cover (according to their general knowledge of
the subject), or else they can do some research in order to find out which situations
may be relevant to a specific user group. For instance, students of a university disci-
pline may very often require assistance not only with cognitive needs directly re-
lated to their study, but also in foreign-language text reception, as many textbooks
are written in a language different from their mother tongue.
In this respect it is worth remembering that many specialised dictionaries,
whether printed or online, are conceived to cover various user situations and, at the
same time, to satisfy the various types of need which a heterogeneous group of us-
ers with different types of characteristics may have in these situations. This is a
major reason why many printed dictionaries suffer from various degrees of informa-
tion overload, a problem also repeated in many online dictionaries, especially those
categorised in section 2.3 as Copy Cats and Faster Horses. The problem, however,
can easily be avoided in online dictionaries if the underlying system is interactive
and designed to calculate the exact amount and types of data to be presented to
each type of user in each type of situation; but the precondition for this to function
is that the necessary preparatory work has been carried out and that each data cate-
gory has been attached to at least one specific combination of a user type and a
situation type (Model T Ford) or, even better, to a specific type of user need (Rolls
Royce).
In chapter 9, we will provide some concrete examples of how the function the-
ory and its methodology are used to conceive and plan a concrete lexicographical
project based upon user’s situations, characteristics and user needs. In this respect,
it is essential that these categories are treated with the necessary scientific rigor,
and not simply mentioned for the sake of appearance, as it frequently happens.
In his arguments against lexicographical theory in general – and the function
theory in particular – Rundell (2012: 59f) argues that there is nothing new in refer-
ring to user characteristics and situations as text reception and production; to sup-
port this view he lists various authors who have touched this question, even back in
the 17th Century. This is correct, Tarp (2008, 2013b) also mentions various scholars
who have spoken about the two types of phenomenon:

Authenticated
Acknowledgement of this close causal connection between registered social needs and the
production of dictionaries as cultural products, an acknowledgement which is the very basis
for developing an independent scientific theory of lexicography, didn’t arise from one day to
another but was the product of a century-long process that culminated, so far, in the last dec-
ades of the twentieth century and expressed itself in the growing focus on lexicographic func-
tions in the theoretical discussion. Scerba (1940) is usually considered as the father or initiator
of this lexicographic approach, but as Hausmann (1989) shows in his “Small World History of
Metalexicography”, Scerba was only the culmination of a process that started several hundred
years earlier within the European lexicographic tradition. (Tarp 2013b: 93)
It is in no way surprising that this happens as the basic categories of the function
theory are easily deducible from existing lexicographical practice. However, the
challenge is not to make general statements about user’s characteristics and situa-
tions but to accept the corresponding consequences, that is, to use this knowledge
to develop a theory capable of orientating and continuously renovating practice at a
still higher level. It is no secret that there is a rich prehistory from which a lot can be
learned but until a few decades ago nobody has taken the full consequences and
used the knowledge about users and user situations as a basis to formulate a trans-
formative theory of lexicography, a theory whose practical products represent “new
relations to the users” (Humbley 2002: 95). Lip service to evident facts cannot sub-
stitute genuine scientific work.
An example of this is an article by Faber, León Araúz & Pérez Hernández (2010),
in which the authors first discuss, with reference also to the function theory, user
situations, characteristics and needs, and then go on to analyse 15 definitions of the
winemaking term fining provided in various types of specialised lexicographical
works. However, in their analysis they seem to forget the specific needs of the users
of the respective lexicographical works, as they take as their real starting-point a
complex linguistic-terminological concept of definition, a method which leads them
to the conclusion that “none of these definitions is adequate for user needs” (p. 115),
despite several of them, in fact, appearing to be excellent for specific types of users
in specific types of situations. The Spanish authors’ methodological problem seems
to be that they have as their basis a definition concept taken from outside the lexi-
cographical world, without adapting it to the specific requirements of this particular
world; such an adaption could actually have been made quite easily.
Another example is an article by the Catalan scholar María Teresa Cabré, where
she compares and discusses various theories of terminology, putting forward a
number of basic “assumptions” for a “new theory” of terminology. In the second of
these assumptions she writes the following about the relation between, on the one
hand, “terminological applications” and, on the other, user types and situations:
Terminology is a set of applications in as far as it allows the development of products specifi-

cally intended to satisfy needs. The most important characteristic of such products is their ap-
propriateness. A terminological application must be oriented towards the solution of specific
needs and therefore it must take into account its recipients and the activities they plan to carry

Authenticated
Data and information | 57
out by means of such a specific application. This leads us to think that, despite of what is usu-
ally said about standardised terminological glossaries, it is the circumstances of each situation
which determine the type of application (glossary, lexicon, dictionary, software, text, poster,
standard, etc. in one or several languages), the information they must contain (terminology,
phraseology, definitions, variants, contexts, phonetic or phonological representation, foreign
language equivalents, illustrations, etc.), their representation and even their means of dis-
semination. (Cabré 2003: 182f)
At first glance this may seem to be similar to the method used by the function theory
and which is described above. However, if we take a closer look it appears to be the
reverse of this method, as the real point of departure in this case is terminology (i.e.
something already prepared), which can subsequently be “applied” in accordance
with the type of user and situation. The function theory operates differently, its
starting-point being in user situations, characteristics and needs, and then initiating
the lexicographical process in terms of specific dictionary design and compilation. It
frequently uses the material produced by terminology or linguistics in general, but
only after subjecting it to a critical analysis and adapting it to the requirements of
lexicography. This reverse method recommended by Cabré and others may be one of
the reasons why several projects carried out according to the principles of terminol-
ogy drag on for years and frequently use several times more human and financial
resources per data category than projects guided by the function theory (cf. chapter
8).
To summarise, in view of the function theory a complex dialectic relation exists
between the type of user (characteristics), social situation and specific needs to be
covered by a specific dictionary:
– Any type of user has a number of lexicographically relevant characteristics.
– The type of user situation to be covered by a specific dictionary determines
which of the user characteristics are relevant when drawing a specific user pro-
file, i.e. a profile of the foreseen type of user.
– The type of user situation also gives rise to a number of possible types of user
need relevant to this situation.
– The specific user profile determines which of the possible types of user need are
relevant when conceiving a concrete dictionary.
– The types of user need determine the data categories to be included into a spe-
cific dictionary.
– The user profile determines the specific form given to these data categories.
5.3 Data and information
In the previous chapters the terms data and information have been used with a very
specific meaning which we will briefly explain here in order to avoid any confusion.
In the theoretical literature on lexicography (and other cognate disciplines), one of

Authenticated
the many terminological inconsistencies that may lead to conceptual confusion and
misunderstanding among those reading it are the various meanings attached to
these two terms. In this respect, the function theory follows a well-defined terminol-
ogy based upon the critical reflections by Wiegand (2000, 2002). In this terminol-
ogy, the term data has two different meanings: it is used to denote both the raw
material (raw data) which the lexicographers extract from various data sources such
as corpora and the Internet, and the adapted, elaborated and prepared items which
they finally incorporate in their dictionaries. Information, on the other hand, is what
the users of the lexicographical products retrieve from these prepared data with a
view to using it to their specific purpose, whether it is of a communicative, cogni-
tive, operative, or interpretive nature.
This terminology is different from the one generally applied within information
science where the term information is also employed to denote the material included
in information tools (among them dictionaries). Although the function theory has a
close affinity with information science, there are two main reasons why it does not
follow its terminology in this regard. The first is that the cognitive retrieval of infor-
mation from data represents a highly complex mental process, the success of which
requires that the data incorporated in dictionaries are adapted to the mental and
cognitive characteristics of the user; in order to stress the difference between the
input and output of this complex mental process, it makes sense to formulate a
terminological distinction between the data incorporated in dictionaries and the
information subsequently retrieved from such data by users. The second reason is
that the exact meaning of information is still disputed within information science
and frequently seems to embrace much more than the material included in informa-
tion tools such as dictionaries (see, for instance, Buckland 1991, 1997, 2012, and
Hjørland 1998). This also signifies that the use of the term information retrieval in
the function theory is restricted to the mental process described, whereas it has a
broader meaning in information science where, apart from the cognitive process, it
also denotes what is normally called data selection within lexicography.
In function-based lexicography, data selection presupposes the previous deter-
mination of the corresponding data categories. Once a foreseen user group’s punc-
tual information needs in terms of the situations to be covered by a planned diction-
ary, have been clarified, then the next task in the conception of a dictionary – i.e.
before its compilation in the strict sense of the word – is to decide which data cate-
gories to include in order to satisfying the detected needs, that is to say, not the con-
crete data which demands other methods, but the types of data. The crucial ques-
tion is now how this should be done and by whom. Basically, in order to perform this
task both specialised lexicographical and subject-field knowledge are required.
Hence, although one and the same person may occasionally unite the various types
of knowledge needed in relation to a specific dictionary, in most cases this task
requires an interdisciplinary collaboration between an expert in lexicography and at

