http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of
Dictionary Reviews, with
Specific Reference to
LexicoNordica and Lexikos
Henning Bergenholtz, Centre for Lexicography, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Denmark and Department of Afrikaans and Dutch,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa (hb@bcom.au.dk)
and
Rufus H. Gouws, Department of Afrikaans and Dutch,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa (rhg@sun.ac.za)
Abstract: Wiegand (1984) introduced dictionary criticism as a formal component of a general
theory of lexicography. Since then many scholars have focused on various aspects of dictionary
criticism. In this article a distinction is made between two major types of dictionary criticism, i.e.
the review of metalexicographical literature and the review of dictionaries. In the review of dictionaries different types can be identified, i.e. a short discussion without a critical evaluation, a
more comprehensive review, a review article, reaction to a review or a review article, a peer review
and the evaluation of a dictionary as a part of a bigger metalexicographical contribution. This article gives a brief discussion of the scope of dictionary criticism and looks at some criteria for dictionary reviews before focusing on aspects of dictionary reviews in the Scandinavian journal of
lexicography LexicoNordica and the South African lexicography journal Lexikos. A comparison is
made between the reviews in these two journals, identifying striking similarities and differences. It
is also shown that the reviews in Lexikos frequently refer to topics that are not as relevant to LexicoNordica. This is due to the fact that dictionaries reflect something of the linguistic and cultural
environment where they are published.
Proposals are made to enhance the quality of reviews in Lexikos and to help ensure a stronger
theoretical approach to reviews as a genre that elevates the metalexicographic discourse and
improves the dictionary culture of a given community.
Keywords: CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD REVIEW, DICTIONARY CRITICISM, DICTIONARY CULTURE, DICTIONARY REVIEWS, GENUINE PURPOSE, METALEXICOGRAPHIC
PUBLICATIONS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, REVIEW ARTICLES, REVIEWS, TARGET READERS
Opsomming: Oor die metaleksikografiese genre van woordeboekresensies,
met spesifieke verwysing na LexicoNordica en Lexikos. Wiegand (1984) het woordeboekkritiek as formele komponent van 'n algemene leksikografieteorie voorgestel. Sedertdien het
baie navorsers aandag aan verskillende aspekte van woordeboekkritiek gegee. In hierdie artikel
word 'n onderskeid gemaak tussen twee hooftipes woordeboekkritiek, naamlik resensies van metaleksikografiese literatuur en resensies van woordeboeke. Verskillende tipes woordeboekresensies
Lexikos 26 (AFRILEX-reeks/series 26: 2016): 60-81
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
61
word onderskei, naamlik 'n kort bespreking sonder 'n kritiese evaluering, 'n uitvoeriger resensie, 'n
resensie-artikel, reaksie op 'n resensie of resensie-artikel, 'n eweknieresensie en die evaluering van
'n woordeboek as deel van 'n groter metaleksikografiese bydrae. Hierdie artikel kyk kortliks na die
bestek van woordeboekkritiek en na verskillende kriteria vir woordeboekresensies voordat daar
gefokus word op aspekte van woordeboekresensies in die Skandinawiese leksikografietydskrif
LexicoNordica en die Suid-Afrikaanse leksikografietydskrif Lexikos. 'n Vergelyking word getref tussen resensies in hierdie twee tydskrifte met verwysing na opvallende ooreenkomste en verskille.
Daar word ook aangetoon dat resensies in Lexikos dikwels na onderwerpe verwys wat nie so relevant is vir LexicoNordica nie. Dit spruit daaruit voort dat woordeboeke iets weerspieël van die linguistiese en kulturele omgewing waar hulle gepubliseer word.
Voorstelle word gemaak ter verbetering van die gehalte van resensies in Lexikos wat kan help
om 'n sterker teoretiese benadering te verseker tot resensies as 'n genre wat die metaleksikografiese
diskoers verhoog asook die woordeboekkultuur van 'n gegewe samelewing verbeter.
Sleutelwoorde: GEHALTEVERSEKERING, KENMERKE VAN 'N GOEIE RESENSIE, METALEKSIKOGRAFIESE PUBLIKASIES, RESENSIE-ARTIKELS, RESENSIES, TEIKENLESERS, WERKLIKE DOEL, WOORDEBOEKKRITIEK, WOORDEBOEKKULTUUR, WOORDEBOEKRESENSIES
1.
Introduction
In the development of lexicography as an academic discipline different theoretical approaches have come to the fore, focusing on a variety of features and
components relevant to lexicographic theory. One of the significant early contributors in this regard has been the German metalexicographer Herbert Ernst
Wiegand. Wiegand (1984: 15) already introduced the different subsections of
metalexicography, as being (1) the history of lexicography, (2) a general theory
of lexicography, (3) research on dictionary use and (4) dictionary criticism.
Wiegand (1989: 262) uses the term Wörterbuchforschung (dictionary research)
and allocates the following four research areas as subfields of the broader
research field: (1) research into dictionary use, (2) critical dictionary research,
(3) historical dictionary research and (4) systematic dictionary research. In his
further research Wiegand has dealt with some aspects of the concept of critical
dictionary research, cf. Wiegand (1993), but not nearly in as much detail as he
has devoted to some of the other subfields. Wiegand (1998) indicated that critical dictionary research would be a topic in the envisaged second volume of his
comprehensive book Wörterbuchforschung but the second volume has not been
published. In the first volume (Wiegand 1998: 264) he does make the apt
remark that scientific dictionary criticism is the mental/intellectual weapon in
conflicts between commercial lexicography and dictionary research.
In the metalexicographic literature discussions that have been devoted to
dictionary criticism have often been fairly brief but there are also more in depth
discussions of dictionary criticism that can be found in, among others, Ripfel
(1989), Nakamoto (1994), Bogaards (1996), Hartmann (1996), Chan and Taylor
(2001), Bergenholtz (2003), Nielsen (2003), Swanepoel (2008), Engelberg and
Lemnitzer (2009), Svensén (2009) and Schierholz (2015). Engelberg and Lem-
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
62
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
nitzer (2009) offer a thorough discussion in which they focus on criticism of
both printed and e-dictionaries. In spite of all the publications dealing with
dictionary criticism, the topic has still not been dealt with as comprehensively
as one would have wanted it to be done. Even a publication like the three volume international encyclopedia of lexicography (Hausmann et al. 1989–1991)
offers scant attention to dictionary criticism, albeit that one contributor, i.e.
