Jun 3, 2013 - The New Collins Concise English Dictionary, ed. by W.T. McLeod, Lon- don & Glasgow: .... As far as pronunciation is concerned, the three dic-.
Dictionaries for Lexicographers?: For Linguists? For Laymen? R.R.K. Hartmann
Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, Number 4, 1982, pp. 270-273 (Article) Published by Dictionary Society of North America DOI: 10.1353/dic.1982.0008
For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dic/summary/v004/4.hartmann.html
Access provided by Remin University of China (3 Jun 2013 03:59 GMT)
DICTIONARIES FOR LEXICOGRAPHERS? FOR LINGUISTS? FOR LAYMEN? The Concise Oxford Dictionary, ed. by J.B. Sykes, Oxford University Press, 7th edition 1982, xxvii & 1264 pp., £7.75
The New Collins Concise English Dictionary, ed. by W.T. McLeod, London & Glasgow: Collins, 1982, xx & 1388 pp., £7.50 Longman New Universal Dictionary, ed. by P.' Procter, Harlow: Longman (& G. & C Merriam), 1982, xxvi & 1158 pp., £ 6.95
Archibald: I hear you're having a ball reviewing another batch of English dictionaries? Randolph: You know how they turn me on. There are 3 new ones,
bringing the total of largish one-volume dictionaries to over
10. Who told you? A: A couple of Middle Eastern friends who'd attended meetings at Exeter . . . And Larry Urdang reports that British lex-
icographers are coming under the influence of American
practices. R: Urdang himself has done more than most . . .
A: . . .especially at Random-House and Collins . . . R: . . .to show how closely intertwined words and things are and how much people rely on the dictionary as a rule-book. A: Ah, yes, the encyclopedic and the etiquette traditions in American lexicography.
R: Well, the original Collins Concise was based on an American publication; the New Concise is a shorter version of the Collins English Dictionary which made quite an impact when it appeared in 1979. The Longman New Universal is actually a joint venture with the Merriam-Webster company, although they make more capital out of the claim that they were the original publishers of Johnson's dictionary. A: How do the Collins New Concise and the Longman New Universal compare with their brothers and sisters? R: The main difference is that the New Concise is just over Vs smaller than the Collins English Dictionary of which it is a good * A variant of this review in a more conventional format was published
in the Times Literary Supplement on 3 September 1982 under the title "Advancing definitions." 270
R. R. K. Hartmann271
'abridgment', as you would say, while the New Universal is
bigger in terms of entries, if not in pages, than the 1978
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and it is a brand-new dictionary.
A: Which cannot be said of the last in the trio?
R: No, it's the 7th edition of the Oxford Concise, which follows close at the heels of the latest supplement of the OED. In fact, Bob Burchfield was on the telly again the other day defending the historical principle. The Concise has always had a kind of
love-hate relationship with its parent, stressing that current use
is at least as important as past use. A: So, What's new in this edition? R: That's a good question, Arch. They have introduced two new
usage labels, D for 'disputed uses' and R for 'racially offensive uses', but they employ them sparingly, and apart from some more neologisms I can't really detect any drastic changes.
A: Is it true that John Sykes, the editor, has moved to another department at O.U.P.? R: Yes, but it may not mean anything. What is interesting is that although the Concise still hits the best-seller lists with any new edition, the competition from other dictionary publishers may be beginning to have an effect on its monopoly. I actually find it encouraging that dictionaries are becoming more differentiated . . .
A: . . .less uniform . . .
R: . . .than they used to be even a few years ago. A: How are they recording and commenting on current usage? R: I was going to say that they are trying out some of the methods of measuring divergent usage that you and I have been advocating for years. A: Like panels or juries . . . R: . . .like using acceptability judgments in various ways. Neither
linguists nor lexicographers have paid enough attention to the
ordinary native speaker, his actual usage, his declared preferences. A: I quite agree. If you use informants you have to accept their statements about what is right and wrong in grammar and vocabulary, and be doubly careful about some of the rationalizations offered by so-called authorities.
272Reviews
R: Many of the 'usage notes' in this year's dictionaries try to come to grips with this problem. Just one example, the word disinterested . . .
A: . . .not that old chestnut again . . . R: . . .disinterested in the sense 'uninterested' rather than 'impartial' is marked in the Oxford Concise with a D for 'disputed usage', while the Collins New Concise warns the user with a triangle that "careful writers and speakers avoid this confusion", and the Longman New Universal comments that one of the senses is "disapproved of by some speakers". A: The trouble is, here, as in the treatment of variant pronunciations, how do we find out what kinds of speakers prefer what kinds of forms in what kinds of contexts, and how they judge the acceptability of other people's usage, as opposed to their own?
R: Quite. As far as pronunciation is concerned, the three dictionaries can show considerable variation. The pronunciation
exqufsite.foi example, with the stress on the second syllable,
is stigmatized by the Oxford Concise with a D, but listed in first place, presumably as preferred variant, by both the Collins New Concise and the Longman New Universal. A: Are pronunciations given in IPA? R: More and more dictionaries are going over to the international symbols, but Oxford have retained their own respelling which uses conventional letters, with some odd squiggles added. A: I understand that Gimson has been phonetics consultant . . R: . . .Gim has been very busy with both Collins and Longman dictionaries, and even with the Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary, but not with the Oxford Concise. The Longman New Universal tries to avoid the two extremes of unrecognizable traditional spelling (as in the Oxford Concise) and unfamiliar
phonetic symbols (as in Collins New Concise) by devising a
system which uses only familiar letters and letter combinations, with the only exception of the schwa. A: Many American dictionaries have been doing just that since the famous American College Dictionary which I reviewed back in 1948.
R: For foreign words they still have to rely on IPA transcriptions, though.
R.R.K. Hartmann273
A: What's new in the way the information is presented? R: If you mean the arrangement of entries, most dictionaries are now adopting the strictly alphabetic sequence and also distributing the load over more separate headwords. In this respect the Oxford Concise which tends to cram a lot of items
into some very long and complicated entries has some catching up to do. If you mean the nature of the information, the Longman New Universal leads the field by providing subject-
based tables and diagrams of one to four pages at periodic intervals to illustrate linked concepts, like the alphabet, anatomy,
architecture, British history, the car etc. A: That surely raises the question of who or what the dictionary is for: the foreign learner, the school pupil, or the technical expert? R: Indeed, and there's been some intensive discussion again of the idea that dictionaries should be designed for particular users and specific purposes. Meanwhile the Oxford Concise seems more concerned with its own task of lexicographical description than with the anonymous reader, the Collins New Concise refers vaguely to academic and general users alike, and the Longman New Universal sees itself as a guidebook for the whole family (although grandma will have difficulty reading the small print). A: If they are all aiming at the undifferentiated layman, isn't some of the information highly redundant? R: I certainly wonder about the need for full etymological derivations . . .
A: . . . paradoxical in dictionaries that lay so much stress on current usage. Well, I must go. Glad to hear that some progress has been made, Randolph. R: Oh yes, and with the opportunities of more international contact, computer technology, and better training, the outlook is good. A: The best of British and North American! R.R.K. Hartmann
University of Exeter