Authenticated
least one subject-field expert (in some multi-field dictionaries various types of non-
lexicographical expert knowledge may be needed).
The function theory, by means of the methodology described, is most useful
above all when it comes to designing dictionary concepts and determining the spe-
cific data categories to be included in a specific dictionary project. However, it goes
beyond abstract categorisation, being likewise concerned with giving content to
these categories and providing methods and specific guidance to select the required
data and prepare this for the users of specific dictionaries. It is, therefore, somewhat
surprising that Rundell (2012: 60f), in a polemic article against this theory, claims
that it says nothing about the origin of the selected lexicographical data, while De
Schryver (2012: 496), in another article, even postulates that the data furnished by
the supporters of the theory are “quite literally invented”.
These postulates are, we consider, in flagrant contradiction to the facts, and it is
indeed difficult to understand why such “arguments” are put forward by both lexi-
cographers. It can hardly be due to ignorance, as the question has been dealt with in
many readily-available articles and books, beginning with Bergenholtz and Tarp’s
Manual of Specialised Lexicography; similarly, the methodology developed has been
applied in a large number of general and specialised dictionaries designed with the
guidance of this theory. Among the many contributions dealing with the selection of
lemmata, equivalents, collocations and other types of data in specialised dictionar-
ies, can also be mentioned those of Bergenholtz (1994), Bergenholtz, Tarp & Kauf-
mann (1994), Bergenholtz & Tarp (1994b) and, more recently, Nielsen & Almind
(2011) and Fuertes-Olivera et al. (2013). In chapter 9, we will provide some concrete
examples of how the lexicographical data has been selected and prepared in spe-
cialised dictionaries designed according to the principles of the function theory.
In relation to this, a false and artificial opposition has been created in terms of
the various attitudes to corpora. Supporters of the function theory have been criti-
cized for not seeing the benefits of the electronic text corpora which have become
available and fashionable during the last decades. The criticism which, for instance,
has been raised by Kilgarriff (2012) and Rundell (2012) is, we believe, absurd. Advo-
cates of this theory do not deny the value of corpora, defending, in addition, their
relevance in the compilation of dictionaries; see, for example, Bergenholtz &
Schaeder (1979), Bergenholtz & Mugdan (1989) and Bergenholtz & Pedersen (1994),
where the composition of a text corpus for a specialised dictionary is undertaken,
mainly with a view to extracting collocations. Nevertheless, it is true that the theory
relativizes the usefulness of these corpora and does not engage in the chorus of
blind and passionate love songs devoted to the “corpus revolution” (Hanks 2012). In
some linguistic circles this “revolution” seems to have become a sort of miracle cure
which may allegedly solve most lexicographical problems and free lexicographers
from their individual responsibility towards the end users and their needs. The fact
is that the use of corpora is absolutely necessary – or at least highly recommendable
– in relation to specific data categories and dictionary types, whereas it is of little or

Authenticated
no use at all in the preparation of other data categories and dictionary types, cf.
Fuertes-Olivera (2012).
The position taken by the function theory on this question is probably due to the
fact that the latter has its epistemological roots in the world of specialised dictionar-
ies, where it is evident that text corpora have but a relatively limited value when
data for a specific dictionary are being selected. Complex multi-word terms, for
instance, cannot be detected by a concordance program or, at least hitherto, by the
many prototypical tools for automatic term generation. In such cases it is necessary
to employ other methods which can subsequently be complemented by corpus
work, for instance, in the selection of relevant collocations once the terms have been
established. In addition to this, supporters of the theory also visualize how selected
corpora – and the Internet – can be integrated into advanced online dictionaries
(Rolls Royces) and data from these sources can be taken in automatically in order to
optimize the satisfying of user needs (see for instance Heid, Prinsloo & Bothma 2012
and Tarp 2012b).
In this respect, the function theory also takes into account the time factor, that
is, the time needed to compose a useful corpus when other easier ways to provide
material for specialised dictionaries are within reach. It is difficult to agree with
Rundell (2012), when he defines what he considers to be “the core task for lexicog-
raphers”:
Function theory, it transpires, has little to say about what many of us see as the core task for
lexicographers: analysing the evidence of language in use in order to identify what is likely to
be relevant to dictionary users. (Rundell 2012: 60)
According to the function theory, the core task of lexicography is the conception
and production of high-quality dictionaries, i.e. utility tools which can be quickly
and easily consulted with a view to meeting specific types of punctual information
needs, occurring for specific types of users in specific types of social situations. It
may be that “analysing the evidence of language” is necessary when preparing
quite a number of specific data categories and dictionaries, but it can never be the
core task for lexicography as such because there are a big number of other data
categories and dictionaries which do not presuppose any analysis of the evidence of
language. This idea was already expressed in one of the earliest specialised diction-
aries published in Britain, John Harris’ Lexicon Technicum with the eloquent subtitle
“an Universal English Dictionary of Arts and Sciences: Explaining Not Only the Terms
of Art, but the Arts Themselves”:
That which I have aimed at, is to make it a Dictionary, not only of bare Words but Things; and
that the Reader may not only find here an Explication of the Technical Words, or the Terms of
Art made use of in all the Liberal Sciences, and such as border nearly upon them, but also
those Arts themselves; and especially such, and such Parts of them as are most useful and ad-
vantageous to Mankind. (Harris 1704: Preface)

Authenticated
As a rule, the preparation and writing of definitions – or explications, as Harris calls

them – for specialised dictionaries with cognitive functions require other types of
analysis rather than the one mentioned above by Rundell, especially if the defini-
tions should be understandable to the specific target user without being too boring
and resembling “pickled frogs, outstretched upon a dissection board” (Van Loren
1962: 25). Although not extracted from any corpus, such definitions are in no way
“literally invented”, but the result of a profound study and expert knowledge of the
subject matter in question. Definitions may be found scattered throughout text cor-
pora although they are always contextual, in other words, they may serve their pur-
pose in a specific context, but in most cases they are more harmful than useful if
they are incorporated uncritically as the only definitions in specialised dictionaries.
(This does not exclude their use as a supplementary one to the main definition pro-
vided, cf. section 6.4). Many dictionaries compiled according to the principles of
corpus-based definition “finding” are living proof of this (cf. chapter 8).
A comment made by Adam Kilgarriff (2012) in his review of a book about e-
lexicography, edited by Fuertes-Olivera & Bergenholtz (2011), also illustrates the
somewhat exaggerated belief in the usefulness of data found in corpora, among
them the Internet. Here, in his discussion of the contribution by Nielsen & Almind
(2011), he criticises a definition of the accountancy term deemed cost used by the
latter and taken from the Accounting Dictionaries. As his argument he opposes it
with another definition which he has googled on the Internet (the second hit) and
then comments:
Accurate, extensive encyclopedic entries are very often already available, and very easily ac-
cessible via google, as here. A case has to be made for what value lexicographers are adding.
(Kilgarriff 2012: 27)
Kilgarriff’s problem, as we see it, seems to be that he is a non-expert in accountancy

and, therefore, not in a position to see that the definition found on the Internet
might be correct in a specific context or for a specific purpose, but not as a definition
of the term treated in the Accounting Dictionaries and here defined according to
existing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and for the benefit of
the specific target user in question. In addition, such terms may from time to time be
redefined by the corresponding terminological language bodies (cf. section 5.6); for
instance when changes are introduced in the relevant legislation. The definition
googled by Kilgarriff is far too broad and covers much more than the IFRS standards
relevant to the Accounting Dictionaries. In this respect, Kilgarriff is caught in the trap
of “private property belonging to no one” (Harris & Hutton 2007: 212), i.e. “writing
definitions for everybody and nobody” without targeting “specific user types” (Niel-
sen 2013: 57). Subject-field knowledge combined with that of the target users’ needs
cannot and should not be replaced by blind faith in data extracted from the Internet
or any other corpus.

Authenticated
5.4 Lexicographical functions
After the discussion in the previous sections it is now opportune to define the con-
cept of lexicographical function from which the function theory is named. Such a
definition should necessarily take its point of departure in the fact that a dictionary
is a tool, and it should provide answers to the following questions: 1) What can a
dictionary be used for? 2) Who can benefit from using it? 3) When can it provide
assistance? This leads us to the following definition: A lexicographical function is the
satisfaction of the specific types of punctual information need that may arise in a spe-
cific type of potential user in a specific type of extra-lexicographical situation. This
definition answers the above-mentioned questions:
– What can a dictionary be used for: to satisfy punctual information needs. In this
way, the definition excludes both global information needs and other types of
need such as reading glasses, printer cartridges for printing purposes, antivirus
programs to ensure that the computer works etc., i.e. needs which must be cov-
ered in other ways. In addition, the formulation underlines that the relevant
needs are not compulsory; they are possible needs that may arise in the poten-
tial user.
– Who can benefit from using a dictionary: a specific type of potential user, i.e.
users with specific characteristics. In this way, the definition underlines that
punctual information needs are not abstract but associated with certain types of
potential user. It also explains that dictionaries are not only viewed in relation
to actual users, but in relation to potential users. In addition, it clarifies that
these potential users have to be divided into types, because not everyone has
the same types of need in the same types of situation.
– When can a dictionary provide assistance: when punctual information needs
occur in a specific type of extra-lexicographical situation. In this respect, the
definition explains that lexicographically relevant needs are not only associated
with a specific type of user, but that these users always find themselves in a
specific type of situation when they experience needs of the relevant type.
Functions are the heart and soul of lexicography. In the view of the function theory
they determine – or ought to determine – everything that has to do with its practical
products: the content and form, the data and their selection, preparation and acces-
sibility. No decision about any aspect of specialised dictionaries should ever be
taken without their respective function(s) being considered. They should, therefore,
always be carefully defined and included as foundation stones in any lexicographi-
cal concept. In this regard, the above definition, together with the reflections in
section 5.2, allows for a very precise determination of the function(s) to be covered
by a specific specialised dictionary. A few examples of how this can be achieved are
given here:

Authenticated
Lexicographical functions | 63
– The function of the dictionary is to satisfy the communicative needs that may
occur for students of specialised translation, with Danish as their mother
tongue, a high proficiency level in general Spanish, a low proficiency level in
the relevant specialised language and hardly any specialised knowledge of the
subject, when translating texts about wind energy from Danish to Spanish.
– The function of the dictionary is to satisfy the punctual information needs that
may occur for German students of economics with a medium proficiency level in
general and specialised English, when they experiencing reception problem
reading English texts about the discipline in question.
may occur for German students of economics during their studies of this disci-
pline.
may occur for English-speaking experts of economics when doing advanced re-
search related to this discipline.
Although they also depend on user characteristics, lexicographical functions are

traditionally typologised and named in accordance with the basic user situation.
The first two functions described above are, therefore, termed communicative, and
the latter two cognitive. As already mentioned, one and the same dictionary may
have either one or various functions. Many printed specialised dictionaries are
multi-functional, especially when communicative functions are involved. There may
be several reasons for this. The most relevant is probably of an economic nature,
namely, that the publishing houses more often than not prefer to produce multi-
functional dictionaries rather than to print a series of mono-functional dictionaries
which may seldom be profitable, as the group of potential users of these publica-
tions is, in the majority of cases, relatively small. It is difficult to change this situa-
tion in the printed environment, but it should not be forgotten that this multi-
functionality may lead to information overload – the famous concept originally
popularised by Toffler (1970) – and create various unnecessary difficulties for users
in terms of data access and information retrieval.
Unfortunately, information overload is not restricted to printed information
tools but has also been reproduced in the electronic environment. In recent years,
under the aegis of the so-called information society, it has developed into an inter-
national plaque, especially when browsing and searching for information on the
Internet, where the user is increasingly stressed with too many data and frequently
placed in a situation similar to the search for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
The relevance of the function theory in this context is precisely that it offers a vision
of information tools and a corresponding methodology capable of reducing the
problem, at least partially. For specialised lexicography, the main vision is to pro-
duce a new generation of online dictionaries which are either:

Authenticated
– purely mono-functional,
– multi-functional allowing for mono-functional data access,
– mono-functional allowing for individualised data access, or
– multi-functional allowing for individualised data access.
The two first types of specialised online dictionary represent the category of lexico-
graphical Model T Fords, whereas the two latter are advanced lexicographical Rolls
Royces (cf. chapter 6). The terminological discussion as to whether the second type
should be considered one multi-functional dictionary or various mono-functional
ones does not affect the basic idea which, in both cases, aims at function-based
satisfaction of user needs, cf. Bergenholtz & Bergenholtz (2011) and Tarp (2011). In
the light of the above reflections and with a view to improving user needs satisfac-
tion, the function theory has formulated some fundamental principles in order to
place specialised online – and other electronic – dictionaries on a more user-
friendly path which takes advantage of the new techniques made available by the
information and computer technologies:
– Information overload should be avoided.
– Users should be able to find the data required in each consultation as quickly as
possible.
These are the two fundamental principles which should guide the design of all dic-
tionaries conceived to be used on electronic platforms. To these principles can be
added four other basic ones:
– A distinction should be made between the dictionary and the database which
may even feed various dictionaries. Electronic dictionaries are not databases,
but consultation tools based upon databases from which they take in the data
required to meet their users’ information needs (see, for instance, Bergenholtz &
Bergenholtz 2013).
– The database should include as much data as possible, i.e. as much data as
possible relevant to the type(s) of dictionary in question.
– The specific dictionary should be able to present as much data as possible in
terms of all possible consultations, i.e. the entire body of hypothetic articles re-
sulting from these consultations.
– The individual articles, namely, the dynamic data presented on the screen in
each consultation, should include as little data as possible, i.e. exactly the types
and amount of data needed by the user in each situation (Model T Fords) or
each consultation (Rolls Royces), neither more nor less.
In chapter 6, we will look at some of the techniques required to implement the

above principles and little by little create new and more advanced – and more user-
friendly – online dictionaries and information tools in general. Here it should only
be stated that in order to make progress in this direction and choose the relevant

Authenticated
General methodology: an example | 65
techniques, an advanced theory is absolutely necessary. What the function theory

provides in this respect is first of all a theoretical framework and methodology
which makes it possible to determine the types and amount of data needed in rela-
tion to each function; consequently, this is the first step taken to avoid information
overload and put “as little data as possible” at the disposal of the user and, simulta-
neously, to ensure that this “little data” is enough to effectively meet the user’s need
in each situation. Upon this basis, and as a second step, the theory formulates
guidelines in order to select the most relevant techniques to be used in each specific
dictionary project.
It goes without saying that this is not a question of uncritically incorporating
techniques and creating eye-catching lexicographical devices with sophisticated
high-tech names, as occasionally occurs in specialised lexicographical and termino-
logical projects; cf. Fuertes-Olivera (2013a) and Tarp (2012c). Lexicography should
not be replaced by lexicotainment, the pertinent term introduced by Almind, Ber-
genholtz & Vrang (2006). The real challenge is to design user-friendly products of
increasingly higher quality in terms of the above principles. If this is to be success-
ful, it should not be computer and information technology that takes charge of the
process but rather lexicography, by means of an advanced theory capable of provid-
ing guidance and methodology. If such a theory was of great use in the printed envi-
ronment, it is almost indispensable in the online environment if progress is to be
made at the desired rate.
5.5 General methodology: an example
In chapter 9 we will show, step by step, how a specialised online dictionary could be
produced from scratch by following the methodology of the function theory. Here,
though, we will anticipate this chapter by providing an example of how functional
methodology can be applied to develop a general concept of a specific category of
dictionary. Among the most frequent reasons why users consult specialised diction-
aries are problems related to translation of specialised texts and the corresponding
need to receive qualified assistance. Thousands upon thousands of people are en-
gaged on a daily basis in specialised translation in one or another way, and almost
all of them consult dictionaries as an integrated part of the activity. It is, therefore,
surprising that the concept of a translation dictionary is among the most misunder-
stood and underdeveloped ideas within theoretical and practical lexicography; cf.
Fuertes-Olivera (2013b) and Tarp (2004a, 2007b, 2013c).
In the literature on lexicography there seems to be an ingrained habit of treating
translation dictionaries and bilingual dictionaries as more or less synonymous
terms or, at least, of considering the former as being bilingual per definition. Ma-
rello (2003: 325), for instance, defines “bilingual dictionaries only as those diction-
aries which place the two languages in contact for purposes of translation”. Similar

Authenticated
ideas and approaches can be found in most of the existing literature on lexicogra-
phy and translation. Here we will defend a much broader and complex concept of
translation dictionary determined by the various types of lexicographically relevant
need which may occur for the person engaged in translating texts from on language
to another. The methodology used is that of deduction, as described in section 5.2,
and combining knowledge of lexicography and specialised translation.
There are basically three types of specialised translators requiring assistance
from lexicography: 1) trained translators, 2) translation students, and 3) subject-
field experts performing translation. Each of these potential user types has their
specific characteristics determining the particular kinds of needs they might experi-
ence in the various phases of the translation process and, consequently, the types of
lexicographical data and access routes required to meet these needs. In this respect,
there are several characteristics to be taken into account, of which the most impor-
tant are:
– Subject-field knowledge
– Comparative subject-field knowledge (in culture-dependent disciplines)
– Translation skills and experience
– General skills in the source language
– General skills in the target language
– Terminological knowledge and skills in the source language
– Terminological knowledge and skills in the target language
– Knowledge and command of genre conventions in source language
– Knowledge and command of genre conventions in target language
Although there are no sharp dividing lines between them, all these characteristics
can be graduated in low, intermediate and high (layman, semi-expert and expert) in
accordance with the specific person engaged in specialised translation.
Trained translators may be divided into two categories: those who have special-
ised in a certain field (e.g. accounting or legal translation), and those who are gen-
eral (multi-field) translators. Both of them will, by definition, have highly developed
translation skills and performance in the respective general languages, but they will
differ considerably in terms of knowledge of the subject field, the relevant terminol-
ogy and the corresponding genre conventions (cf. Nielsen 2010). In the first case, the
translators are supposed to possess a fairly good knowledge of the terminology and
genre conventions in question, and they may also have attained a subject-field
knowledge which qualifies them as semi-experts. In the second case, the translators
may be considered subject-field laymen, with a limited knowledge of the specific
terminology and genre conventions in both languages.
Students of specialised translation will probably have medium to high general
proficiency levels in the respective languages, but apart from this they are basically
characterised by insufficient (but increasing) translation skills combined with low
knowledge of the subject field, corresponding terminology and genre conventions.

Authenticated
Subject-field experts engaged in translation cover a broad spectrum of character-

istics. They will always possess a great deal of knowledge of the terminology and
genre conventions in question, though not necessarily in both languages. In addi-
tion, some of them will have developed high-level translation skills, whereas others
will have skills similar to the translation students. As a rule, if a specific dictionary
is designed to assist both trained translators and students, it will also cover the
broad spectrum of needs occurring for the subject-field translators.
As mentioned in section 5.2, the lexicographically relevant needs are deter-
mined not only by the potential user’s characteristics but also by the specific context
in which they appear. As a result, the translation process has to be analysed in its
entirety. Not surprisingly, modern translation science has shown translation to be a
highly complex activity involving various phases and sub-phases. Lexicography, as
an independent discipline, can be inspired by the theoretical and practical achiev-
ements of translation science but it cannot uncritically copy them. It is exclusively
the phases and sub-phases where needs may occur that can be satisfied by means of
dictionary consultation, which are of relevance to lexicography. Consequently, and
although this may vary from translator to translator and from task to task, the over-
all translation process viewed from a lexicographical perspective comprises the
following relevant phases and sub-phases:
– a pre-translation phase where the translator
a. prepares the translation studying relevant background material in order to

get a general idea of the subject field in question,
b. reads the whole text in the source language;
– a translation phase (in the narrow sense of the word) where the translator
a. reads specific text segments in the source language,

b. transfers specific text segments from the source language to the target lan-
guage,
c. reproduces specific text segments in the target language;
– a post-translation phase where the translator (or another person)
a. revises the translated text.
In all these phases and sub-phases, the translators may experience various types of
need which require specific types of lexicographical data, as well as allowance for
specific types of data access, in order to be satisfied. The needs may be either cogni-
tive, when it is a question of background knowledge, or communicative when it is
“merely” a question of reading, transferring, reproducing and revising the text. In
this respect, it is worth emphasizing that cognitive needs may not only occur in the