Osselton (1989), does focus on dictionary criticism in his chapter. Also the supplementary fourth volume of this publication (Gouws et al. 2013) includes but a
single chapter that explicitly deals with dictionary criticism, i.e. Swanepoel (2013).
Although Wiegand (1984; 1989) does not analyse this concept and the
scope of the term dictionary criticism in detail some of the above-mentioned contributions, e.g. Engelberg and Lemnitzer (2009) and Swanepoel (2008) identify
and discuss various subsections of this concept.
Renewed recent interest in dictionary criticism resulted in two conferences
in April and June 2016 with dictionary criticism as theme, hosted respectively
by the University of Silesia (Katowice, Poland) and the Friedrich Alexander
University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (Erlangen, Germany) under the auspices of
the consortium of EMLex, i.e. the European Masters in Lexicography, a prominent new role player on the international lexicographic scene. Proceedings of
these conferences will be published towards the end of 2016 in the book series
Lexicographica Series Maior.
This article gives a brief discussion of the scope of dictionary criticism and
looks at some criteria for dictionary reviews before focusing on aspects of dictionary reviews in the Scandinavian journal of lexicography LexicoNordica and
the South African lexicography journal Lexikos. A comparison is made between
the reviews in these two journals, identifying striking similarities and differences.
2.
The scope of dictionary criticism
When dealing with dictionary criticism as one of the components of the
broader fields of dictionary research and metalexicography it is important to
have a clear understanding of the scope of this research field. Looking at the
metalexicographic discussion it is clear that the scope of the concept of dictionary criticism does not always go beyond the mere review of dictionaries. The
current article assumes that dictionary criticism refers to a much wider lexicographic activity that includes reviews of both metalexicographic literature and
dictionaries. In both these categories a distinction is made between (1) a short
description without a critical evaluation, (2) a review directed at a publication
as a whole, (3) a review article that offers a more comprehensive and scientifically in depth discussion, (4) response by the author of the metalexicographic
work or the dictionary to a review or a review article, (5) peer reviews, e.g. of
metalexicographic publications and conference abstracts, and (6) the evaluation
of a dictionary or aspects of one or more dictionaries as part of a bigger metalexicographical publication.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
63
Category (1) is often only a brief announcement of a new dictionary, often
found in a non-scientific publication like a newspaper but also in scientific
journals as a lexicographic news snippet, with a very restricted discussion of
the new product, whereas category (2) gives a more comprehensive discussion,
either in a scientific or a non-scientific publication, where the reviewer has the
opportunity to give a well-motivated assessment of the reviewed dictionary or
metalexicographic publication. In dictionary criticisms belonging to category
(3) the review article offers an in depth discussion of either the dictionary or
metalexicographic publication as a whole or one or more topics selected from
the relevant publication for a comprehensive and critical discussion. An example of such a criticism is Swanepoel (2014) with its focus on the distinction
between criteria for the description and evaluation of the design features of
dictionaries, and the content, structure and operationalization of lexicographic
evaluation criteria with regard to the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, in his
review article of volume 14 of this dictionary.
Contributions in category (4) are not found that often but this category
represents a component of dictionary criticism that should be expanded because
it leads to a critical and bidirectional discussion of lexicographic works. Authors
of reviewed publications should get the opportunity to respond to reviews of
their work — acknowledging the advice they receive from reviewers and motivating some of their decisions. A good example of such a response is Gove (1962)
which gives a response of the editor of the Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language (Gove 1961), presumably the most severely
criticised dictionary, cf. Sledd and Ebbitt (1962), to the remarks of some of his
critics. A more recent example of this type of dictionary criticism is the response
by Botha (2005), editor-in-chief of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, to the
critical review article by De Schryver (2005) and the subsequent response to the
response (De Schryver 2005a).
Before publishing reviews of lexicographic publications journal editors
will do well to submit these reviews to the authors of the reviewed publications
to solicit their response and publish it along with the review. This could ensure
a more balanced presentation of dictionary criticism with regard to a specific
publication, but it will also stimulate the metalexicographic discourse.
Peer reviews, category (5), is a type of lexicographic criticism that has not
received the necessary recognition as fully-fledged scientific contributions, cf.
Bergenholz and Gouws (2015). One of the issues that could be re-assessed in
the writing of this type of criticism is the tradition of anonymous peer reviews.
Where a reviewer knows who the author of a publication is (either an abstract
or a paper) and the author of the publication knows who the reviewer has been
the nature and extent of comments and responses could perhaps take cognizance of the relevant cotext and this could perhaps eventually lead to a significantly enhanced publication. As it is the case with category (5) the importance
of the contribution of critical discussions of dictionaries belonging to category (6)
has also been neglected in metalexicographic literature. Many text books on
lexicography or metalexicographic papers contain critical remarks and often
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
64
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
more comprehensive discussions of certain aspects of specific dictionaries or
the treatment and presentation of specific data types in certain dictionaries.
Albeit that such a discussion might only focus on the way in which a specific
dictionary treats one data type in a single dictionary article, it has to be
regarded as a significant contribution to the field of dictionary criticism. Metalexicographers giving this kind of criticism in their publications need to be
aware of and should also adhere to the criteria applicable to other forms of dictionary criticism.
This article gives a restricted discussion of reviews, looking only at
reviews of dictionaries, with a focus on only dictionary criticism belonging to
category (2) and category (3). No further reference will be made to the criticism
of metalexicographic literature; this calls for a separate article.
3.
Establishing a dictionary criticism culture
Hausmann (1989: 13) introduced the concept of a dictionary culture, i.e. society
adapting to lexicography e.g. by becoming more familiar with dictionary types
and dictionary using skills. Gouws (2013) argues in favour of a comprehensive
dictionary culture that will not only focus on lexicography dealing with languages for general purposes but also lexicography of languages for special
purposes. According to Gouws (2016) such an expanded and refined version of
a dictionary culture could be further adapted to include a positive awareness of
the need for and importance of a critical approach to dictionaries. A society
characterised by a sophisticated and comprehensive dictionary culture will
acknowledge the importance of dictionary criticism and will see this genre as a
significant method of guiding users to make informed choices when consulting
and buying dictionaries. Stronger theoretically-based reviews will lead to an
enhanced level of dictionary criticism and therefore to a broadening of the
metalexicographic discourse.
