Content uploaded by Marjeta Vrbinc
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marjeta Vrbinc on Sep 02, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lexikos 23 (AFRILEX-reeks/series 23: 2013): 440-455
Differences in the
Inclusion and Treatment of
Terminology in OALD3,
OALD4 and OALD8*
Marjeta Vrbinc (marjeta.vrbinc@ff.uni-lj.si), Faculty of Arts
and
Alenka Vrbinc (alenka.vrbinc@ef.uni-lj.si), Faculty of Economics,
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract: This article deals with the inclusion and treatment of scientific and technical vocabu-
lary in the third, fourth and eighth editions of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. The comparison
of these editions is based on a random sample of 50 pages from OALD8 from the lemma foot to
gimmick. The same lemma range was also studied in OALD3 and OALD4. First, different ways of
indicating terminology were identified: i.e., subject-field labels, definitions and short cuts. Then all
the lemmata or their senses marked with a subject-field label were found and a list of all subject-
field labels used in this lemma range was compiled to see similarities and differences between
individual editions. The comparison showed that the number of subject-field labels in all three
editions is almost identical, but the subject-field labels differ from edition to edition. The issue of
overly specific labels (e.g., 'anatomy', 'phonetics') and labels that are too broad (e.g., 'science', 'tech-
nical') is addressed. The next part of the article is devoted to the changes in the treatment of LSP
lexical items in these three editions of OALD, from missing labels to changes in labels and ways of
indicating terminology by means of definitions and/or short cuts. The conclusion suggests
improvements in the subject-field labels themselves, a more consistent way of including subject-
field labels even when the definitions indicate the subject field and an improved use of short cuts
when the reference is to a certain subject field.
Keywords: DEFINITIONS,GENERAL DICTIONARIES,LEMMA,MONOLINGUAL LEARN-
ER'S DICTIONARIES,OALD3,OALD4,OALD8,SCIENTIFIC VOCABULARY,SENSE INDICA-
TOR,SHORT CUTS,SUBJECT-FIELD LABELS,TECHNICAL VOCABULARY
Opsomming: Verskille in die insluiting en behandeling van terminologie
in die OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8. Hierdie artikel gaan oor die insluiting en behande-
ling van wetenskaplike en tegniese woordeskat in die derde, vierde en agste uitgawes van Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Die vergelyking van hierdie uitgawes is gebaseer op 'n willekeurige
*This article is an extended and revised version of a paper "Comparative Inclusion and Treat-
ment of Scientific and Technical Vocabulary in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD5", presented by
Marjeta Vrbinc at the Eighteenth Biennial Meeting of the Dictionary Society of North America
(DSNA), which took place at the McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 8–11 June 2011.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 441
steekproef van 50 bladsye van OALD8 vanaf die lemma foot tot gimmick. Dieselfde lemmareeks is
ook in OALD3 en OALD4 ondersoek. Eerstens is verskillende maniere van die aanduiding van
terminologie vasgestel: d.i. onderwerpsveldetikette, definisies en kortpaaie. Daarna is al die lem-
mas of hul betekenisse wat met 'n onderwerpsveldetiket gemerk is, opgespoor en 'n lys van al die
onderwerpsveldetikette wat in hierdie lemmareeks gebruik is, opgestel sodat ooreenkomste en ver-
skille tussen die verskeie uitgawes bepaal kan word. Die vergelyking het getoon dat die aantal
onderwerpsveldetikette in aldrie uitgawes amper eenders is, maar die onderwerpsveldetikette ver-
skil van uitgawe tot uitgawe. Die kwessie van oordrewe spesifieke etikette (bv. 'anatomy', 'phonet-
ics') en etikette wat te breed is (bv. 'science', 'technical') word behandel. Die volgende deel van die
artikel word gewy aan die veranderinge in die behandeling van TSD- leksikale items in hierdie drie
uitgawes van OALD, vanaf ontbrekende etikette tot veranderinge in etikette en maniere van aan-
duiding van terminologie deur middel van definisies en/of kortpaaie. Die slot stel verbeteringe in
die onderwerpsveldetikette self voor, 'n konsekwenter manier om onderwerpsveldetikette in te
sluit selfs wanneer die definisies die onderwerpsveld aandui en 'n verbeterde gebruik van kort-
paaie wanneer die verwysing na 'n spesifieke onderwerpsveld is.