Authenticated
pre-translation phase where general subject-field knowledge may be required, but

also in the translation – and even the post-translation – phase, where lack of spe-
cific subject-field knowledge may derail or obstruct the process.
In the pre-translation phase, the translators may need 1) a general and system-
atic introduction to the subject field or part of the subject field relevant to the task,
2) definitions of specific terms, and 3) background information about specific phe-
nomena, processes and things related to the text. Here it should be noted that the
corresponding lexicographical data do not require a bilingual solution to be duly
accessed but can easily be provided in a monolingual source-language dictionary, a
solution which is actually the best one when the source language is also the transla-
tors’ mother tongue.
In the translation phase (in the narrow sense of the word), the translators may
need – apart from 1) specific background information – 2) definitions of source-
language terms, 3) equivalents of terms, collocations and fixed expression, as well
as 4) information about orthography, gender, grammar (e.g. inflection and syntactic
properties) and genre conventions in the target language. Here it is only the provi-
sion of equivalents which definitely requires a bilingual solution, whereas the latter
is optional for the other data categories. Background material and definition of the
source-language terms can also be furnished by a monolingual dictionary in this
language, in the same way that information concerning the target language (gram-
mar, genre conventions, etc.) can be provided either in a bilingual dictionary (from
the source language to the target language), a monolingual dictionary (in the target
language), or a bilingual one (based upon this language). Very often translators –
and particularly experienced ones – do not experience any problems when reading
and transferring the text, but they might when it comes to reproducing it in the tar-
get language (especially when this is not their mother tongue). In such cases, a bi-
lingual dictionary from the source language to the target language would, in fact, be
unable to provide assistance to the translator unless the whole translation process,
starting with text reception in the source language, is reconstructed – a reconstruc-
tion which is illogical, time-consuming and counterproductive, and which lexicog-
raphers, therefore, cannot expect from their users.
In the post-translation phase, text revision consists of a number of compulsory
and optional sub-phases, where the translator 1) reads the source text, 2) reads the
translated text, 3) compares the two texts, 4) considers whether or not there are
problems in the target-language text, and 5) corrects or modifies the text, which is
an activity very similar to text production or reproduction, cf. Tarp (2004b). Here the
translator or person in charge of text revision may need 1) specific background in-
formation, 2) definitions in order to understand specific terms or ensure that these
terms are correct, and 3) information about orthography, gender, grammar, colloca-
tions and genre conventions in the target language. Satisfying these complex needs
requires a combination of lexicographical solutions. Reception-related data in the
source language should be provided in either a monolingual solution in the source

Authenticated
language (which is preferable when it is the translator’s mother tongue) or in a bi-

lingual one based on this language (the best solution when it is not the translator’s
mother tongue). A comparison of the two texts demands at least a bilingual solution
from source to target language. Finally, it is a matter of course that the lexicographi-
cal data required to assist the evaluation and possible modification of the target
language text must be furnished by either a monolingual or a bilingual solution, with
this language as the starting-point.
Before considering the radical consequences of the above reflections, we will
take a look at the results of already-conducted user research in order to see whether
such reflections are of substance or whether they should just be considered figments
of the imagination. As mentioned in section 5.2, existing studies of user behaviour
are above all suffering from a methodological debility, namely, that the lexico-
graphically relevant user needs are not analysed directly as they occur in the trans-
lation process, but only indirectly as they are reflected in dictionary consultations or
interpreted by the translators themselves. Besides, these studies are, as a rule, char-
acterised by an excess of percentages and decimals showing how often the infor-
mants are using one dictionary or another, although such data do not have any
statistical significance whatsoever due to the very small number of informants con-
sulted in almost all existing studies. In this respect, it is worth reconsidering the
relevance of quantitative research to lexicography:
How useful exactly is the information that such and such a percentage of all dictionary users in
such and such a percentage of their look-ups are searching for this or that? What relevance has
the information that 80 percent of all look-ups have to do with orthography and semantics? Of
course, commercial lexicography would be delighted and would hasten to produce dictionaries
and publicity material focusing on these types of data. On the other hand, scientific lexicogra-
phy would above all be interested in knowing in which situations – e.g. reception and produc-
tion – these needs may occur. Then it would set itself the task of uncovering the needs users
have in the last 20 percent of the look-ups, i.e. in one out of five consultations. And it would
not stop here, but would try to go even deeper into the problem in order to discover the needs
that only show up in one out of a hundred or one out of a thousand consultations, or, even
more rarely, in order to conceive dictionaries capable of meeting all the users’ needs in specific
types of situations. Whereto else, if not to dictionaries, should users direct themselves when
they look for assistance to satisfy lexicographically relevant needs? (Tarp 2009b: 291-292)
These reflections do not necessarily imply that previously-conducted user studies

should be disregarded wholesale. If the material provided by some of these studies
is subjected to careful analysis, not from a quantitative but rather a qualitative per-
spective, then it is possible to confirm some of the observations made in the previ-
ous section concerning the phases and sub-phases where relevant needs may ap-
pear. We will now look briefly at a few pertinent studies carried out in relation to
specialised translation.
In a study undertaken more than 20 years ago, involving students translating
economic texts from Danish into German, French and Spanish, respectively, Duvå,

Authenticated
Laursen & Maidahl (1992) applied the method of protocol-writing followed by inter-
views. The three Danish researchers concluded that lack of background knowledge
of the discipline was one of the main reasons explaining the problems observed in
the translation process. The informants’ difficulties in terms of equivalents were,
among other things, due to four “uncertainties”, i.e. “uncertainty about the subject
matter, uncertainty about the semantic content of the words, uncertainty about the
words’ place in the universe, uncertainty about the usage of the words” (Duvå,
Laursen & Maidahl 1992: 132). This conclusion comes as no surprise to teachers of
specialised translation. Although it cannot be generalised due to the relatively low
number of informants, it nevertheless confirms, as mentioned above, that at least
some students need general and specific background information about the subject
field when performing specialised translation.
In a very interesting study carried out a few years earlier, the Polish lexicogra-
pher and translator Jerzy Tomaszczyk (1989) recorded all the consultations which he
himself performed in connection with a translation from Polish into English of a
book on the industrial use of diamonds. Tomaszczyk made a total of 691 consulta-
tions in 13 different monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, looking for various
sorts of information. When he carried out this study, he had behind him 20 years of
experience as a Polish-English translator; in other words, he had a very good com-
mand of English as well as considerable skills and experience as a translator. As a
result, it is worthy of note that one third of all the consultations were made directly
in an English-based dictionary. Tomaszczyk himself draws some important conclu-
sions from his findings:
Of the 691 items looked up, 373, or 54%, were more or less new to me, while in the remaining
318 cases (46%) a dictionary was consulted merely to confirm my own predictions about form,
contextual appropriateness, spelling, etc. of various items. The proportion of items one would
be able to retrieve from memory or simply guess successfully might be even higher if one tried
harder but it is usually easier, and it takes less time, to consult a dictionary than to search
one’s memory. […] This means that in a substantial number of cases one turns to a dictionary
not to learn something one does not yet know, but either to make sure that what one already
knows is in fact correct and appropriate in the context in which it is to appear or simply as a
memory aid. […] Since what one looks up in such cases are L2 items (rather than L1 items and
their L2 equivalents), it follows that in L1-L2 translations one can go a long way without a L1-L2
dictionary. This applies not only to general language problems but also to terminology, espe-
cially multiword combinations. Of the 318 predictions made, 303 (95.3% turned out to be cor-
rect. (Tomaszcyk 1989: 179)
In terms of statistical significance, the numbers and percentages obtained by

Tomaszczyk are not relevant for anybody else, including maybe himself when he is
translating texts outside the world of diamonds. But from a qualitative point of
view, his findings confirm that translators sometimes (often?) do not experience any
problems in the first two stages of the translation phase but only in the third one,
and therefore “can go a long way without a L1-L2 dictionary”, i.e. a bilingual dic-

Authenticated
tionary from the source language to the target language. This puts a dent in the side
of the myth that translation into a foreign language always requires a bilingual dic-
tionary into this language.
Tomaszczyk’s experience – but with other figures – has also been confirmed by
other studies. For instance, an in-depth study which the Finnish lexicographer
Krista Varantola (1998) conducted in connection with four advanced translation
students engaged in translating a semi-specialised text on fishing, also indicates the
appropriateness of distinguishing between needs appearing in the transfer sub-
phase and those occurring in the reproduction sub-phase. A comparison between
the two studies shows that the experienced Polish translator goes straight into the
foreign language more frequently than the translation students, even though the
translated text on diamonds was no less difficult than the Finnish text on fishing.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from a study performed by the German re-
searcher Britta Nord, who examined the sources consulted by a group of profes-
sional translators of legal texts. Her study revealed that half of all these consulta-
tions were made in some form of bilingual dictionary, whereas in a quarter of all the
cases the informants sought information in monolingual dictionaries and encyclo-
paedias, and in the rest in non-lexicographical sources (Nord 2002:175).
What all the above studies show when they are analysed from a qualitative per-
spective is that both translation students and experienced translators – apart from
equivalents furnished in a bilingual dictionary from the source language to the tar-
get language – at least sometimes need 1) cognitive background information and 2)
terminological, linguistic and grammatical information provided by a dictionary
based on the target language (whether monolingual or bilingual “in the other direc-
tion”). This supports some of the basic observations put forward above, and con-
firms the need for a broader concept of translation dictionary. To sum up, by apply-
ing a functional methodology we have recognised that, during the overall transl-
ation process, translators may experience cognitive and communicative needs when
performing the following activities relating to the three main phases of this process:
– In the pre-translation phase
a. general study of the subject matter

b. text reception in the source language
c. specific study of a topic related to the subject matter
– In the translation phase
a. text reception in the source language

b. text transfer from source language to target language
c. text reproduction in the target language
i. with problems in the previous sub-phases

Authenticated
ii. without problems in the previous sub-phases
d. specific study of a topic related to the subject matter
– In the post-translation phase
a. text revision in the target language
i. text reception in the source language

ii. text reception in the target language
iii. text comparison between source and target language
iv. text evaluation in the target language
v. text reproduction in the target language
b. specific study of a topic related to the subject matter
If a dictionary is supposed to give real assistance to translators of specialised texts,

then it should be designed to meet all the lexicographically relevant needs appear-
ing in the various phases and sub-phases of the overall translation process. This is
not only a question of incorporating the right data into the dictionary but also of
guaranteeing the easiest – and sometimes only possible – means of accessing these
data. Here we will not go into detail regarding the relevant data types but will focus
mainly on the last aspect, which has to do with the overall design of the dictionary.
In this respect, there are many similarities but also some important differences in
terms of the best way to satisfy the user’s needs in L1-L2 and L2-L1 translation, re-
spectively.
– Most translators, especially those who are not subject-field experts, would pre-
fer that the systematic introduction to the subject field is written in their mother
tongue although it could also be provided in both languages simultaneously.
This is valid for both L1-L2 and L2-L1 translation, and it does not matter if the
“outer” text is placed in connection with a monolingual or a bilingual solution.
– The same holds true for the definitions of specific terms found in the source text
as well as background explications of specific phenomena required in both the
pre-translation and the translation phase. Here, the best option is to provide
these data in a monolingual solution in relation to L1-L2 translation and in a bi-
lingual one in relation to L2-L1 translation. The second best option would be a bi-
lingual solution in the first case and a monolingual one in the second case, re-
spectively.
– Equivalents of terms, collocations and fixed expression should necessarily be
furnished in a bilingual solution from source language to target language for
translation in both directions.