The current article briefly looks at some aspects of dictionary reviews
before referring to a comprehensive study of dictionary reviews in the journal
LexicoNordica (Bergenholtz 2003). Some of the outcomes of this investigation are
then briefly compared with those of a much more limited investigation of dictionary reviews in the journal Lexikos.
4.
Reviews and peer reviews as form of quality assurance
Reviews always deal with new works. In the evaluation of older publications
one does not have a review but rather a general discussion or historical presentation.
It is quite natural that a single scientist or even a lexicographic team will
rejoice over a positive review of their work — and they will be much less
excited about a negative review. But even a few points of well-founded criticism often function as a call for methodological or stylistic changes in future
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
65
publications or revisions of the same work. This also applies to dictionaries —
both with regard to the correction of concrete errors, e.g. orthographic mistakes, and underlying theoretical problems. Lexicographers should regard it as
part of the responsibility of reviewers to give an honest and critical assessment
of the quality of the dictionary and they therefore usually appreciate this kind
of feedback that can enhance the quality of their future work.
The influence of reviews may never be underestimated and a review may
even compel the publisher to withdraw the work from the market and stop any
further sales. But even if a publisher does not opt for such a drastic decision
after a devastating review, such a review can have a negative influence on further sales of the dictionary. The first three volumes of the six volume Brockhaus/Wahrig (Wahrig et al. 1980–84) received extremely negative reviews, cf.
Wiegand and Kučera (1981, 1982) and Ringguth (1982). Albeit very negative,
these reviews were published in journals for linguists and due to the very
restricted reader group of these journals the reviews did not have much influence. However, a discussion of these reviews in Der Spiegel, a popular German
weekly magazine with more than a million copies sold weekly at that stage,
most probably caused a dramatic drop in sales of the Brockhaus/Wahrig with
the end result that the publishing house eventually had to withdraw the six
volume dictionary from the market.
In this case it had not been the intention of the reviewers to harm the publishing house but, in order to achieve future quality assurance, to make them
aware of deficiencies and mistakes in the dictionary and of problems in the
practice of copying from another dictionary. However, reviews may sometimes
not primarily focus on quality assurance but may rather endeavour to discredit
a given publication. In another, non-lexicographic, field this kind of approach
presumably prevailed in the work of four different reviewers of Bjørn Lomborg's The Sceptical Environmentalist (Lomborg 2001) that were published in the
journal Scientific American. A central theme in the book by Lomborg was his
scepticism, based on statistical data, regarding the forecast of a sudden occurrence of global warming, caused by humans. Lomborg specifically criticised the
huge sums of money allocated to avoid this alleged warming and the fact that a
lot of money would still have to be spent in future. Lomborg argues that the
money could rather have been used to improve the assistance and self-assistance of the poorest people in the third world. The interpretation of some data
was questioned in four extremely negative reviews. Without referring to other
positive reviews in other journals these reviews were used as main argument in
a complaint submitted to the Danish ethical commission for scientific dishonesty. The complaint explicitly stated in a written motivation its opposition to
Lomborg's envisaged appointment as director of a new environmental institute. Lomborg was appointed but a new complaint was launched to the Commission for scientific dishonesty. In spite of protests from several hundred
Danish scientists he was convicted of scientific dishonesty. Consequently Lomborg withdrew from the position that he obtained as director of the environmental institute (cf. the article for "Lomborg" in Wikipedia).
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
66
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
From this it is clear that reviews can have a significant influence on the
reviewed publication, on future works of the same author or the same team
and even on personal career possibilities. Reviews can also be employed as
weapons in scientific arguments. A reviewer cannot prevent such misuse but
by adhering to the methodological and ethical rules that are discussed in the
following sections of this article the reviewer can at least try to produce a
review that does not provide any explicit arguments to assist the misuse thereof.
Dictionary reviews can also have a positive influence. The comprehensive
multi-volume Afrikaans dictionary the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (the
WAT) had been the target of extremely negative criticism, expressed in a number of reviews of especially volumes 6 and 7, cf. Grobler (1978), Combrink (1979),
Odendal (1979) and Gouws (1985). As a result of this criticism the editorial staff
of the WAT organised a special seminar to which metalexicographers and linguists were invited. The purpose of the seminar was to discuss the various
points of criticism directed at the WAT. These discussions led to a completely
revised editorial policy that resulted in much better lexicographic work in the
subsequent volumes of the WAT. In his review article, focusing on volume XIV
of the WAT, Swanepoel (2014: 378) argues that the compilers of the WAT have
relied on input from, among others, dictionary reviewers. These reviews have
enhanced the quality of the WAT (see also Gouws 2016).
In spite of this important role of reviews for individual scientists and science as a whole one unfortunately notices in the internal evaluation of research
at universities an increasing lack of consideration for reviews and peer reviews.
A single example is given that is typical of universities in Europe, Asia, Africa
and North and South America. Table 1 shows how credits were previously
obtained at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark — also for reviews. The
University had a system according to which credits were allocated to different
types of publications. Each member of the academic staff had to earn a certain
minimum number of credits per year and reviews contributed to achieving the
prescribed aims.
Peer reviewed paper in a journal or a book
Non-peer reviewed paper in a journal or a book
Book
Presenting a paper at a conference
Paper in the proceedings of a conference.
5
2
10
1
2
Dictionary
Textbook
Contribution to a dictionary or a textbook
Review
Peer review for a journal or a book
10
10
3
1
2
Table 1: Points allocated to research outputs
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
67
Today no credits are given for either reviews or peer reviews. Academics are
rather requested to refrain from these activities in order to write more papers in
peer-reviewed journals. Even when one includes reviews and peer reviews in
your research outputs they do not count anything in the evaluation of scientific
activities. This tendency at a Danish university is symptomatic of a worldwide
tendency that is extremely disadvantageous to science. Fortunately, in spite of
this situation there still are researchers who are willing to write reviews and
peer reviews and who try to do it as good as they can.
A change in the way reviews and peer reviews are counted is much
needed. Reviews are important products of research, also of lexicographical
research, for the reviewed scholar anyway, but reviews and peer reviews should
count more in strengthening the reputation of lexicographers, also by being
recognized as fully-fledged research outputs in the research evaluation process
of universities.