Sleutelwoorde: DEFINISIES,ALGEMENE WOORDEBOEKE,LEMMA,EENTALIGE AAN-
LEERDERSWOORDEBOEK,OALD3,OALD4,OALD8,WETENSKAPLIKE WOORDESKAT,
BETEKENISAANDUIDER,KORTPAAIE,ONDERWERPSVELDETIKETTE,TEGNIESE WOOR-
DESKAT
1. Introduction
General dictionaries, be they mono- or bilingual, are primarily concerned with
general vocabulary and are consulted more often by users than any other type
of dictionary. The users of general dictionaries expect to find in them different
pieces of information, such as definitions, translation equivalents, spelling,
pronunciation, fixed word combinations, collocations, usage notes, grammati-
cal information, information on word-division, etymology and register. They
should be distinguished from LSP dictionaries, which include and treat the
terminology of various specialist fields. As far as the treatment of lemmata is
concerned, enormous differences can be observed between general and LSP
dictionaries. General dictionaries usually include technical terms, particularly
those that everyone can encounter in everyday life, but LSP dictionaries, as a
rule, do not include words used in general language only (cf. Svensén 2009: 3).
Any dictionary user hopes to find a word he/she is looking up in his/her
dictionary; on the other hand, it is impossible to include all the words everyone
might want, which means that the compilers of a dictionary have to make deci-
sions about what to include in a dictionary and/or exclude from it (cf. Atkins
and Rundell 2008: 178). These decisions also concern the inclusion of scientific
and technical vocabulary in general dictionaries. It should be stressed that in
the last few decades, the proportion of entries in general dictionaries devoted
to scientific and technical vocabulary has increased. This is in line with the
increasingly important role of science and technology and consequently, with
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
442 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
new words that are coined on almost daily basis to name new inventions, con-
cepts, devices or achievements. As Landau (2001: 32-35) points out, the larger
general dictionaries are becoming a collection of LSP dictionaries merged with
a general dictionary, for two reasons. The first reason is that the number of sci-
entific and technical terms is increasing more rapidly than the number of gen-
eral vocabulary items; the second reason originates in the prevailing cultural
view in our society that science and technology are of the highest importance.
The final decision about whether to include scientific and technical vocabulary
depends mostly on the market, the user profile, and the cost of production, but
it can be claimed that some dictionaries, especially more comprehensive ones,
will include a considerable number of scientific and technical terms, whereas
other dictionaries, especially pocket dictionaries, may exclude all or almost all
of them (cf. Atkins and Rundell 2008: 182; Jackson 2002: 162).
The advent of computational lexicography and the use of corpora mean
that dictionaries, including general-language dictionaries, can be updated more
frequently and in a more representative way than is possible with manual
methods. Apart from including new senses of already existing lemmata and
new general vocabulary items, each update also contains scientific and tech-
nological neologisms, as well as more established terms. The unity between
term and concept is an essential requirement of unambiguous communication
(cf. Hartmann and James 1998: 138-39, Ahmad et al. 1995: 7). However, experts
as well as laypeople use the same terms or are confronted by them. This is why
terms are to be found in general-language dictionaries. What, however, are the
criteria on the basis of which the terms are included in general-language dic-
tionaries? According to Ahmad et al. (1995: 7), this depends on the status of the
term in question, since we can make a distinction between 'field-internal' or
'field-internal/-external' terms. Field-internal terms are not part of the general
language, since they are used in expert-to-expert communication. Terms falling
into the category of field-internal/-external terms are encountered and some-
times used by laypersons as well as experts, thus being the best candidates for
inclusion in general-language dictionaries. It can be claimed with a high degree
of certainty that certain domains may not be covered in general-language dic-
tionaries. It may also be expected that only subsets of terms from more accessi-
ble domains will be included and defined by their usage in communicative
situations that are not exclusively field-internal (cf. Ahmad et al. 1995: 9). How-
ever, lexicographers should be aware that the main problem in selection is con-
sistency.
In any general dictionary containing words that have special meanings in
a technical field or science, field labels should be employed. In the course of
planning a dictionary, a list of the domains should be drawn up whose voca-
bulary will be included in the dictionary. Field labels are applied to terms that
are important in the field and in such widespread use that they have appeared
in popular articles or in specialized magazines for the amateur. They are also
employed when a word is used in two or more different disciplines with dif-
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 443
ferent meanings, or if it is used in one sense technically and in another popu-
larly. It can be seen that in some dictionaries, field labels are used abundantly,
whereas in others, the user hardly ever comes across one. In many cases, the
information that a word, expression or a sense belongs to a field of science can
be inferred from the definition (cf. Landau 2001: 226) or in recent editions of
monolingual learner's dictionaries from short cuts (which are also called sign-
posts, guidewords or items in a menu in various English monolingual learner's
dictionaries).
