EVALUATION OF DICTIONARIES

Submitted November 27

ABSTRACT

Valerie Buck, Mary Coyle, Lisa Sedita, Susan Tidd and I collaborated to review the following list of dictionary sources. We had initially divided the list by fourths; when we realized we would be a five person team, each of the original four members gave back a couple of sources, so that we all ended up evaluating the same number. We communicated via email; oftentimes adressing emails to everyone in the group. As the reviewing process progressed, we ended up swapping some dictionaries here and there, as we realized that some were more difficult to find than others. Fortunately, our team of five covers a variety of libraries; while we may have encountered some initial problems locating a source, eventually another member of the group was able to locate it at her library of preference.

As a group, we had to determine when we wanted to submit the assignment. The group was split; some preferred to have the product complete before the Thanksgiving holiday, while others expressed a desire to have the weekend after Thanksgiving to finish. As time crept upon us, we (unanimously) decided to grant ourselves the weekend following Thanksgiving email our contributions to each other. The final product is the result of much “cutting” and “pasting.” I offered to coordinate the font, text size, format, etc. so that the final compilation would not look like a mismatch of reviews.

This was largest group I have worked in thus far. I was pleased with the way five members were able to work amicably and efficiently together, given the fact that all communication was limited to email. Group members were quick to offer to trade resources when one member realized her library did not have the resource she was assigned. Similarly, group members respected the deadlines we set, while at the same time were willing to adapt when it became apparent that we were falling behind the initial.

In combination, we covered an abundant amount of material. While some of the dictionaries were more comparable than others, a variety of new sources became known to me as the result of this project. Similarly, it was interesting to note those instances where online sources were compared with print versions. Each group member took the time to carefully examine the designated source and was able to provide an honest opinion of the source’s value, complete with support of why or why not the resource would be recommended source to have in a library.

Citati CITATION: Andrews, Robert. The Columbia Directory of Quotations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

Authority: The Columbia University Press was founded in 1893. It is currently the fourth oldest university press in the country, publishing over 150 titles each year in a variety of fields. **This book claims to introduce 11,000 new quotations.

Scope: Over 18,000 quotations from approximately 1500 topics. A variety of speakers are included, ranging from Emily Dickinson to Malcolm X.

Format: Entries are arranged alphabetically by the subject. Over 1,000 pages.

Entries: In addition to the quotation and speaker, entries also contain a “see also” cross reference section.

Overall Evaluation: The selling point of this book is that it covers such a wide variety of topics. Many of the quotations are lighthearted. In addition to being a valuable reference source, it is also a good “coffee table” book. The quotations are informative and amusing.

Citation: Roget’s International Thesaurus. 5^th ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.

Authority: Best selling thesaurus for over fifty years. According to the inside cover, entries are based on “extensive word association research into how words are actually used.”

Scope: This edition has 1073 categories. Publication includes 325,000 words and phrases.

Format: Two columns per page. Entries are written in bold, capital letters. Beginning of the work contains a biography of the original author, Peter Roget. Biography is then followed by a “how to use” section, which instructs users to look up a word in the index, find the appropriate sub-entry, follow its number into the text to find the paragraphs on comparable adjectives. Synopsis of categories section preludes actual entries. Note: entries are not in alphabetical order; they are organized by related categories (as explained in the synopsis of categories section.

Entries: Each entry word is written in bold, capital letters. A brief definition is given, as denoted italic text surrounded by < >. Parts of speech are listed in the following order: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. The most common synonyms are in bold text. Entries are methodically arranged (not alphabetically). For example, each entry has a number: the first part of the number represents the category; the second part of the number (following the decimal point) represents the paragraph within that category.

Overall evaluation: It is clear that the authority is the selling point of this dictionary. Extensive researching/evaluating went into this publication. It is not difficult to use, once on understands how to find the entries (since they are not listed alphabetically).

Citation: Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989.

Authority: Famous American publisher of language related sources. Other publications include Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (America's best-selling desk dictionary). Company was found in the 1830’s by brothers Charles and George Mirriam.

Scope: Entries were examined from two perspectives: historical and present day usage. Topics were selected from existing books on usage as well as idiomatic English usage. Publication contains over 500 entries.

Format: Preface, followed by explanatory notes, history of English usage section, pronunciation symbols, entries, bibliography. There are two columns per page. Entry words are written in bold text, and there are spaces between entries. Entire book is just under 1,000 pages.

Entries: Entries are very detailed and contain a lot written text. Examples are provided as well as quotations and historical information on the usage.

Overall Evaluation: This dictionary has unique qualities that make it a valuable source. It is much more than a book of definitions; it explains how to use properly use words. I would not recommend it for a quick reference source, as the explanations can be a bit wordy; however, it would be very useful for someone wishing to take the time to understand/learn how to use the language.

Citation: Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms. Springfield, MA: Mirriam-Webster, 1968.

Writing was done by Dr. Philip H. Geopp and Dr. Maire Weir Kay. Assistants helped specifically with cross-referencing and proofreading.

Scope: Under 1000 pages of entries. Over 17,000 examples.

Format: Very long introduction on the survey of the history of English synonymy. In this introduction, a definition of synonyms is provided. The introduction is followed by an explanatory notes section. There are two columns on each page separated by a vertical line. Footers are used to give keys (for example, ant = antonym, con = contrasted words). Entries are listed in alphabetical order.

Entries: The vocabulary entry is in bold. Also included is the part of speech, the definition of the word, synonyms, “finding lists” (two kinds: analogous and contrasted), and antonyms.

Overall evaluation: I did not find this resource to be especially valuable. It may be a useful aid for a quick reference, but is not that extensive. Similar results could stem from using the thesaurus in Microsoft Word. Of course, it is important to note that the print edition I was evaluating was from 1968.

Citation: Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield, MA: Mirriam-Webster, 1993.

This publication cost over $3.5 million to publish. The editorial staff consisted of people from a variety of fields (the credentials are listed in the publication). Over 200 scholars and consultants joined the editorial staff on this project. Extra care was taken in order to produce accurate definitions.

Scope: Largest American dictionary. Contains over 476,000 entries. 2,662 pages.

Format: The inside cover has a list of pronunciation symbols. The book itself is quite large in size and has nearly 3,000 pages. The contents section informs readers that there are multiple sections, including tables, illustrations, editorial staff, outside consultants, explanatory notes, etc. Tabs make it easy to find a specific section. The preface attempts to sell the book by stating its credibility, scope, and the effort that went into its publication. Three columns are on each page. Entries are listed alphabetically. Pages have few black and white images. Special color chart section.

Entries: Entry titles are in bold text. In addition to the actual definition(s), entries contain the word’s pronunciation, part of speech, and origin. The definitions are succinct, not too wordy, and easy to understand.

Overall Evaluation: The authority sells this publication. It is clear that extreme care went into finding the most accurate definitions. The preface is a good indication of the resource’s credibility. However, the book itself is so large that it is actually cumbersome to use.