<b>Modern lexicography:</b> An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Modern lexicography: An introduction by Henri Béjoint Zdenek Salzmann Modern lexicography: An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276. This is a paperback edition of Tradition and innovation in modern English dictionaries published in 1994. In this edition a few minor corrections have been made, and the bibliography has been updated. The book focuses on the decades since the 1960s and is limited to the lexicographies of English-speaking countries. Béjoint is Professor in the Département de Langues Etrangères Appliquées at the University of Lyon. Metalexicography—‘the activities of anyone who writes about lexicography but does not write dictionaries’ (8)—is his specialty. The book is divided into seven chapters. In Ch. 1, ‘Dictionaries and the dictionary’ (6–41), B defines the term ‘dictionary’ and discusses the structure and functions of dictionaries. He then describes their various types: morphological, functional, ‘genetic’, general, specialized, monolingual, bilingual, encyclopedic, and others. The lexicographic scene in English-speaking countries is the subject of Ch. 2 (42–91). It contains a brief but informative survey of dictionaries published in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. Production of dictionaries designed to facilitate encoding—i.e. dictionaries of synonyms or of semantically related words—is a recent trend in English-language lexicography. Other innovations are semantic dictionaries, monolingual-bilingual dictionaries for foreign students, dictionaries of new words, and dictionaries of World English. Despite B’s intent to focus on English lexicography of recent decades, he devotes a short chapter (Ch. 3) to the historical origins of the general purpose dictionary, mentioning Sumerian lists dating back to the third millennium bc as the earliest ancestors of modern dictionaries. Of interest to the reader may be an account of the evolution of general purpose dictionaries over the last several centuries. What are dictionaries for? Functions of the general purpose dictionary are listed in Ch. 4, but the answer is far from straightforward. For example, should dictionaries be prescriptive or descriptive? The reader is reminded of the vigorous debate concerning the editorial policy used in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961). ‘What are general-purpose dictionaries really for?’ is the title and subject of Ch. 5 (140–68). The answer depends on the needs and skills of dictionary users. B lists over 30 studies made since 1962 and discusses several in some detail. This chapter will prove helpful to dictionary authors and editors. Ch. 6, ‘The linguistic traditions of lexicography’ (169–208), would be of particular interest to the readers of Language. In it B discusses the participation [End Page 391] of linguists in American lexicographic projects (‘not entirely unproblematic’), the relationship between dictionaries and linguistic schools, and the various methods of selecting entries and defining words. According to B, ‘the analytic definition is always best’ (198). ‘Whither lexicography’, Ch. 7 (209–37), contains a survey of some of the most promising research in theoretical linguistics that could improve dictionaries compiled in the future. A bibliography and an index conclude the volume. Zdenek Salzmann Northern Arizona University Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it