The aim of this article is to compare three editions of OALD, i.e., OALD3,
OALD4 and OALD8, to see how terminology is included and treated in each
individual edition. First, we were interested in the number of lemmata labelled
with a subject-field label in these three editions. Next, we wanted to investigate
the number and types of subject-field labels to identify similarities and differ-
ences between OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8. Finally, we intended to study
other ways of indicating technical and scientific vocabulary.
2. Methodology
In order to be able to analyse the treatment of terminology in English monolin-
gual learner's dictionaries, it is essential to choose dictionaries that have been
on the market for a longer period of time. Among the learner's dictionaries,
only two dictionaries satisfy this criterion, i.e., Oxford Advanced Learner's Dic-
tionary (first published in 1948) and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
(first published in 1978), while their competitors are all too new to facilitate
comparison. For the sake of our analysis, we chose the oldest among the
learner's dictionaries: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Our analysis focuses
on the 3rd, the 4th and the 8th editions, because our aim was to observe the
developments concerning inclusion and treatment of terminology from the
relatively old OALD3 (published in 1974 and referred to as a dictionary
belonging to the second generation of learner's dictionaries by Cowie (1999: 82,
97-105)) to OALD4 (published in 1989, referred to as a dictionary belonging to
the third generation of learner's dictionaries by Cowie (1999: 144, 148-151)) and
to the most recent edition: OALD8 (published in 2010). OALD4 was chosen
because it was published approximately in the middle of the 36-year time span
between the 3rd and the 8th editions. Another reason for choosing OALD4 is
that the 1980s marked a watershed in learner lexicography, and as Cowie (1999:
144) points out, it was clear early in this decade that computers would play an
increasingly important role in the compilation of dictionaries and that the next
phase of dictionary development would be affected by the increasing profes-
sionalism of lexicography.
The analysis was carried out on a sample of 50 randomly chosen pages
from OALD8, from the lemma foot to gimmick (pp. 602-653). The same lemma
range was then also studied in OALD4 (44 pages, pp. 477-521) and OALD3 (29
pages, pp. 339-368). First, all the lemmata or their senses marked with a subject-
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
444 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
field label were identified, then a list of all subject-field labels used in this
lemma range was compiled and compared. Last but not least, we examined the
definitions, sense indicators and short cuts to see whether they are also used to
indicate specific subject fields.
3. Ways of indicating terminology
English monolingual learner's dictionaries use several ways of indicating ter-
minology: subject-field labels, definitions, sense indicators and short cuts. Since
the subject-field labels are the most obvious elements indicating terminology,
we will first examine how subject-field labels are used in OALD3, OALD4 and
OALD8.
On the inside cover of OALD3, a list of subject-field labels and abbrevia-
tions can be found referred to as 'Specialist English registers' (i.e., specialist or
technical fields). Terms appearing in the 'Specialist English registers', such as
'botany (bot)', 'nautical (naut)' and 'rugby', are self-explanatory and refer to as
many as 58 different fields or sub-fields:
accounts, aerospace, algebra, anatomy, architecture, arithmetic, art,
astronomy, ballet, biblical, biology, book-keeping, botany, business,
chemistry, cinema, commerce, computers, cricket, ecclesiastical, engi-
neering, electricity, farming, finance, football, gambling, geology,
geometry, grammar, history, journalism, legal, linguistics, mathematics,
mechanics, medical, meteorology, military, music, mythology, nautical,
pathology, philosophy, phonetics, photography, physics, physiology,
politics, psychology, racing, radio telegraphy, rugby, science, sport, ten-
nis, theatre, trigonometry, zoology.
The list of subject-field labels in OALD3 is comprehensive and contains labels
that fall beyond the scope of learner's dictionaries. Labels such as 'accounts',
'book-keeping', 'algebra', 'arithmetic', 'trigonometry', 'pathology', 'physiology',
'radio telegraphy', belong to LSP dictionaries rather than general dictionaries,
let alone learner's dictionaries. They are far too specific and technical for the
target user of a monolingual learner's dictionary to comprehend.