Authenticated
– As it has been explained above, the need for information about orthography,
gender, grammar and genre conventions in the target language may appear
both when problems have occurred and not occurred in the previous transfer
sub-phase. In the first case, the best option would be to place the corresponding
lexicographical data in a bilingual solution from source language to target lan-
guage, whereas it, in the second case, is indispensable to place these data in a
monolingual (or bilingual) solution based on the target language.
– In order to be helpful, the lexicographical data required to meet the user’s needs
in the post-translation phase should necessarily be furnished in various types of
monolingual and bilingual solutions. Data related to text reception in the source
language can be provided in the same solutions as mentioned above (point 2).
By analogue, the data related to text comparison in the source language should
also be provided in the same sort of bilingual solution as mentioned above (point
3). Finally, the data related to text reception, evaluation and reproduction in the
target language should necessarily be provided in either a monolingual solution
in the target language (the best option in L2-L1 translation) or a bilingual one
taking the point of departure in this language (the best option in L1-L2 transla-
tion).
These reflections allow us to decide on the best overall design for specialised trans-
lation dictionaries from and into the translator’s mother tongue. Hence, the best
overall design of a dictionary conceived to assist its users in L1-L2 translation of
specialised texts consists of the following three components:
– a monolingual L1 component
– a bilingual L1-L2 component
Similarly, the best overall design of a dictionary conceived to assist its users in L2-L1
translation of specialised texts consists of the following two components:
– a monolingual L1 component
In a printed environment, the ideal solution would be to print a series of three dic-
tionaries for L1-L2 translation and another series of two dictionaries for L2-L1-
translation. However, this is seldom feasible. Due to the relatively small number of
potential users of specialised translations dictionaries within most subject fields –
and language pairs – this would not be economically attractive for any publishing
house unless the project is carried out with public funding. In such cases, a prag-
matic – but theory-based – solution would be to opt for the second best overall de-
sign as it has also been discussed above, namely, a combination of L1-L2 and L2-L1
components for L1-L2 translation and a combination of L2-L1 and L1-L2 components
for L2-L1 translation.

Authenticated
With only a few minor lexicographical adjustments and additions this second
best solution could be materialised in a combined L1-L2/L2-L1 dictionary conceived
to assist users with both mother tongues performing translations in both language
directions. The Hungarian-German, German-Hungarian Fachwörterbuch zur Renten-
versicherung as well as the English-Spanish Encyclopedic Dictionary of Gene Tech-
nology and its Spanish-English counterpart Diccionario Enciclopédico de Ingeniería
Genética, are all examples which show that such a solution may not only be viable
but also of a high quality, cf. Bergenholtz, Tarp & Kaufmann (1994), Tarp (2005),
and Fata (2009).
However, in spite of the undeniable merits of these and similar dictionaries, it is
no secret that they suffer from two main problems which cannot be solved satisfac-
torily in the printed environment. The first of these problems is the additional look-
ups which the users frequently have to make in other parts of the dictionary in order
to find the required data. The second has to do with information overload, in the
sense that the translators in most specific consultations may encounter a certain
amount of superfluous data which is irrelevant to their specific purpose. In both
cases this may delay the consultation process and obstruct the proper retrieval of
the information needed in each specific consultation. This is an inevitable problem
in printed dictionaries, which, however, can be easily avoided in the online envi-
ronment, especially in the lexicographical Model T Fords and Rolls Royces. The
Danish, Danish-English, English and English-Danish Accounting Dictionaries and
the English-Spanish, Spanish and Spanish-English Diccionarios de Contabilidad are
concrete examples showing how the Model T Ford-principles can be materialised
(cf. section 9). In the latter (still under construction), the users are mainly native
Spanish-speaking translators and other people writing and reading about account-
ing, cf. Fuertes-Olivera & Nielsen (2012). These users are initially given the option to
access either a Spanish, a Spanish-English or an English-Spanish part, where they
are offered the following “search methods” which almost instantaneously direct
them to the data adapted to their specific activity:

Authenticated
English-Spanish
Spanish-English
Spanish
Illustration 1: Search methods offered in the Diccionarios de Contabilidad
In other Model T Fords it would be advantageous for the users to initially indicate
their mother tongue, activity, and other relevant characteristics by means of interac-
tive techniques (see chapter 6). This done, the above reflections indicate that the
user should at least be offered the following activity-orientated search options when
starting a consultation based on either L1 or L2 in relation to L1-L2 or L1-L2 transla-
tion, respectively:

Authenticated
Schema 1: Possible search options in a lexicographical Model T Ford
Search L1-L2 translation L2-L1 translation Combination
In L1 Cognition (L1) Cognition (L1) Cognition (L1)
Reception (L1) Reception (L1) Reception (L1)
– Reproduction (L1) Reproduction (L1)
Transfer (L1-L2) – Transfer (L1-L2)
In L2 Reproduction (L2-L1) – Reproduction (L2-L1)
Cognition (L2-L1) Cognition (L2-L1) Cognition (L2-L1)
Reception (L2-L1) Reception (L2-L1) Reception (L2-L1)
– Transfer (L2-L1) Transfer (L2-L1)
Schema 1 also illustrates how relatively easy it is to combine a dictionary for L1-L2
translation with one for L2-L1 translation as the two of them share most search op-
tions giving access to activity-related data types. If the lexicographers want to take
further steps towards the lexicographical Rolls Royce, there are several available
techniques which can be applied in order to further individualise the online diction-
ary, for instance mouse-sensitive areas, pop-up windows, hypertexts, annotations,
links to Web pages with additional data, individual article modelling (see chapter
6).
In this respect, it is important to stress that there does not and cannot exist any
single detailed design of a specialised translation dictionary, or of any other general
category of dictionary. Each one has to be designed according to the specific subject
field, language pair, user group and user needs in question, and with consideration
given to the medium in which it is to be published, cf. Fuertes-Olivera (2013b). When
entering into detail to decide on the specific data categories to be included in the
dictionary in terms of communicative and cognitive needs, it is necessary to possess

Authenticated
Prescription, description or proscription? | 77
not only expert knowledge of lexicography and specialised translation but also
knowledge of the subject field to be covered; all of this will contribute to giving each
dictionary its individual stamp with specific data types and access routes (see chap-
ter 9). Even so, there are some common features regarding the overall design of a
specialised dictionary for translation purposes, in the same way that there are com-
mon features for other general categories of dictionaries. In terms of translation
dictionaries these have been discussed above, and they are valid for most dictionar-
ies conceived with this aim.
5.6 Prescription, description or proscription?
The selection and preparation of data to a dictionary is never performed in a vac-

uum. It always takes place in an environment where several official or semi-official
bodies, in one way or another, pretend to regulate the language, whether special-
ised or general. As a result, when preparing the concept of a specialised online dic-
tionary, the lexicographers in charge of this task have to decide the attitude to be
taken towards the various language policies relevant to the specific subject field
treated in the dictionary. Any lexicographical work is, by definition, an important
player in the promulgation of a given language policy whichever body has laid it
down. In fact, Bergenholtz & Gouws (2006) write:
Every single lexicographical decision has a language policy relevance and therefore, in the
end, a political dimension. (Bergenholtz & Gouws 2006: 14)
This statement may seem exaggerated as there are obviously several lexicographical
decisions, e.g. about the structure and design of the data appearing on the screen,
which do not have any direct relation to language policy. However, when it comes to
the terms and other linguistic data included in the dictionary, these will always, to
one degree or another, influence the linguistic behaviour of the factual users and
therefore have “a language policy relevance” as stressed by the two lexicographers.
This fact puts a great responsibility on the shoulders of the lexicographers engaged
in both the conception and production of any specialised dictionary.
There are several different definitions of language policy, cf. Bergenholtz & Tarp
(2007). Here it is used as an umbrella term, referring to all the different levels of
decisions and their implementation, aimed at regulating various aspects of lan-
guage use, especially with regard to the formal recognition of words and terms as
well as their spelling and inflection. Lexicographers have, on the one hand, to take
cognisance of the different forms of language policy relevant to the dictionary being
prepared and, on the other, to negotiate the best ways to ensure that the functions
of this dictionary can be achieved. This implies that even if lexicographers obey the
rules prescribed by formal bodies in the formulation of their language policies, the