It is not only important to recognize the role of reviews in the process of
quality assurance; it is also important to acknowledge their role in lexicographic curricula, in the formulation of lexicographic theory and as a topic in
metalexicographic discussions. The curricula of academic programmes and
courses in lexicography should give more attention to dictionary reviews. Criteria for dictionary reviews need to be developed and embedded in any lexicography course and potential dictionary reviewers need to be made aware of
the relevant criteria.
5.
What characterizes a good review?
The following proposals for reviewing dictionaries can be expanded with many
more. We only give those that we regard as essential for the review of dictionaries.
Proposal 1: The review of a dictionary has to be fair
In principle a publishing house benefits from every discussion of any of their
dictionaries. Obviously publishing houses hope for positive evaluations but
even a negative reference to a dictionary increases its exposure and makes it
better known. Although lexicographers are pleased with positive reviews,
negative comments can have the advantage of helping them to improve the
next edition of the dictionary.
A question that does arise, is whether all dictionaries need to be reviewed
or only, for example, scientific dictionaries, cf. Wiegand (1998: 40), where the
review is published in a scientific journal. Should one completely refrain from
reviewing non-scientific or even bad scientific dictionaries? Both these questions can clearly and unambiguously be answered in the negative. Each and
every dictionary, good or bad, is an instrument that real users can use in real
situations. The user has the right to receive assistance and guidance with
regard to the purchasing and use of a dictionary. Metalexicographic discussion
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
68
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
in general can also benefit from discussions of mistakes made in the lexicographic practice. Lexicography deals with dictionaries; not only good dictionaries. Therefore all dictionaries need to be candidates for reviews. The type of
dictionary and the potential target user of the dictionary, the source where the
review is to be published and the envisaged reader of the review will necessarily have an influence on the nature and extent of the review. Reviewers should
be fair by not applying the same approach in their reviews of dictionaries from
different types with different target user groups and different genuine purposes, cf. Wiegand (1998: 298).
No matter where it is published, what dictionary is reviewed or who the
target readers will be, any review has to be fair. This is most likely to happen
when the reviewer employs criteria for the methodology of reviews, cf. for
example Tiisala (2000, 271f). Tiislala discusses dictionary reviews where the
reviewers had been impressionistic. He acknowledges that this can happen
very easily when reviewers only rely on random sampling of dictionary material for their criticism. A set of criteria that can be applied systematically can
lead to criticism that can improve the quality of further editions of a dictionary.
Each reviewer can formulate such criteria that can lead to a fair assessment of a
dictionary but one can also use existing proposals, for example Steiner (1984),
Leisi (1993) or Bergenholtz (2003), whose proposals are given here in a slightly
altered version:
—
—
—
—
—
—
A review should give a brief account of the contents and the extent of the
dictionary. But it has to be more than an account. It should also give a real
impression of and create interest in the dictionary.
A review should not be too long but should have room for a presentation
of some concrete dictionary articles.
A review has to include an analysis and an evaluation of the dictionary.
This should be motivated by the reviewer by means of a clear indication of
the grounds for the evaluation.
The review should be both an evaluation and a user orientation.
Reviewers have to identify themselves with the editor without refraining
from criticism.
The criticism should be positive by presenting clear alternatives for the
criticized dictionary articles.
Being fair should also imply that a review is factually correct. It has to cite and
summarise correctly without omitting important issues and without interpolations for which the reviewed work does not offer any concrete data. A review
needs to be both critical and fair. In addition, and this is important, the review
also has to be subjective to a certain extent, i.e. it has to present a personal
evaluation. A review that does not contain a personal assessment by the reviewer
on aspects of the work he/she is reviewing is not a real review but at the most
a documenting description. A review should be balanced and should neither be
completely objective nor completely subjective. A review is a subjective text,
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
69
based on objective criteria, cf. Kassebeer (2015). This is how it can be explained
that good reviews may present opposing assessments of the same work, and
therefore it is important to look at different reviews when utilizing them for
quality assessment. When evaluating reviews it is also important to know who
the reviewer is and who the target readers of the review are — this may necessarily influence the nature of the review.
These proposals could be formulated more briefly, as for example in Ripfel
(1989: 31) or Bergenholtz and Frandsen (1997: 48): A review should (1) describe,
(2) evaluate, (3) motivate the evaluation and (4) recommend or discourage the
use of the dictionary.
Proposal 2: The editor of a journal or a book with dictionary reviews should
ensure that the review is fair
Editors can follow this proposal if, from the outset, they do not invite potential
reviewers where they know that there are close positive or negative relations
between the lexicographer and the reviewers. In addition, an editor should not
accept reviews for publication when they are in clear breach of the given methodological and ethical demands. Finally, the editor should guarantee the possibility that the lexicographer of the reviewed dictionary has the opportunity to
respond to both good and bad reviews with a contribution that could be as
comprehensive as the review itself. This should preferably be in the same volume of the journal in which the review is published. If this is not possible, then
it should be published in the subsequent volume.
Proposal 3: A reviewer should employ ethical considerations relevant to
reviews
A review can only be fair if it adheres to certain ethical demands. Wiegand
(1993) uses a biblical metaphor to present a series of these "ethical commandments." We paraphrase them here with regard to dictionary reviews:
—
—
—
—
—
One has to demand ethical claims from dictionary reviews.
A dictionary is reviewed and not the person that compiled the dictionary.
A dictionary is not a person but the lexicographer is a person. Reference to
the person of the lexicographer or lexicographers and their scientific qualifications has to be avoided — unless it is a reference to generally known
facts that readers can also find elsewhere.
One should not annihilate the dictionary and thereby its lexicographer.
The commandment: 'You shall not kill!' also applies to reviews.
One should not give too much praise when it is only done to win friends
or to support your career.
Although reviewers should separate the wheat from the chaff they should
not only look for the wheat and ignore the chaff. One has to look for the
wheat and when the reviewers do not find it they should contemplate
whether they are blind in one or in both eyes.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
70
—
—
—
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
It is not that much of an achievement to identify a missing comma or a
single typing error.
A review should not be a platform for self-promotion of your own dictionary or scientific contributions. Praise in your own mouth stinks.
A mocking reviewer is like a professor that ridicules his colleagues in his
lectures. He may earn the applause from the audience but also the wrath
of the gods because he ridicules a lexicographer that cannot defend himself.