When going through the list of subject-field labels in OALD3, the label
'computers (comp)' captured our attention, since this dictionary was published
in 1974, i.e., in the early days of computers. One might wonder which technical
terms used in the field of computer technology would merit inclusion in a
learner's dictionary, given the fact that no corpora and consequently no fre-
quency counts were available at that time. With the help of a computer expert,
we compiled a list of ICT terms that were known and used at the end of the
1960s and at the beginning of the 1970s, i.e., in the period of time when the
lemma list for this edition of OALD was compiled. These terms include: micro-
processor, processor, bus, ISA bus, I/O, drive, floppy drive, diskette, floppy
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 445
diskette, printer, laser printer, FTP, CD, VoIP, mainframe, EPROM, memory,
monolithic main memory, ATM, file, disc and Ethernet. These terms are either
not included at all or included but without the specialized sense referring to
the ICT field. On the other hand, terms such as computer, computerize, pro-
gramme, programmer, hardware and software are included in the wordlist of
OALD3, but they are not labelled 'comp'. Interestingly, the lemma computer is
defined as 'electronic device which stores information on discs or magnetic
tape, analyses it and produces information as required from the data on the
tapes, etc.', but the lemma disc is not treated in the sense of 'a device for storing
information on a computer, with a magnetic surface that records information
received in electronic form'. The lemma programme is another interesting exam-
ple. OALD3 includes just the British English spelling as a lemma and gives pro-
gram as a variant spelling in brackets without further explanation. Sense 3 of
the lemma programme is defined as 'coded collection of information, data, etc
fed into an electronic computer'. In the fourth edition of OALD as well as in all
subsequent editions of OALD, two lemmata are included: programme and pro-
gram. The latter has two senses: the American English spelling for programme
and the specialized sense used in computing. Considering all this, the question
arises why the subject-field label 'comp' is listed among the subject-field labels.
It is not to be found in the dictionary, so it seems to be redundant. Is it there
simply to impress the target user of that time, given the fact that in the early
1970s computer technology was still in its infancy at least as regards general
use of computers?
In OALD4, the user's guide (called Detailed Guide) appearing as part of
the back matter also includes a chapter on style and field (pp. 1572-75) but only
a short passage (cf. 12.7 Technical fields, p. 1574) is dedicated to the treatment
of terminology. Nowhere in the dictionary, however, can a user find a list of
subject-field labels. The latter also holds true of OALD8, whose user's guide is
limited to the graphic presentation of entries and a list of labels used in the
dictionary (p. i), among which the only reference to subject-field labels is the
label 'technical', though quite a few other subject-field labels appear in the body
of the dictionary. The subject-field label 'technical' is explained as "language
used by people who specialize in particular subject areas, for example accretion,
adipose" (OALD8, p. i), which is a vague and far from informative explanation
(see also 4. Subject-field labels in the studied segment in OALD3, OALD4 and
OALD8 compared).
One of the improvements in OALD4 which definitely contributes to less
confusion in understanding the labels is that labels are typographically distin-
guished from sense indicators in that italics are used to mark subject-field
labels. The same applies to OALD8:
genus /.../ n (pl genera /.../) 1(science) division of
animals or plants within a family /.../
OALD3, p. 364
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
446 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
genus /.../ n (pl genera /.../) 1 (biology) group of
animals or plants within a family(4), often itself
subdivided into several species(1). /.../
OALD4, p. 515
Besides subject-field labels, the definition itself often suggests that the word
being defined belongs to a specific subject field:
geriatric /.../ noun 1 geriatrics [U] the branch of
medicine concerned with the diseases and care of
old people /.../
OALD8, p. 648
Another method frequently used by lexicographers to indicate terminology is
the use of sense indicators, which are an entry component and are thought up
by lexicographers to help a user choose the appropriate sense of the lemma:
front /.../ n/.../ 6[C] (of weather) forward edge of
an advancing mass of warm or cold air
OALD 4, pp. 496, 497
foreclose /.../ v[I, Ip, Tn] ~ (on sb/sth) (of a bank,
etc that has lent money for a mortgage) take posses-
sion of the property of (sb), usu because repayments
have not been made /.../
OALD4, p. 481
game point noun (especially in TENNIS) a point
that, if won by a player, will win them the game
OALD8, p. 637
One feature relatively newly introduced into monolingual learner's dictionaries
to aid users with the disambiguation of polysemous items is called short cuts
(in OALD, they were introduced in the 6th edition). Short cuts give the core
meanings of highly polysemous words. They help the users to make mental
connections with the word in the context in which they encountered it. It
should be pointed out that in many cases the context in which the user has met
an unknown word will prompt the choice of short cut. Short cuts do not
replace the full definition, but rather form a quick menu for the user's eye to
run down. Consequently, users should usually be able to select the right sense
paragraph to read fully without having to read all the details in several other
paragraphs first.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 447
freeze /.../ ► COMPUTER 8[I] when a computer
screen freezes, you cannot move any of the images,
etc. on it, because there is a problem with the sys-
tem /.../
OALD8, p. 620
foot /.../ ►IN POETRY 7 [sing.] (technical) a unit
of rhythm in a line of poetry containing one stressed
syllable and one or more syllables without stress.