Authenticated
particular user needs and functions of the dictionary may at times demand the in-
clusion of non-prescribed forms.
There are a variety of language policies which, in one way or another, are rele-
vant to specialised lexicography. Following the typology proposed by Gouws & Tarp
(2008), they are here grouped into three main categories, i.e. national language pol-
icy, domain-specific language policy, and terminological language policy. The term
national language policy refers to the intended regulation regarding use within a
given speech community, be this community only one among others within a spe-
cific country (such as some of the national languages in Spain), the only community
in a specific country (like Denmark), or a cross-border community like the German-
speaking population in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The national language
policy is normally laid down by a certain official or semi-official body such as a
national language board or an academy, and it generally prescribes correct spelling
and inflection forms and occasionally pronunciation. In some language communi-
ties (like in Iceland and the Faroe Islands) it even prescribes the words to be used.
The boards or academies responsible for the national language policy may wield
different degrees of authority, and there are even speech communities with compet-
ing authorities in terms of language policy.
The term domain-specific language policy refers here to the language policy laid
down by “intermediate” entities such as companies, ministries, universities, local
governments, and various kinds of organisations. This type of language policy may
regulate the language, or languages, to be used within their sphere of influence, for
example, inside a company or in external communication. Additionally, this par-
ticular language policy most often regulates the style to be used internally and ex-
ternally in the body in question. It is normally subordinated to the national lan-
guage policy, although it may prescribe specific terms, words and forms to be used,
which in some cases even go against recommendations contained in the national
language policy.
Finally, the term terminological language policy refers to the regulation of termi-
nology within one or several specialised subject fields. This policy may be decided
by a national or regional terminological board or by separate organisations, compa-
nies or other entities. As a result, it is sometimes interwoven into the domain-
specific language policy and even on occasions with the national language policy.
The regulation of terminology normally embraces the selection of the recommended
terms and their definition.
As can be seen, the three types of language policy mentioned cover different ar-
eas and regulate different aspects of language use, although they may overlap to a
certain extent. This has to be taken into account when planning and compiling dif-
ferent types of lexicographical work. Consequently, specialised lexicographers (or
terminologists) dealing with dictionaries covering a specific subject field have to
relate their work to the relevant terminological language policy. Similarly, those
who are working with company, branch and similar dictionaries need to appreciate

Authenticated
the domain-specific language policy wherever this is appropriate for their work.
Likewise, all lexicographers, in one way or another, have to relate to the national
language policy. Whilst it is important to relate to the language policy at a macro
level, it is also important to determine the character of this relationship. However,
before proceeding to this discussion, it is necessary to make a brief incursion into
the field of methodology.
Prescription, description and proscription represent different methods of collect-
ing and utilising data from different sources, such as corpora, the Internet, linguis-
tic surveys, text investigations, etc., cf. Bergenholtz (2003). In the interaction be-
tween language policy and lexicography, the principles of prescription, description
and proscription play an important role.
Regarding prescription, terminological language boards and other standardisa-
tion bodies are, by their very nature, prescriptive. They prescribe, for instance,
which terms should be used within a given discipline, branch or at the national
level, and how they should be spelled, inflected and defined. Prescription is not
necessarily the acknowledgement of only a single form. Quite often a language body
officially recognises different variants, e.g. orthographic variants of a single word.
Prescription comes very much to the fore in dictionaries. When taking a prescriptive
approach, lexicographers impose their point of view on the target users of the dic-
tionary. Many users actually want this kind of guidance, especially when consulting
a dictionary for text production, text revision or translation purposes. In these situa-
tions, and in order to make the consultation as quick and easy as possible, lexicog-
raphers should not let the users themselves choose among a large number of com-
peting terms, words and forms, but should present them with a single correct term,
word or form.
According to Bergenholtz (2003), different forms and degrees of prescription
can be distinguished. Here it suffices to say that, especially in the case of a strong
prescriptive approach, it can be regarded as either presenting a single form (with
regard to, for example, orthography, pronunciation, meaning or morphological
possibilities), or more than one form, as the preferred form(s) of the dictionary with-
out any reference to other words from non-standardised use. This hard-line pre-
scription implies that only these forms and words should be allowed, as they are
correct, whilst their variants or other words should be prohibited. When following a
prescriptive approach, the lexicographer places himself in the position of having to
judge the language and make a decision regarding the accepted terms, words and
forms. In many instances a prescriptive dictionary will follow the rules laid down by
a formal language body or entity. It will then function as an extension of and an
instrument at the disposal of this standardisation authority, the prescription of the
relevant body as a result being presented in the dictionary. The average dictionary
user does not distinguish between different language bodies and academies, but
regards the dictionary as the embodiment of authority. Moreover, just as domain-
specific language policy sometimes runs counter to prescribing the national lan-

Authenticated
guage policy, lexicographic prescription does not necessarily always adhere to offi-
cial rules. It also prevails when lexicographers, providing a single form and ignoring
all other variants, give forms which deviate from the official language rules with
regard to, for example, spelling, morphology, etc. In such a case, the dictionary is
not an extension of the language body, but instead it follows its own prescriptive
methods.
Description does not only reflect the decisions of an official body or the imple-
mentation of an official language policy on any of the levels discussed above.
Rather, it endeavours to give a comprehensive account of actual language use by
presenting a variety of terms and forms, whether orthographic, morphological or
pronunciation variants. Description avoids classifying occurring forms as either
recommended or not permissible. It reflects the spectrum of actual language use.
Description plays a significant role in some dictionaries. A descriptive approach in
lexicography sees the lexicographer trying to reflect real language use, making pro-
vision for different variants but not indicating a recommended form or labelling a
given form as not permissible. Bergenholtz (2003) refers to different forms and de-
grees of description. Depending on the functions of a dictionary, a descriptive ap-
proach can either frustrate or please the users. In a dictionary compiled for text
reception, a presentation of all the different variants can assist users in an effective
way. Yet those who consult a dictionary for text production or translation are often
frustrated by a descriptive approach, because they do not find explicit guidance
regarding the best, the appropriate, or the most correct form. Having to make
choices and being confronted with variants is not what they expect from a diction-
ary. Owing to the fact that users see dictionaries as authoritative sources, even de-
scription can be interpreted by the average user as a presentation of the correct
forms. In this respect, Wiegand (1986) refers to the normative force of descriptive
dictionaries.
Although many users do not distinguish between the various methods used to
select data for their dictionaries, lexicographers need to take a firm decision regard-
ing the approach to follow in their practical work. This decision must take cogni-
sance of a range of implications that the method chosen may have on users. So far,
much has been written about description and prescription in terms of lexicographic
works. Different authors have argued in favour of one method or another as relevant
in dictionary making. Some of these arguments are convincing but generally speak-
ing the discussion has been based upon non-lexicographical principles and the
authors’ own subjective preferences, with no visible relation to the users’ needs and
the respective function(s) of the dictionaries. By contrast, the function theory always
has as its basis the user’s needs and functions when determining the specific meth-
ods to be employed in concrete dictionary projects. With this in mind, and by apply-
ing the basic principle of methodology described at the end of section 3.1, this the-
ory has critically subjected these two methods to the requirements of lexicography

Authenticated
as an independent discipline, thereby developing a third method which is supple-

mentary to them, namely, proscription.
The term proscription, as it is introduced and used by Bergenholtz (2001, 2003),
originates from the Latin word proscribere (to make public) and not from the mod-
ern English word proscribe (to forbid). In a proscriptive approach, the lexicographer
wants to inform the user not only about language use but also about the form rec-
ommended by the lexicographer. In lexicography, a proscriptive approach sees the
lexicographer deviating from the prescriptive way of saying “this should be done”
and saying instead “this is recommended”. A proscriptive approach often recom-
mends a single term or form, but it may also give different variants or include differ-
ent terms, accompanied by a clear indication of the term or form the lexicographer
recommends. In some specific cases, it could also lead to the recommendation of
two or more terms or forms. This might, for instance, be the case when these terms
and forms appear in a particular corpus with the same frequency, or when new
terms are introduced into a given language and the future will decide whether, let
us say, a simple loan, transliterated or coined term will prevail in the speech com-
munity. However, even if one or more recommended terms or forms are given, it
does not imply that these are the only ones permissible. It merely represents the
lexicographer’s recommendation and does not necessarily reflect the decisions of a
formal language body.
In his classification of different types of proscription, Bergenholtz (2003: 13) dif-
ferentiates, among others, between exact proscription (where only one variant is
recommended though other variants may be mentioned) and not exact proscription
(where more than one variant is recommended but other variants may be men-
tioned). Although he refers to the possibility of other variants being mentioned, he
does not distinguish a type of proscription based on the reference, or absence of it,
to non-recommended forms. Such a distinction may be useful because it contributes
to the contextualization, which often has an influence on the choices a user makes
for a given utterance. In connection with this, Gouws & Tarp (2008:239) have pro-
posed the dichotomy single versus complementary proscription when referring to
this distinction. A procedure of single proscription sees only the recommended
terms and form(s) included in the dictionary, whereas these are complemented by
their non-recommended variants in complementary proscription.
Here we will discuss three examples where there is disagreement either between
the prescription laid down by different language bodies, or between the lexicogra-
phers and the relevant language policy. The first example is from Denmark, where
the national Language Board – due to its general language policy regarding com-
monly used acronyms – accepts both dna and DNA, i.e. written with both small and
capital letters, as the acronyms for deoxyribonucleic acid. The following two articles
from Retskrivningsordbogen (Danish Orthographic Dictionary) – which, according to
national law, is the official mouthpiece in which the Danish Language Board pub-
lishes its language policy decisions – show how this principle is implemented:

Authenticated
DNA (or dna) sb., DNA’en or DNA’et, in composita DNA-, e.g. DNA-molekyle, DNA-sekventering
dna (or DNA) sb., dna’en or dna’et, in composita dna-, e.g. dna-molekyle, dna-sekventering
Example 1: Two translated articles from Retskrivningsordbogen
The term dna spelled with small letters is, however, contrary to language use within
scientific disciplines like molecular biology where DNA with capital letters is the
internationally accepted and recommended acronym. This difference between two
different language policies could obviously create confusion among dictionary us-
ers, especially those who have to choose the most appropriate variant when en-
gaged in text production or translation. As can be seen, the dictionary also furnishes
two different inflection paradigms (but without plural), thus adding fuel to the fire.
This unnecessary and time-consuming confusion can easily be solved by a proscrip-
tive approach, for instance the one chosen by Den Danske Netordbog (The Danish
Online Dictionary) which recommends both a single spelling form (DNA) and a sin-
gle inflection paradigm (incl. plural) while simultaneously mentioning the non-
recommended forms, especially for the benefit of users with text reception prob-
lems:
DNA abbreviation <et; DNA’et, DNA’er, DNA’erne>

also, but not recommended <en; DNA’en, DNA’er, DNA’erne>
dna abbreviation <et; dna’et, dna’er, dna’erne>
also, but not recommended <en; dna’en, dna’er, dna’erne>
This spelling form is not recommended, use instead –>DNA
Example 2: Two translated articles from Den Danske Netordbog
With a proscriptive approach as the one implemented above, the user does not need
to waste time in choosing the appropriate spelling variant and inflection form. The
following example has also to do with DNA but with a different problematic. As
information tools specialised dictionaries need to convey the type of data deter-
mined by their functions and directed at meeting the real needs of the intended
target user group. Consequently, they should not only be regarded as showcases of
language prescription but as utility tools they should include all data necessary to
fulfil their specific functions, even if this goes against or beyond the prevailing pre-
scriptive vision. Although lexicographers have to take cognisance of the decisions of
language bodies and, as a rule, should not endeavour to position their dictionaries
in opposition to these decisions, the principles guiding these decisions may always
be a dominating force when selecting data for inclusion in their dictionaries.
In this respect, giving quick and easy access to relevant data should be regarded
as one of the most important tasks of a lexicographer. Access, however, is not guar-
anteed if the lexicographer regards specific data in isolation. Contextualisation of
data is paramount and in lexicographical works this contextualisation often implies
that a word should not be isolated from its variants. Access to a given word can

Authenticated
often best be achieved via a variant known to the users. In their report from a work-
shop where the concept for a dictionary of gene technology was decided, Bergen-
holtz, Tarp & Kaufmann (1994) refer to a discussion where a purely prescriptive
approach would have impeded user access to specific entries. Let us take a look at
the case.
The Spanish equivalent for the English form DNA is ADN (ácido desoxirribonu-
cleico). However, evidence from a Spanish corpus showed that in 40 per cent of the
instances the English form DNA was used in Spanish scientific texts. Although the
Spanish equivalent ADN may be both the recommended and the prescribed form,
successful access to this form will often depend on the inclusion of the English loan
form DNA as a separate lemma, reference to which can be restricted to a cross-
reference entry, guiding the user to ADN. A purely prescriptive approach would
have led to the inclusion of only the prescribed form ADN. The omission of the loan
form DNA would have prevented many users from accessing the prescribed form,
especially when they had problems relating to text reception or translation of Span-
ish texts using this loan form. The importance of including both ADN and DNA in
the dictionary could also be recommendable on practical grounds. If only the pre-
scribed form were included, a user who was unfamiliar with the other form might
encounter the omitted form (DNA) in the literature. With so many different acro-
nyms are being used in the scientific field, this user might regard the form encoun-
tered as a wholly different acronym not related to the one included in the dictionary.
Another example where a prescriptive approach clashes with user needs in
terms of access, is taken from the South African wine industry. Here, Van der Merwe
(2008) mentions a number of terms which are frequently used by ordinary people
but not accepted as being correct according to the terminology laid down by the
South African wine industry. One of these terms is the English drinking wine (drink-
wyn in Afrikaans), which in the official wine terminology has been replaced by the
term wine, despite the fact that many habitual wine drinkers still use drinking wine.
Another example is tapvat, which is the official Afrikaans equivalent for the English
term boxed wine. In this case, most ordinary people will use the colloquial bokswyn,
which, however, also refers to a lesser quality wine and is therefore not allowed by
the industry as an Afrikaans equivalent for boxed wine. A last example is the popu-
lar word champagne, which the European Union has now restricted only to products
coming from the French district of Champagne. The official term used for wines
produced by the same method, e.g. the Cap Classique, but not originating in the
French district is sparkling wine, although champagne is still widely used in collo-
quial language. Thus, if drinkwyn, bokswyn and champagne are not included in a
wine dictionary, at least as cross-reference lemmata, then many users of this dic-
tionary will probably be unable to find the correct terms prescribed by the wine
industry. In spite of this, in the final version of the South African Trilingual Wine
Industry Dictionary one finds that only the term drinkwyn has been admitted, with
the information that it is “superseded” and cross-referenced to wine, while bokswyn

Authenticated
is completely omitted and champagne only accepted as originally a French product;

neither is there any reference to the prescribed South African term sparkling wine.
Consequently, the dictionary is not especially helpful to its intended users, among
them “wine lovers”, many of whom will probably use the colloquial terms without
knowing that they are not accepted by the wine industry.
The conclusion, therefore, is that lexicographers should look not only at the
prescribed or recommended term but also at variants that are not allowed; in other
words, a “descriptive” approach should prevail when they are selecting the data
needed to ensure optimal access to the relevant dictionary article. In spite of pre-
scription by terminological and other language bodies, lexicographers should real-
ise that their users need access to relevant data. Furthermore, even if the lexicogra-
pher agrees with the decisions of a prescribing body, the lexicographic presentation
should make allowance for different points of departure and different access routes
for different users. Many users may try accessing the dictionary via a non-prescribed
form which is possibly the only one with which they are familiar. In such cases, a
strict adherence to the prescriptive principle would result in unsuccessful dictionary
consultation. The inclusion of as many relevant forms as possible should ensure
that access to the recommended form, which might or might not be the prescribed
one, is successful, as more than one possible access route is employed.
Relevant data presentation, the best possible access to the data, optimal re-
trieval of information, and compliance with the lexicographic functions of a dic-
tionary, are paramount for ensuring a successful consultation process. To achieve
this, lexicographers should not merely abide by the results of prescription. Special-
ised dictionaries could, we believe, do better by using the proscriptive method,
thereby offering a wider selection of forms, complemented by well-motivated rec-
ommendations, in order to guarantee their success as consultation and information
tools.
5.7 The lexicographical process: the lexicographer’s perspective
As defined in section 3.1, the study object of lexicography does not only embrace
dictionaries as such but also the processes related to their production, design and
use. In this and the following section we will look more closely at these processes
and some relevant aspects related to them. Basically, lexicographical processes can
be seen from two different perspectives: that of the lexicographer and that of the
user. The two types of process are interwoven, with various intersections and meet-
ing points relevant both to the theory and practical work. In this section we will
briefly discuss the process from the lexicographer’s point of view, i.e. the various
phases and steps in the conception, production and publication of dictionaries. The
following schema shows the three relevant phases and the main steps related to
each phase:

Authenticated
The lexicographical process: the lexicographer’s perspective | 85
– a pre-compilation phase where the lexicographers:
a. observe one or more potential users in a specific context or situation,

b. detect lexicographically relevant information needs among these people,
c. and decide to start a lexicographical project in order to satisfy their needs;
– compilation phase where the lexicographers:
a. design a dictionary concept (functions, data categories, access, etc.),

b. compose a team of relevant subject-field collaborators,
c. prepare the material needed for the dictionary project,
d. prepare the computer program (fields, their number, content, relation, etc.),
e. write lexicographical instructions,
f. elaborate and evaluate a number of test articles,
g. create a detailed plan with tasks and deadlines for the practical work,
h. carry out the project in all its practical aspects,
i. and prepare the dictionary for its publication on the chosen media;
– a post-compilation phase where the lexicographers:
a. put the dictionary at the disposal of the foreseen user group,

b. observe how the users use of the dictionary,
c. and check whether or not the users’ needs have been satisfied.
In the previous sections we have discussed some of the complex problems related to
the pre- and post-compilation phases. In chapter 9, we will go into a much more
detailed discussion of the various steps to be taken in the compilation phase in re-
gard to specialised online dictionaries. Here we will just draw attention to three
relevant questions: interdisciplinarity, production time, and production costs.
Regarding the first question, the above schema clearly indicates that although
lexicography may rightly be considered an independent discipline, the whole com-
pilation, in all its aspects, of any specialised online dictionary is by its very nature
an interdisciplinary endeavour. In the preparation of such a dictionary, none of the
steps included in the compilation phase above should, as a rule, be carried out ex-
clusively by experts in lexicography, but always in collaboration with the relevant
subject-field experts, in terms of both the specific subject field dealt with in the
dictionary as well as the necessary technical support provided by programmers,
designers, etc.
The second question is strongly defended by supporters of the function theory.
It has to do with the overall production plan, where it is of the utmost necessity to
establish realistic and compulsory deadlines for all the tasks to be accomplished, in
order that these specialised lexicographical projects are completed within a reason-

Authenticated
able time limit, which, in most cases, should not exceed two years. This is particu-
larly important for those projects which, in one way or another, cover one of the
many disciplines being continuously developed and transformed due to new scien-
tific discoveries, technological applications or laws or regulations, such as molecu-
lar biology, computer science, or EU legislation. The fact is that many specialised
lexicographical and terminological projects drag on for years, frequently without
ever being finished or, when they finally are finished, ending up with a lot of out-
dated and, therefore, more or less useless information. In this respect, Fuertes-
Olivera (2013a) writes:
The internet has allowed the compilation of new types of information tools, for example, the
so-called terminological knowledge bases. These are proliferating around the world, especially
because they obtain public money easily, although most of them do not deliver much. For in-
stance, around 90% of the terminological dictionary projects funded by the Spanish R+D fund-
ing agency are still prototypes after several years of continuous and generous funding.
(Fuertes-Olivera 2013a: 337)
The third question is related to the second, and involves the use of human, financial
and other resources in the production of specialised online dictionaries. It is crucial
that the projects and production plans should be meticulously prepared with a view
to making full and rational use of the available resources. This requires an efficient
methodology, aimed at compilation by means of as few resources as possible, for
instance, one based on the function theory, as described in sections 5.2 and 5.3 in
relation to the conception and preparation phase. This methodology should also
include the important principle that, once the preparatory phase has been com-
pleted and compilation as such has begun, no modification of the chosen concept
that implies changes of already-completed work should be allowed, even if there are
good arguments for such changes. New data categories not affecting already-
conducted work may, of course, be permitted, but any conceptual change with ret-
rospective consequences should be postponed until a future edition. However, and
as the above quotation also shows, many specialised lexicographical or termino-
logical projects – regardless of their name – are, in our view, extravagant and waste
a lot of resources in the production of “prototypes” and other poor results. We be-
lieve that this can never be the future of specialised online lexicography, where the
number of information tools needed within the different branches and disciplines
generally vary inversely in respect of the resources available. In this regard, the
production costs in terms of the human, financial and other resources employed in
lexicographical projects (referred to by Nielsen 2008 as “lexicographical informa-
tion costs”) come to represent an important criterion for lexicographical success and
quality.