Proposal 4: Each dictionary user can review a dictionary
Many potential reviewers are asked by the editor of a journal to write a review.
In exceptional cases people also submit unsolicited reviews. These two situations confront the lexicographer with the question as to who is the best suited
to write the review of a given dictionary. Does one have to be an excellent
metalexicographer with substantial knowledge of the language(s) of the dictionary or an experienced practical lexicographer or trained linguist? Many
people are of this opinion and would therefore criticise a review when realising
that the reviewer is not a well-known expert of the language(s) or an expert in
the field of metalexicography/lexicography or linguistics. This criticism is
often expressed by the lexicographer of the reviewed dictionary. It also happens that reviewers apologetically remark in the introduction to reviews that
they have written the review without being a language expert. The criticism
mentioned here is unfair if the reviewer has not claimed in the review to be
such an expert. The apology is unnecessary but interesting and relevant for the
reader of the review but it does not diminish the quality and relevance of the
review.
In reality any reviewer, whether metalexicographer, linguist or lay person,
should pay special attention to the potential functions and user groups mentioned in the front matter text of the dictionary. To a certain degree a lay person
can do this exceptionally well if she/he belongs to the envisaged target user
group and writes the review based on her/his own experiences of using the
specific dictionary. If this can be done in collaboration with a lexicographer it
could be almost ideal for a thorough and relevant review. An example of such
an endeavour is Pedersen and Pedersen (1996), a collaboration between a high
school student and a lexicographer, or Gundersen (2002), that introduced a
child as consultant for the review of a children's dictionary.
Working with the assumption that any dictionary user can be a potential
reviewer, it is important that the reader of a review should not only know who
the reviewer is but also what the position of the reviewer is with regard to the
specific dictionary, e.g. a member of the envisaged user group, a fellow lexicographer or a metalexicographer. Reviews should reflect the position of their
authors and the assessment of reviews should be done with regard to the specific status and role of the reviewer in terms of the reviewed dictionary.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
6.
71
Reviews in LexicoNordica
Bergenholtz (2003) presents a comprehensive analysis of reviews of dictionaries
published in the Scandinavian lexicographic journal LexicoNordica for the
period 1994–2002. Some of the results of his research and some of the tables he
used will be given in the following paragraphs to present a basis for comparison when looking at results from the South African lexicographic journal
Lexikos. Coming from reviews in two lexicographic journals the results from
LexicoNordica and Lexikos are ideal for a comparative study. The criteria applied
in Bergenholtz (2003) have therefore also been used in the analysis of Lexikos.
The following table from Bergenholtz (2003) gives the number of reviews
published in LexicoNordica in each year of the period investigated:
LexicoNordica
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Number of reviews
17
22
14
9
10
11
11
10
6
Table 2: Number of reviews in LexicoNordica
These reviews, a total of 110 over a period of 9 years at an average of 12,2 per
annum, were directed at different types of dictionaries, e.g. monolingual general language dictionaries, bi- or polylingual general language dictionaries, bior polylingual specialised dictionaries and monolingual specialised dictionaries, lexicons and encyclopaedia.
The core of the analysis by Bergenholtz which will also be compared with
Lexikos regards the topics referred to in these reviews. The following table
illustrates these categories and the number of references to them in the reviews
in LexicoNordica. The total number of references exceeds the number of reviews
because a single review usually contains a discussion of more than one aspect
of the specific dictionary and often more than one reference to any given category in the list below. As an example: different references can be found in different sections of a single review to the same aspect, e.g. grammar. Each one of
these references has been counted individually. Consequently in e.g. ten
reviews the number of references to grammar exceeds the number of reviews
under discussion:
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
72
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
LN 94-02
LN 94-02
number
%
101
3,1
1.
communication functions
2.
cognitive functions
78
2,4
3.
dictionary user
114
3,5
4.
advice to the user
6
0,2
5.
price
30
0,9
6.
layout/web-design
113
3,5
7.
about the lexicographer
40
1,2
8.
comparison with other dictionaries
215
6,6
9.
history of the dictionary
56
1,7
10. reference to other reviews
9
0,3
11. about the reviewer
19
0,6
12. empirical basis
89
2,7
13. outer texts
172
5,3
14. lemma selection
453
13,9
15. ordering of lemmata
72
2,2
16. access
86
2,6
17. article structure
46
1,4
18. prescriptive/descriptive
48
1,5
19. equivalents
185
5,7
20. grammar
289
8,9
21. orthography
74
2,3
22. pronunciation
110
3,4
23. semantic and encyclopaedic knowledge
247
7,6
24. labeling
117
3,6
25. etymology
48
1,5
26. examples
99
3,0
27. collocations
67
2,1
28. idioms
40
1,2
29. illustrations
58
1,8
30. synonymy/antonymy
41
1,3
31. dictionary-internal references
33
1,0
32. entertainment value of dictionary
10
0,3
33. positive assessment
77
2,4
18
0,6
34. negative assessment
Total
3260
Table 3: Topics referred to in reviews in LexicoNordica 1994–2002
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
7.
Lexikos 1991–2015
7.1
Types of reviews
73
In section 2 of this article reference was made to different types of reviews, including (1) a short description without a critical evaluation, (2) a review
directed at a publication as a whole, (3) a review article that offers a more comprehensive and scientifically in depth discussion, (4) response by the author of
the metalexicographic work or the dictionary to a review or a review article.
The editors of Lexikos, as reflected in the presentation of different categories of
contributions in the table of contents, make provision for two types of dictionary reviews. In the table of contents they are classified as Reviews and Review
articles, with the latter infrequently occurring in the various volumes of Lexikos.
The Lexikos category of Reviews includes the categories (1) and (2) mentioned
above — unfortunately without any distinction that could inform the reader of
the nature, scope and extent of the discussion contained in the review.
Just as is the case with dictionaries, dictionary reviews should also have
clearly identified envisaged target readers. This target readership is primarily
determined by the journal or other publication in which a given review is included. Where reviews in a newspaper are directed at a general reader group, a
review in a scientific journal should be directed at readers who are semiexperts and experts in the relevant subject field of that specific journal. A dictionary of physics that is reviewed in a journal of physics should be directed at
experts and semi-experts in the field of physics. When the same dictionary is
reviewed in a lexicographic journal, the focus is not necessarily on the contents
in terms of the needs and demands of physicists because physicists do not typically read a lexicographic journal. Such a review will be directed at the target
readers of the specific journal, i.e. people interested in the field of lexicography.