Each of the four divisions in the following line is a
foot: For ′men / may ′come / and ′men / may ′go. /.../
OALD8, p. 603
As can be seen from the above dictionary entry for foot, two different ways of
indicating the subject field can be combined in one and the same entry or one
and the same sense. Sense 7 in foot combines a short cut ('in poetry') and a sub-
ject-field label ('technical'). Another possible combination is a subject-field label
('finance') and a sense indicator ('especially of a bank'), as illustrated by the
example below:
foreclose /.../ verb 1[I, T] ~ (on sb/sth) | ~ sth
(finance) (especially of a bank) to take control of
sb’s property because they have not paid back
money that they borrowed to buy it /.../
OALD8, p. 606
4. Subject-field labels in the studied segment in OALD3, OALD4 and
OALD8 compared
Lemmata accompanied by subject-field labels are the most obvious termino-
logical lemmata. In OALD3, 30 words with subject-field labels can be found in
the range of the lemmata studied, while OALD4 includes 43 such lemmata and
OALD8 as many as 126. If the number of lemmata in these three editions of
OALD is compared, we can see that there is not an enormous difference
between OALD3 and OALD4, but in OALD8 the number of lemmata marked
by subject-field labels rises considerably. Interestingly, the number of subject-
field labels does not change drastically from edition to edition. Table 1 presents
subject-field labels found in the lemma span studied: OALD3 includes 18 sub-
ject-field labels, OALD4 only one more (i.e., 19), and the same applies to
OALD8. Labels appearing in all three editions are shaded grey (6 labels), if the
entire cell is shaded black, it marks the labels that can be found in both OALD3
and OALD4 (3 labels), whereas the entire cell shaded grey indicates the labels
found in OALD4 and OALD8 (6 labels).
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
448 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
OALD3 OALD4 OALD8
1. anatomy 1. anatomy 1. anatomy
2. biology 2. Bible 2. architecture
3. botany 3. biology 3. astronomy
4. chemistry 4. botany 4. biology
5. cinema 5. chemistry 5. business
6. commerce 6. computing 6. chemistry
7. football 7. commerce 7. computing
8. grammar 8. finance 8. finance
9. legal
*
9. grammar 9. geology
10. meteorology 10. law* 10. grammar
11. military 11. French law 11. law*
12. music 12. mathematics 12. linguistics
13. nautical 13. medical 13. mathematics
14. theatre 14. music 14. medical
15. science 15. religion 15. music
16. sport 16. physics 16. physics
17. swimming 17. psychology 17. phonetics
18. tennis 18. politics 18. psychology
19. sport 19. technical
*The label 'legal' as used in OALD3 was replaced by 'law' in OALD4 and
OALD8, but both labels refer to the same field of science, thus they can be
regarded as the same label.
Table 1: Subject-field labels in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8
Sports terminology deserves special attention, since it represents quite a lot of
vocabulary in various editions of OALDs, especially in OALD8. Labelling of
sport, however, presents a huge problem, since most of the labelling is carried
out by indirect methods of labelling and not by subject-field labels proper. In
fact 'sport' is the only subject-field label proper (found in OALD3 and OALD4,
but not in OALD8), while all other references to different sports are only indi-
rect ways of indicating the subject field. Only OALD3 uses two additional
labels referring to sport, i.e., 'football' and 'tennis'. The various sports disci-
plines referred to in the OALDs and used either in the form of sense indicators
or short cuts (only in OALD8) are as follows:
OALD3: football, swimming, tennis, golf
OALD4: cricket, snooker, football, tennis, golf, hockey
OALD8: American football, basketball, baseball, cricket, football, soccer,
rugby, tennis
In many cases, the delimitation of two or even three seemingly related labels is
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 449
unclear. One can wonder about the utility of the subject-field labels 'anatomy'
and 'medical' (in OALD4 and OALD8). Is anatomy not a subfield of medicine?
Is it necessary to bother a general dictionary user who is not a specialist with
such specific subject fields? The same can be said of labels such as 'linguistics',
'grammar' and 'phonetics' in OALD8 or 'commerce' and 'finance' in OALD4
and 'business' and 'finance' in OALD8. On the other hand, OALD8 uses the
label 'biology', but not, for instance, 'botany', while OALD3 and OALD4
employ both 'botany' and 'biology' as labels. This means that some subject-field
labels are used more generically to refer to the entire field of the science,
whereas some subject-field labels refer to sub-fields themselves.