Authenticated
The lexicographical process: the user’s perspective | 87
5.8 The lexicographical process: the user’s perspective
The previous section dealt with the lexicographical process from the lexicographer’s
point of view, i.e. the way dictionaries are conceived and produced. Yet, as the basis
of all lexicographical work is ultimately the user’s needs, then the above process
can only be fully understood if it is taken into account from the user’s perspective,
as the two types of process are interwoven and share several intersection points.
As has already been indicated, the function theory does not only study the
process taking place from the moment the actual user starts consulting a lexico-
graphical tool to the time when the required information is retrieved from the data
contained in this tool, i.e. the intra-lexicographical consultation process. It is also
interested in the extra-lexicographical processes taking place immediately before
and after consultation. The reason for this approach is two-fold: on the one hand, it
is necessary to know in which situation the lexicographically-relevant information
needs occur in order to determine the nature of these needs, and, on the other, it is
absolutely necessary to evaluate the post-lexicographical process to establish an
objective criterion for success or failure rather than the subjective type used by
questionnaires and the like. In this respect, and according to the function theory, a
“normal” lexicographical process from the user’s point of view comprises the fol-
lowing phases and steps:
– an extra-lexicographical pre-consultation phase where a user with specific
characteristics finding him or herself in a specific context or situation:
a. experiences an information need,

b. becomes aware of the information need,
c. and decides to start a lexicographical consultation;
– an intra-lexicographical consultation phase where the user:
a. selects the relevant lexicographical information tool,

b. accesses the relevant data,
c. verifies that he or she has found the right data, i.e. relevant to the informa-
tion need in question,
d. and retrieves the needed information from the data;
– an extra-lexicographical post-consultation phase where the user:
a. makes use of the retrieved information in order to solve a communicative or

cognitive problem, to store it as knowledge, to perform a task or to interpret
a sign, signal, symbol etc.

Authenticated
Lexicography, as the science of dictionaries and similar information tools, is sup-

posed to study all these phases and steps. However, if we look at this overall lexico-
graphical process and compare it with the user studies published, for instance,
those analysed in Welker (2006), the hitherto sole systematic overview of such stud-
ies, we will find that most of them deal with the various steps in the intra-
lexicographical consultation phase. As far as we know, there is no published user
study dealing systematically with the extra-lexicographical pre- and post-consulta-
tion phases. There are, of course, retrospective studies where users, by means of
questionnaires, interviews and similar methods, have been asked about their needs
prior to consultation and whether they are satisfied with the results of this consulta-
tion. However, studies of users in the middle of one of these phases are, to our
knowledge, non-existent.
There could be several reasons for this gap in user research. An important expli-
cation may be that research into the pre-consultation phase is very complex and
costly, especially if the results are expected to be statistically significant. This is the
reason why the function theory recommends alternative methods – such as the ones
discussed in section 5.2 – in order to establish the user needs upon which the the-
ory, as well as its practical products, is built.
As for research into the usefulness of the information retrieved and applied in
the post-consultation phase, this would, although still time-consuming, probably be
in the majority of cases less complex and expensive than research into the pre-
consultation phase. Of course, one research method would entail feedback from the
users, but this, although useful in many aspects and relatively easy to handle in the
online environment, is always biased to a certain degree, as it is based upon the
users’ own subjective interpretation rather than on objective criteria. It should,
therefore, be complemented with other methods, such as tests. It is well known that
several such studies have been conducted, for instance, that of Caruso & De Meo
(2013). Yet although this and other similar studies provide interesting and relevant
information on problems experienced by users of specialised online dictionaries
when translating specialised texts, the relatively small number of informants (in this
particular case only 39) implies that they cannot be considered statistically signifi-
cant and, hence, generalizable. Given the importance of this question, it is surpris-
ing that systematic research into the post-consultation phase has not yet been con-
ducted; it is, after all, in this phase where we find the proof of the pudding, which, in
the last resort, may prove the relevance of a lexicographical theory as well as the
quality of specific dictionaries (cf. section 4.3).
In spite of the many deficiencies characterising lexicographical user research in
general, various examples of this research based upon scientific methods can be
found in relation to the intra-lexicographical consultation phase, e.g. Nesi (2000),
Tono (2001), Wingate (2002), Thumb (2004), and Lew (2004). By contrast, it seems
as if most of the research conducted in relation to the pre- and post-consultation
phases has been carried out according to the methods of commercial market analy-

Authenticated
The lexicographical process: the user’s perspective | 89
sis, based upon user expectations and even artificially created needs rather than
upon knowledge of real needs; without consideration of such needs lexicography
may still sell its practical products and gain profit but it will never become a scien-
tific discipline, cf. Tarp (2009b). The different opinions regarding the academic
status of lexicography may be influenced by this fact.
When this is said, it is important to emphasize that the above ideal process pre-
supposes that the user is actually aware of his or her information need and decides
to take lexicographical action. In fact, when a lexicographically relevant informa-
tion need occurs for an individual in any extra-lexicographical situation, this indi-
vidual is automatically transformed into a potential user which may:
– not be aware of the information need and therefore not proceed to any lexico-
graphical consultation;
– be aware of the information need but not proceed to any lexicographical consul-
tation because he or she thinks – maybe based upon previous lexicographical
experience – that the need cannot be solved by means of a lexicographical con-
sultation or that this consultation may require too much time and trouble;
– be aware of the information need and proceed to a lexicographical consultation
but with a wrong idea and understanding of the real nature of this need; or
– be aware of the real nature of the information need and proceed to a lexico-
graphical consultation.
In an ideal world, lexicographical tools should be able to meet the user’s informa-
tion needs in all four cases, not only for the actual user as in case 4. In case 3, for
instance, a lexicographical tool could, by means of various advanced interactive
techniques and methods, guide the user in such a way that they will finally obtain
the appropriate information required and not “the right answer to the wrong ques-
tion” (cf. Zikmund 1997: 96). Nevertheless, even in cases 1 and 2, where the potential
users do not, for whatever reason, make a consultation, there are lexicographical
tools already available with solutions for the information needs occurring in specific
types of situation in a digital environment. In this case, the above model will have to
be transformed as follows:
– an extra-lexicographical phase where the information need occurs but where
the potential user for one reason or another does not take lexicographical ac-
tion;
– an intra-lexicographical phase where the lexicographical tool:
a. detects the problem,

b. and suggests a solution;
– an extra-lexicographical process where the user accepts the proposed solution

and uses it in order to solve the hitherto unknown problem.

Authenticated
As we mentioned, such advanced lexicographical tools already exist, mainly in

relation to text production and translation. Among them the most well-known is
probably Word’s Spelling and Grammar Checker which, when activated, detects
problems and suggests solutions regarding written text production in a digital envi-
ronment. In such cases, the intra-lexicographical process takes only a few seconds
or even less. This should be compared with the above-mentioned process, where the
user himself has to take lexicographical action, which frequently may take several
minutes. If, for instance, a professional translator needs to make 50 lexicographical
consultations in a normal working day, and these take an average of 5 minutes, this
works out at 250 minutes, or more than four hours, of consultation; for most people
this would represent more than half a working day. This constitutes some rather
expensive production costs for the translators and, as such, a terrible waste of time.
In this respect, the time factor – translated into quick and easy data access and in-
formation retrieval – becomes another important criterion of lexicographical quality
and relevance, as also happens in the production phase of specialised online dic-
tionaries mentioned in section 5.7.

Authenticated

General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 General Theory of Specialised Dictionaries

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

5.1 Utility tools and user needs

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

5.2 Concept of user needs

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Which language is the user’s mother tongue or first language?

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

What is the user’s experience in translation between a specific set of specialised

– Consultation-relevant user characteristics:

What is the user’s experience of lexicographical consultations?

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

None of these methods are perfect:

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

indications of what potential users may need; however, should it be employed to

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Terminology is a set of applications in as far as it allows the development of products specifi-

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

5.3 Data and information

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

As a rule, the preparation and writing of definitions – or explications, as Harris calls

Kilgarriff’s problem, as we see it, seems to be that he is a non-expert in accountancy

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

5.4 Lexicographical functions

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Although they also depend on user characteristics, lexicographical functions are

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

In chapter 6, we will look at some of the techniques required to implement the

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

techniques, an advanced theory is absolutely necessary. What the function theory

5.5 General methodology: an example

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

Subject-field experts engaged in translation cover a broad spectrum of character-

a. prepares the translation studying relevant background material in order to

a. reads specific text segments in the source language,

– a post-translation phase where the translator (or another person)

a. revises the translated text.

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

pre-translation phase where general subject-field knowledge may be required, but

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

language (which is preferable when it is the translator’s mother tongue) or in a bi-

These reflections do not necessarily imply that previously-conducted user studies

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

In terms of statistical significance, the numbers and percentages obtained by

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

a. general study of the subject matter

– In the translation phase

a. text reception in the source language

i. with problems in the previous sub-phases

Brought to you by | Cambridge University Library

ii. without problems in the previous sub-phases

d. specific study of a topic related to the subject matter

– In the post-translation phase

a. text revision in the target language

i. text reception in the source language