The scope of their interest could include a discussion of the contents of the dictionary of physics but could also make provision for remarks regarding e.g. the
structures, functions, user-perspective, etc. of the given dictionary; aspects that
would most probably not be of interest to the physicists. This target reader
group of a review should necessarily influence the approach followed by the
specific reviewer and the nature of the review.
In a scientific journal like Lexikos one would expect the majority of the
reviews to be directed at members of the lexicographic community, i.e. experts
and semi-experts in the field. These typical readers of Lexikos would typically
expect a high level review that goes beyond a brief introduction of the given
dictionary. Unfortunately this is not the case in many of the reviews. Too many
of these reviews belong to the above-mentioned category (1) and do not contribute significantly to a substantial critical lexicographic discourse. Fortunately
there are also ample reviews that are more comprehensive as well as review
articles that play an important role in developing dictionary criticism as a component of a general theory of lexicography. By allocating a section in the jour-
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
74
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
nal to reviews and by having a dedicated review editor on the editorial board,
the editors of Lexikos ensure that this journal does not only give a fine reflection
of new dictionaries but it also stimulates the metalexicographic discussion.
The quality of the contribution of Lexikos to the field of dictionary criticism
could be enhanced by a more structured approach in the writing of reviews.
When soliciting dictionary reviews the review editor could consider the possibility of giving the potential reviewers a brief of the kind of review needed for
this journal, cf. Gouws (2016). Too often the reviews do not really live up to the
expectations of the target readers of Lexikos. Such a brief that deviates from a
random approach to say something about a dictionary could also help to
develop the expertise of dictionary criticism. This would yet again elevate the
level of the metalexicographic discourse.
7.2
Focal points in the Lexikos reviews
Looking at reviews in Lexikos, volumes 1–25, and employing the set of criteria
used by Bergenholz (2003) it is interesting to note both similarities and differences when comparing these reviews to those in LexicoNordica. Compared to
LexicoNordica's 110 reviews in 9 years at an average of 12,2 per annum, the 25 volumes of Lexikos contain 126 reviews at an average of only 5,04 per annum.
There is no fixed number of pages allocated to reviews and no clear indication
of a trend in terms of the frequency or extent of reviews or review articles in
the 25 volumes. The following table indicates the different categories and the
number of relevant references (with different references to the same category in
a single review counted individually) in Lexikos:
Lexikos 1–25 Lexikos 1–25
number
%
1. communication functions
16
2,4
2. cognitive functions
4
0,6
3. dictionary user
42
6,3
4. advice to the user
1
0,1
5. price
75
11,1
6. layout/web-design
11
1,6
7. about the lexicographer
6
0,9
8. comparison with other dictionaries
14
2,1
9. history of the dictionary
11
1,6
10. reference to other reviews
3
,45
11. about the reviewer
3
,45
12. empirical basis
8
1,2
13. outer texts
42
6,2
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
14. lemma selection
78
11,8
15. ordering of lemmata
13
1,9
16. access
15
2,2
17. article structure
4
0,6
18. prescriptive/descriptive
6
0,9
19. equivalents
17
2,5
20. grammar
36
5,2
21. orthography
16
2,4
22. pronunciation
28
4,0
23. semantic and encyclopaedic knowledge
47
7,1
24. labeling
13
1,9
25. etymology
8
1,0
26. examples
22
3,3
27. collocations
10
1,5
28. idioms
12
1,8
29. illustrations
8
1,2
30. synonymy/antonymy
12
1,8
31. dictionary-internal references
15
2,2
32. entertainment value of dictionary
3
,45
33. positive assessment
51
7,7
34. negative assessment
16
2,4
Total
75
661
Table 4: Topics referred to in reviews in Lexikos 1991–2015.
Before reflecting on a comparison between the two journals it is interesting to
look at some other topics in the reviews in Lexikos. Albeit that Lexikos is an
international journal it is based in South Africa. Many dictionaries from South
African publishing houses are submitted for reviews and the editors have to
respond to these submissions. Dictionaries are not only compiled for specific
target users but also to be used in specific linguistic and cultural environments.
It is to be expected that South African dictionaries will reflect aspects of the
South African multilingual and multicultural situation and these issues are
often addressed in the reviews. This implies that some issues come to the fore
in the reviews in Lexikos that have no or a far lesser impact in the reviews in
LexicoNordica.
A number of reviews include references to a typical lexicographic topic
like the treatment of homonymy and polysemy. Due to the need for a wideranging variety of dictionary types in South Africa, the position of a given dictionary within the typological spectrum is a frequent point of discussion in the
reviews. Within some of the African languages lexicographers need to make
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
76
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
definite choices with regard to the lemmatisation procedures to be followed in
their dictionaries. In this regard the distinction between a word or a stem lemmatisation approach is relevant, and this is a topic that receives coverage in
many reviews. The occurrence of dialectal forms and the reality of regional differences in the South African languages are reflected in reviews. Within a multilingual environment language contact inevitably leads to language influence,
and therefore the occurrence of loan words and other borrowings should be
reflected in dictionaries. The reviewers are keen to identify loan words that
have been included as lemmata in dictionaries. The influence of the political
situation on the languages of South Africa and the way in which it is reflected
in dictionaries also come to the fore in reviews. Sensitivity for language use
that can be offensive is often expressed. This applies to words from the political
arena but also language use that could be seen as racist or sexist. Reviewers
show their readers how the reviewed dictionaries live up to the expectations of
dictionary users to find an objective reflection of the specific language treated
in the dictionary.
