Space restrictions in paper and electronic dictionaries and their implications for the design of production dictionaries

One important consideration in dictionary-making has been that of space. To conserve space in paper dictionaries, a number of principles, strategies and conventions have been employed. With the gradual transition of the dictionary to the electronic medium, some of these strategies and conventions have lost or changed their significance. For one thing, it is no longer sufficient to speak of dictionary space alone, as was customary with paper dictionaries. One should now distinguish between at least two types of space: storage space and presentation space. In fact, this distinction is also valid for paper dictionaries. By storage space I mean the capacity to hold the total content of the dictionary. Storage space restrictions are no longer a major concern in electronic dictionaries except for the most space-consuming content, such as high-resolution video. Presentation space refers to the display of lexicographic information, and here the restrictions are very real in the case of electronic dictionaries. The (potentially) dynamic character of lexicographic presentation in electronic dictionaries redefines classical metalexicographic notions, such as microstructure and access structure, or entry element and cross-reference. The move of dictionaries to the electronic medium has also opened up new possibilities for dictionaries designed specifically to aid production in the second/foreign language. I offer some suggestions on how these new proposals could be improved to take advantage of the electronic medium. 1. Space in dictionaries: background Space has traditionally been a concept central to dictionaries, and, consequently, an essential consideration in dictionary making (Landau 2001). There is a widespread underlying assumption that space in dictionaries is a highly valuable commodity. To describe even the core lexicon of a natural language requires a substantial volume of data. Fitting it into a printed book is usually a challenge. Splitting a dictionary into multiple volumes is an option only for some dictionary types. Dictionaries need to be affordable to the users, so they cannot be excessively large. Many are intended to be portable, so they cannot be too bulky. Paper dictionaries are often reproduced in many copies and thus even small savings get multiplied manyfold. It is an overarching principle of lexicography that dictionary space needs to be conserved. As a consequence, a host of conventional principles, strategies, and devices have been employed in lexicographic practice of the past and present, contributing to the peculiar properties of the canonical dictionary text (cf. the concept of textual condensation, Hausmann and Wiegand 1989; Wiegand 1996). 1.1. From principle to device We have referred above to principles, strategies, and devices. To illustrate the difference between the three in this context: one rather obvious principle would be to avoid the duplication of content, and from this principle follows the strategy of cross-referencing, yielding a number of specific cross-referencing devices. 1.2. Some space-saving conventions Some space-saving devices may become conventionalized in lexicography: this means they become popular across a range of lexicographic projects. Thus, they become lexicographic conventions. Some examples of such conventions would be the following: • use of abbreviations is conventionalized in many lexicographic traditions; in English-language lexicography, for example, part of speech information has often been presented through abbreviations (n, v, adj); likewise, parts of definitions representing placeholders for subjects and complements have often been abbreviated (sb, sth) • concise defining styles have traditionally been used for reasons of space in monolingual dictionaries; pocket monolingual dictionaries favour defining by synonym if possible; synonyms, being intralingual equivalents, are naturally shorter than phrasal or clausal definitions • niching and nesting can be employed, resulting in run-on entries (see Gouws 2003 on the distinction between niching and nesting) • restricted treatment is often given to derivatives, such as when no definition is provided at all • cross-referencing to avoid duplicating information that is already available in another place; this could be in another entry, but a cross-reference may also be entry-internal, as in the example from the online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language in Figure 1 below. 1 At the time of original writing: http://www.bartleby.com/61/ ; at publication time available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/congruence Figure 1: An example of entry-internal cross-reference from the online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Subsense 1b cross-refers to subsense 1a. 2. Electronic dictionaries and dictionary space There is no doubt that lexicography is now undergoing a steady transition to the electronic medium. One reason that dictionaries and other reference works are taking the lead in the electronic revolution is that they tend to be rather more voluminous than e.g. fiction, and so a transition to the electronic medium can save more paper (and buyers’ money). Another, functional, reason is related to access: reference works, unlike works of fiction, are not typically meant to be read in linear order, and there is a potential for greater flexibility of access in the electronic format (that this potential has not always been utilized, especially in the early products, is still another matter). The enthusiasm with which the electronic revolution is embraced invites comments on the superiority of the new medium; some of them fully justified, others only partially true. A frequently voiced sentiment is that space in electronic dictionaries is unrestricted, and, consequently, that space-saving becomes a non-issue. Corréard (2002) argues that space-saving is still relevant in the context of electronic dictionaries. In her paper, though, she only tackles a rather narrow selection of details. It should be clear that in view of the new medium, the notion of space deserves a little more attention.