Another two labels that must be mentioned are the generic 'science' in
OALD3 and 'technical' in OALD8. These two labels are very general and do not
refer to any specific field or sub-field. In OALD3, 'science' is used to label
words such as genus, which could be labelled with the more specific label 'biol-
ogy'. In OALD8, for instance, 'technical' is used to label lemmata such as fruit
('a part of a plant or tree that is formed after the flowers have died and in
which seeds develop'), which could more logically be labelled 'biology' (or
'botany' if this label existed; in OALD3 and OALD4, the label 'botany' is used)
and geld, which could also be labelled 'biology' (or 'zoology' or even 'veterinary'
if one of these existed).
Contrary to the general labels 'science' and 'technical', we can find the
label 'French law' in OALD4, which is a very specific label, considering the fact
that the label 'law' is also used in this edition of OALD. The lemma force majeure
is labelled 'French law' in OALD4, while in OALD8, it is more reasonably
labelled as 'from French, law'. The interpretation of both ways of labelling is
completely different: 'French law' implies that the term is used only to refer to
the French law and 'from French, law' means that the expression comes from
French and is used in legal terminology.
5. Changes in the treatment of technical and scientific words in OALD3,
OALD4 and OALD8
When the three editions of OALD are compared, certain changes in the treat-
ment of technical and scientific words can be observed which are discussed
below.
(1) A term that clearly belongs to technical or scientific vocabulary lacks a sub-
ject-field label in OALD3, but includes one in OALD4 and OALD8:
formula /.../ 2statement of a rule, fact, etc esp one
in signs or numbers, as in chemistry, mathematics,
etc, eg ‘Water = H2O’
OALD3, p. 344
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
450 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
formula /.../ 1 [C] (a) (chemistry) set of symbols
showing the elements that a substance is made of
/.../ (b) (mathematics or physics) expression of a
rule or relationship in algebraic symbols /.../
OALD4, p. 485
formula /.../ 1[C] (mathematics) a series of letters,
numbers or symbols that represent a rule or law /.../
2[C] (chemistry) letters and symbols that show the
parts of a chemical COMPOUND, etc /.../
OALD8, p. 611
It is evident from the definition in OALD3 that formula is a term used in chem-
istry, mathematics, etc., but in spite of that, the label has not been included. In
OALD4, the unlabelled sense 2 from OALD3 is divided into two subsenses
both labelled with very specific subject-field labels ('chemistry' and 'mathe-
matics or physics'). OALD8, however, treats both subsenses from OALD4 as
separate senses with 'mathematics' and 'chemistry' as the subject-field labels.
The biggest step forward is the development from OALD3 to OALD4, where
the term is treated with greater precision.
Other examples of lemmata which are unlabelled in OALD3 but include a
label in OALD4 and OALD8 are: futures (labelled 'commerce' in OALD4 and
'finance' in OALD8), garbage (labelled 'computing' in OALD4, not included in
this sense in OALD8), gastric and gastritis (labelled 'medical' in OALD4 and
OALD8), genital (labelled 'medical' in OALD4 and without a label in OALD8),
gender (labelled 'grammar' in OALD4 and OALD8), genesis (labelled 'Bible' in
OALD4 and 'formal', which is a style label, in OALD8) and gilt-edged (labelled
'finance' in OALD4 in OALD8).
(2) In some cases, OALD3 includes a subject-field label, OALD4 drops it, but
OALD8 includes it once again.
foreclose /.../ vt, vi (legal) [VP6A,2A] use the right
(given by a mortgage) to take possession of prop-
erty (when interest or capital has not been paid at
the required time) /.../
OALD3, p. 342
foreclose /.../ v[I, Ip, Tn] ~ (on sb/sth) (of a bank,
etc that has lent money for a mortgage) take posses-
sion of the property of (sb), usu because repayments
have not been made /.../
OALD4, p. 481
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 451
foreclose /.../ verb 1[I, T] ~ (on sb/sth) | ~ sth
(finance) (especially of a bank) to take control of
sb’s property because they have not paid back
money that they borrowed to buy it /.../
OALD8, p. 606
In OALD3, the subject-field label 'legal' is used, which is replaced by the label
'finance' in OALD8, whereas OALD4 lacks a label.