The following table gives a comparison of the percentages of references to
the different categories in the two journals:
Lexico- Lexikos
Nordica
1–25
1994–2002
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
communication functions
cognitive functions
dictionary user
advice to the user
price
layout/web-design
about the lexicographer
comparison with other dictionaries
history of the dictionary
reference to other reviews
about the reviewer
empirical basis
outer texts
lemma selection
ordering of lemmata
access
article structure
prescriptive/descriptive
%
%
3,1
2,4
3,5
0,2
0,9
3,5
1,2
6,6
1,7
0,3
0,6
2,7
5,3
13,9
2,2
2,6
1,4
1,5
2,4
0,6
6,3
0,1
11,1
1,6
0,9
2,1
1,6
,45
,45
1,2
6,2
11,8
1,9
2,2
0,6
0,9
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
equivalents
grammar
orthography
pronunciation
semantic and encyclopaedic knowledge
labeling
etymology
examples
collocations
idioms
illustrations
synonymy/antonymy
dictionary-internal references
entertainment value of dictionary
positive assessment
negative assessment
5,7
8,9
2,3
3,4
7,6
2,5
5,2
2,4
4,0
7,1
3,6
1,5
3,0
2,1
1,2
1,8
1,3
1,0
0,3
2,4
0,6
1,9
1,0
3,3
1,5
1,8
1,2
1,8
2,2
,45
7,7
2,4
77
Table 5: Comparison of percentages in LexicoNordica and Lexikos.
Each pairing of categories in this table could be discussed in detail. This will
not be done in this article. Only a few remarks will be made with regard to
some striking similarities and differences.
Many reviewers are keen to say something about the number of words or
new words or the types of words and expressions included in a dictionary.
Therefore it can be expected that the lemma selection should be a frequent
topic of discussion — the topic most frequently referred to in the reviews in
both journals. Aspects about semantic and encyclopaedic knowledge also have
a comparable high standing in these tables. It is often, and rightfully, said that
few users read the front matter texts, including the users' guidelines text in a
dictionary. Reviewers in both journals pay significant attention to the outer
texts, i.e. the front and back matter texts. This may be seen as an attempt on the
side of the reviewers to help to establish a dictionary culture where users are
aware of the fact that a dictionary contains more than just the central list, i.e.
the alphabetical section.
This table also shows striking differences, e.g. in categories 5, 8, 33 and 34.
These differences can be explained by taking cognizance of editorial traditions
in the two journals and by prevailing approaches to dictionary reviews on the
side of the reviewing community.
Category 5, the price of the dictionary, shows the biggest deviation
between the two journals with LexicoNordica scoring 0,9 and Lexikos no less than
11,1 — the second most frequent category in Lexikos. This is due to a template
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
78
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
introduced in dictionary reviews where the heading of the review includes information on the title, author, publisher, etc. and also gives the price of the dictionary. In category 8 the reviews in LexicoNordica refer much more often to
other dictionaries, compared to the reviews in Lexikos. This could be seen as
typical of a more developed culture of dictionary criticism where the reviewed
dictionary is not seen in isolation and readers have the opportunity to assess
the dictionary by comparing some of its features to those of other dictionaries.
Categories 33 and 34 show that reviews in both journals give an assessment of the dictionaries but such an assessment more frequently occurs in the
Lexikos reviews. According to proposal 1 (The review of a dictionary has to be
fair) given above, a review should give an evaluation of the dictionary. This
seems to happen more often in Lexikos than in LexicoNordica. However, the
positive assessment (7,7%) in Lexikos does not seem to realistically reflect the
quality of dictionaries. Too often too many reviews refrain from a negative
overall assessment even when individual categories are criticised negatively.
Reviewers should work with the idea that criticism can and should be both
positive and negative and that it is the responsibility of the lexicographer to
give an honest assessment of the dictionary.
The largely comparable percentages in this table indicate that the categories selected could be regarded as representative of what one typically finds in
a dictionary review published in a scientific journal of lexicography. It would
be interesting to see the results of a similar comparative study of other major
journals of lexicography.
8.
Conclusion
As an established international journal Lexikos will do well to continue with its
policy of having a review editor and publishing both reviews and review articles, reviewing both dictionaries and metalexicographic publications. The
importance of reviews could be emphasised by allocating more pages to this
component of the journal's contents. The relevance of reviews as part of the
academic discourse could be elevated if lexicographers of the reviewed dictionaries or authors of the reviewed metalexicographic works are invited to
respond to the reviews. The quality of reviews could be enhanced if reviewers
are given a brief with an indication of the genuine purpose of the review, cf.
Gouws (2016), and the expectations of the intended target readers. These
reviews should move away from a mere announcement of the dictionary to a
comprehensive discussion of its lexicographic nature and contribution.
When soliciting reviews the review editor could consider to invite reviews
from reviewer teams, consisting e.g. of a (meta)lexicographer and a typical target user of the reviewed dictionary. These dictionary users could give a valuable input and their ideas could help the other reviewer but also the lexicographers and the lexicographic community at large to embark in a much more
effective way on the planning and production of user-directed dictionaries.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
79
Acknowledgement
This research is supported in part by the National Research Foundation of
South Africa (grant specific unique reference number (UID) 85434). The Grantholder acknowledges that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF supported research are
that of the author, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.
9.
References
Bergenholtz, Henning. 2003. Ordbogskritik i LexicoNordica. LexicoNordica 10: 7-26.
Bergenholtz, Henning and Finn Frandsen. 1997. At anmelde i Hermes — tidsskrift for sprogforskning. Hermes 19: 169-183.
Bergenholtz, Henning and Rufus H. Gouws. 2015. Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in
Lexicography. Hermes 54: 107-114.
Bogaards, Paul. 1996. Dictionaries for Learners of English. International Journal of Lexicography 9(4):
277-320.
Botha, Willem. 2005. Concurrent Over- and Under-treatment in Dictionaries: A Response. International Journal of Lexicography 18(1): 77-87.
Chan, Alice Yin Wa and Andrew Taylor. 2001. Evaluating Learner Dictionaries: What the Reviews
Say. International Journal of Lexicography 14(3): 163-180.
Combrink, Johan G.H. 1979. Die sesde deel van die W.A.T. Standpunte 140, 32(2): 49-64.
De Schryver, Gilles-Maurice. 2005. Concurrent Over- and Under-treatment in Dictionaries The
Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal as a Case in Point. International Journal of Lexicography 18 (1):
47-76.
De Schryver, Gilles-Maurice. 2005a. Concurrent Over- and Under-treatment. A Short Reply. International Journal of Lexicography 18(1): 89-92.
Engelberg, Stefan and Lothar Lemnitzer. 2009. Lexikographie und Wörterbuchbenutzung. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg.
Gouws, Rufus H. 1985. Die sewende deel van die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. Standpunte
178, 38(4): 13-25.
