THE EFFECTS OF THE TRANSITION FROM PRINT TO DIGITAL DICTIONARY.

Abstract

Over hundreds of years, lexicographic conventions and editorial standards have been changed. They originated during a period when dictionaries were printed books with limited space, as they have been for nearly the entirety of their existence. Many times, the styles that we seem to be "natural" dictionaries' features are actually tricks meant to fit as much information as possible into the little amount of space that is available.

A straightforward illustration is the type of "recursive" definition that can be found in many English dictionaries, where the user is required to perform a second look-up (to the base word) when a nominalization, like assimilation, is defined in terms of the related verb ("the act of assimilating or state of being assimilated"). Is this the best course of action, or was it chosen merely because it required less room than a self-sufficient explanation?

Space limitations vanish when dictionaries progressively move from print to digital medium. Some issues just go away. For example, tildes, abbreviations, and the like are no longer necessary, although surprisingly many dictionaries still adhere to these norms in their digital counterparts. Thus, the question of whether we should review and reassess the whole set of editorial guidelines and practices in light of the evolving situation emerges. This article examines various well-known presentational and editorial traditions, determining which ones are inappropriate for the digital era and proposing potential replacements in the form of new regulations.