(3) A lemma is marked by a subject-field label in OALD3, but lacks a subject-
field label in OALD4 and OALD8 (e.g., foxhole). Another possibility is that a
subject-field label in OALD3 is replaced by a sense indicator in OALD4 or a
short cut in OALD8:
front /.../ n /.../ 7(met) boundary between masses of
cold and warm air
OALD3, p. 352
front /.../ n/.../ 6[C] (of weather) forward edge of
an advancing mass of warm or cold air
OALD 4, pp. 496, 497
front /.../ noun, adj., verb
■ noun /.../
► WEATHER 12 [C] the line where a mass of cold
air meets a mass of warm air /.../
OALD8, p. 624, 625
The same situation applies to the lemma force in the sense of 'authority'. At first
sight, OALD3 and OALD4 both define this sense in exactly the same way:
'(legal) authority'. A closer examination, however, shows that 'legal' is the sub-
ject-field label in OALD3 and a sense indicator in OALD4 (this confusion is due
to the lack of italics in OALD3). OALD8, however, uses neither the label nor the
sense indicator but instead employs the short cut 'authority':
force1/.../ n/.../ 5(legal) authority; power of bind-
ing(6): put a law into ~, make it binding. When does
the new law come into ~? The rule/regulation is no
longer in force.
OALD3, p. 341
force1/.../ n/.../ 8[U] (legal) authority: This decree
has the force of law behind it. /.../
OALD4, p. 480
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
452 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
force /.../
■ noun /.../
► AUTHORITY 5 [U] the authority of sth: These
guidelines do not have the force of law. ◊ The court
ruled that these standards have force in British law.
/.../
OALD8, p. 605
(4) A lemma or one of its senses is included in OALD3 but not in OALD4 and
OALD8 (e.g., foretop, foot in the meaning of infantry). This is understandable
because every dictionary must stick to certain principles of selection and must
exclude many words and expressions because they are obsolete, rarely used, or
too specialized for a general monolingual learner's dictionary.
(5) Adding new lemmata and/or new senses: owing to the development of sci-
ence and technology, new terms are invented on a daily basis, or sometimes
new senses are added to the existing ones, which is evident in every new edi-
tion. In OALD4 and OALD8, the lemma function key, labelled 'computing', is
added, while it is not included in OALD3. In OALD8, the lemmata, such as
function word (labelled 'grammar') or fuzzy logic (labelled 'computing'), appear
in the wordlist; these lemmata are not included in OALD3 and OALD4. Some
lemmata have developed new senses, which is evident from the treatment of
the noun footfall in OALD8, where sense 2, 'the number of people that visit a
particular shop/store, shopping centre, etc. over a period of time' (labelled
'business') is added.
(6) Inconsistent use of subject-field labels: in OALD3 and OALD4, formic acid,
which is clearly a scientific term, lacks the subject-field label. Acid, on the other
hand, is labelled in both editions with the label 'chemistry'. This is certainly an
example of an inconsistent treatment of terms, which should be avoided by
either labelling both terms 'chemistry' or suggesting the subject field within the
definition. In OALD8, this inconsistency has been corrected by labelling both
terms:
acid /.../ noun, adjective
■ (chemistry) a chemical, usually a liquid, that
contains HYDROGEN and has a Ph of less than
seven. The HYDROGEN can be replaced by a
metal to form a salt. Acids are usually sour and can
often burn holes in or damage things they touch. /.../
OALD8, p. 12
formic acid /.../ noun [U] (chemistry) an acid made
from CARBON MONOXIDE and steam. It is also
present in a liquid produced by some ANTS.
OALD8, p. 611
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 453
Another example of inconsistent labelling can be observed in the case of the
lemma gene, which is labelled 'biology' in all three editions of OALD under
investigation, and its derivatives and all the compounds containing 'gene',
'genetic' or 'genetically', which are mostly unlabelled. In Table 2 below, words
marked by a subject-field label in any of the three editions of OALD are indi-
cated by the subject field in brackets and in italics.
Derivatives
OALD3: gene (biology), genetic, geneticist, genetics
OALD4: gene (biology), genetic, genetically, geneticist, genetics
OALD8: gene (biology), genetic, genetically, geneticist, genetics
Compounds
OALD3: /
OALD4: genetic code, genetic engineering
OALD8: gene pool (biology), gene therapy (medical), genetically modified, genetic
code, genetic engineering, genetic fingerprinting, genetic fingerprint
Table 2: Labelling of derivatives and compounds
It is evident from Table 2 that the field of genetics has undergone rapid devel-
opment in the last four decades, which has clearly exerted great influence on
the inclusion of terms connected with it in these three editions of OALD. In all
unlabelled terms, it is only the definition that tells the user that the word or
expression belongs to a specific subject field. Inconsistent labelling can also be
observed in terms denoting names of diseases, plants, animals and measures.