Gouws, Rufus H. 2013. Establishing and Developing a Dictionary Culture for Specialized Lexicography. Jesenšek, Vida (Ed.). 2013. Specialised Lexicography: 51-62. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Gouws, Rufus H. 2016. Dictionary Criticism and Dictionary Critics. Bielińska, Monika and Stefan J.
Schierholz (Eds.). 2016. Wörterbuchkritik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (In press.)
Gouws, Rufus H. et al. (Eds.). 2013. Dictionaries. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Supplementary Volume: Recent Developments with Focus on Electronic and Computational Lexicography.
Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gove, Philip B. (Ed.). 1961. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language.
Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster.
Gove, Philip B. 1962. A Letter to the Editor of Life Magazine. Sledd, J. and W.R. Ebbitt (Eds.). 1962:
91-92.
Grobler, Hilda. 1978. 'n Voorlopige toepassing van S.P.E. Boshoff se kriteria vir 'n groot woordeboek op WAT I–VI. Klasgids 12(4): 29-46.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
80
Henning Bergenholtz and Rufus H. Gouws
Gundersen, Dag. 2002. Engelsk stor ordbok. LexicoNordica 9: 219-228.
Hartmann, Reinhard R.K. 1996. Lexicography as an Applied Linguistic Discipline. Hartmann,
R.R.K. (Ed.). 1996. Solving Language Problems: From General to Applied Linguistics: 230-244.
Exeter Linguistic Studies. Exeter: University of Exeter
Hausmann, Franz J. 1989. Die gesellschaftlichen Aufgaben der Lexikographie in Geschichte und
Gegenwart. Hausmann, Franz Josef et al. 1989–1991: 1-19.
Hausmann, Franz Josef et al. (Eds.). 1989–1991. Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kassebeer, Søren. 2015. En anmeldelse er hverken noget rent objektivt eller noget rent subjektivt.
Berlingske Tidende 14.2.2015.
Leisi, Ernst. 1993. Sieben Thesen zum Rezensionswesen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 30: 188-189.
Lomborg, Bjørn. 2001. The Sceptical Environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nakamoto, K. 1994. Establishing Criteria for Dictionary Criticism: A Checklist for Reviewers of Monolingual English Learner's Dictionaries. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Exeter: University of Exeter.
Nielsen, Sandro. 2003. Anmeldelse af ordbøger. LexicoNordica 10: 27-44.
Odendal, Francois F. 1979. Plus positief en plus negatief: Gedagtes na aanleiding van WAT VI
(KLA–KLO). Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 19(1): 24-41.
Osselton, Noel Edward. 1989. The History of Academic Dictionary Criticism with Reference to
Major Dictionaries. Hausmann, F.J. et al. (Eds.). 1989–1991: 225-230.
Pedersen, Jette and Tine Pedersen. 1996. Jens Axelsen: Dansk-Engelsk Ordbog. LexicoNordica 3:
287-294.
Ringguth, Rudolf. 1982. Wörterbücher: Vorsicht angebracht. Zwei Germanisten haben die beiden
ersten Bände des "Brockhaus/Wahrig" schonungslos verrissen. Der Spiegel 21. 27.12.1982: 217219. Also online http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14337292.html. (Accessed November 2015.)
Ripfel, Martha. 1989. Wörterbuchkritik: eine empirische Analyse von Wörterbuchrezensionen.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Schierholz, Stefan J. 2015. Methods in Lexicography and Dictionary Research. Lexikos 25: 323-352.
Schoonees, P.C. et al. (Eds.). 1951–. Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. . Pretoria: Government
Printer/Stellenbosch: Bureau of the WAT.
Sledd, J. and W.R. Ebbitt (Eds.). 1962. Dictionaries and That Dictionary. Chicago: Scott, Foresman
and Co.
Steiner, Roger J. 1984. Guidelines for Reviewers of Bilingual Dictionaries. Dictionaries. Journal of the
Dictionary Society of North America 6: 166-181.
Svensén, Bo. 2009. A Handbook of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swanepoel, Piet H. 2008. Towards a Framework for the Description and Evaluation of Dictionary
Evaluation Criteria. Lexikos 18: 207-231.
Swanepoel, Piet H. 2013. Evaluation of Dictionaries. Gouws, Rufus H. et al. (Eds.). 2013: 587-596.
Swanepoel, Piet H. 2014. Evalueringskriteria en die interaksie tussen die leksikografieteorie en
-praktyk; die ontwerp van die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal as gevallestudie. Lexikos 24:
378-401.
Tiisala, Seija. 2000. Multifunktionell allmänordbok. LexicoNordica 7: 271-290.
Wahrig, G. et al. (Eds.). 1980–1984. Brockhaus-Wahrig. Deutsches Wörterbuch in sechs Bänden. Wiesbaden: Brockhaus/Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
On the Metalexicographic Genre of Dictionary Reviews
81
Wiegand, H.E. 1984. On the Structure and Contents of a General Theory of Lexicography. Hartmann, R.R.K. (Ed.). 1984. LEXeter '83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on
Lexicography at Exeter, 9–12 September 1983: 13-30. Lexicographica. Series Maior 1. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer.
Wiegand, Herbert Ernst. 1989. Der gegenwärtige Status der Lexikographie und ihr Verhältnis zu
anderen Disziplinen. Hausmann, F.J. et al. (Eds.). 1989–1991: 246-280.
Wiegand, Herbert Ernst. 1993. Wörterbuchkritik. Dictionary Criticism. Lexikographica 9: 1-7.
Wiegand, Herbert Ernst. 1998. Wörterbuchforschung. Untersuchungen zur Wörterbuchbenutzung, zur
Theorie, Geschichte, Kritik und Automatisierung der Lexikographie. Berlin/New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Wiegand, Herbert Ernst and Antonín Kučera. 1981. Brockhaus-Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch auf
dem Prüfstand der praktischen Lexikologie. I. Teil: 1. Band (A–BT); 2. Band (BU–FZ). Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik 18: 94-206.
Wiegand, Herbert Ernst and Antonín Kučera. 1982. Brockhaus-Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch auf
dem Prüfstand der praktischen Lexikologie. II. Teil: 1. Band (A–BT); 2. Band (BU–FZ); 3.
Band (G–IZ). Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (Ed.). 1982. Studien zur neuhochdeutsche Lexikographie II.
Germanistische Linguistik 3–6/80: 285-373.
Wikipedia. 2015. Bjørn Lomborg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg. (Accessed
November 2015.)