For example, foot-and-mouth disease or flu/influenza are not labelled 'biology' or
'medical' but are only defined as diseases, while gastritis is labelled 'medical' in
OALD8, although it is also defined as an illness. It certainly makes perfect
sense not to label flu, because the word belongs to LGP, gastritis, on the other
hand, belongs to LSP. Another example is foot as a unit of length measurement,
which is not labelled, whereas gigabit, a unit used in computer science, is. Cer-
tainly, foot in this sense has been used in English for a long time, whereas giga-
bit (or more precisely bit, from which gigabit is formed) originates from the
1940s. It can nevertheless be claimed that labelling some words belonging to a
certain semantic field but not the others belonging to the same field can be
quite confusing for a dictionary user.
6. Conclusion
A label as a special symbol or abbreviated term used to mark a word, expres-
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
454 Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc
sion or sense as being associated with a particular subject field is by far the
most obvious sign that a word, expression or sense belongs to LSP. Thus, from
a user's perspective, labelling terms by means of subject-field labels is the most
user-friendly way of indicating terminology. But some remarks should also be
made concerning the use of subject-field labels. The first problem is the use of
closely related subject-field labels (e.g. 'linguistics' vs. 'grammar', 'phonetics'; 'busi-
ness' vs. 'commerce', 'finance'). A general dictionary user cannot be expected to
recognize the subtle differences between such subject-field labels. If such labels
are used, one would expect an explanation of the distinction between them, but
taking account of the type of dictionary and the target audience, it can be
claimed with a high degree of certainty that this is an unnecessary complica-
tion. In monolingual learner's dictionaries, one would expect that the subject-
field labels would refer to fields of science only and would disregard the sub-
fields. On the other hand, OALD3 and OALD8 make use of one general sub-
ject-field label ('science', 'technical') that is only vaguely defined (if at all). It is
recommendable to use this type of subject-field label only to mark entries com-
mon to several domains, i.e., as a higher-level domain marker. Otherwise, lem-
mata belonging to lower-level domains should be labelled using a more spe-
cific subject-field label that is also listed as a subject-field label in a given dic-
tionary ('technical' vs. 'biology' or 'chemistry').
The next remark concerns the labelling of a lemma by means of a defini-
tion. A dictionary user may be puzzled that some lemmata are equipped with
subject-field labels whereas in other lemmata, this function is taken over by a
definition. This is a more indirect way of indicating technical and scientific
vocabulary. It is thus questionable whether a general dictionary user is aware
that he/she is dealing with an LSP lexical item. A considerable number of LSP
lexical items lack a subject-field label but instead provide this piece of informa-
tion within the definition. A more consistent policy in this respect should be
expected, which means that a subject-field label should be provided even
though it is clear from the definition that the word, expression or sense belongs
to terminology.
The final remark refers to the use of short cuts as the third way of indicat-
ing LSP lexical items. Those short cuts that are lexically identical with the sub-
ject-field labels are not problematic from the point of view of the user who can
easily recognize a lexical item as one belonging to LSP. Unfortunately, some
short cuts are not so transparent and resemble sense indicators. It is therefore
doubtful whether such short cuts are recognized by a dictionary user as indi-
cations of a subject field.
To sum up, subject-field labels should be listed in the front matter of a
dictionary and, if necessary, explained. Apart from that, they should also be
used more consistently throughout the dictionary, even in those cases where
the subject field is indicated only by a definition or a short cut.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
Differences in the Inclusion and Treatment of Terminology in OALD3, OALD4 and OALD8 455
References
Dictionaries
Cowie, Anthony P. (Ed.). 19894. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (OALD4)
Hornby, A.S. (Ed.). 19743. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. (OALD3)
Turnbull, Joanna (Ed.). 20108. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (OALD8)
Other literature
Ahmad, Khurshid, Willy Martin, Martin Hölter and Margaret Rogers. 1995. Specialist Terms in
General Language Dictionaries. Available at <http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:felngs
LWmIMJ:ftp://ftp.ee.surrey.ac.uk/pub/research/AI/pointer/diction.ps.gz+SPECIALIST+T
ERMS+IN+GENERAL+LANGUAGE&cd=1&hl=sl&ct=clnk&gl=si>. [Accessed 3 January
2013.]
Atkins, B.T. Sue and Michael Rundell. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford/
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cowie, Anthony P. 1999. English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners: A History. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press/Clarendon Press.
Hartmann, Reinhard R.K. and Gregory James. 1998. Dictionary of Lexicography. London/New
York: Routledge.
Jackson, H. 2002. Lexicography: An Introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
Landau, Sidney I. 20012. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. New York/Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Svensén, B. 2009. A Handbook of Lexicography: The Theory and Practice of Dictionary-making. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za
