The Oxford Duden German Dictionary, and: Muret-Sanders Langenscheidt Großwörterbuch Teil I: Englisch-Deutsch, and: Teil II: Deutsch-Englisch (review)

REVIEWS The Oxford Duden German Dictionary. 2005. Third edition. Edited by Michael Clark, Olaf Thyen, and others. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. vii + 1756. Muret-Sanders Langenscheidt Großwörterbuch Teil I: Englisch-Deutsch. 2001. Helmut Willmann. Pp. 1341. Teil II: DeutschEnglisch . 2004. Edited by the Langenscheidt-Redaktion. Berlin, etc.: Langenscheidt. Pp. 1327. F'or serious users of German-English bilingual dictionaries, the Oxford Duden German Dictionary and the Muret-Sanders Langenscheidt Großwörterbuch have long been the best and most reliable works in the field, and it is a welcome development to have new editions of both of these large dictionaries.1 And they are large works: The single-volume Oxford Duden (henceforth OD) lists on its dust jacket an entry count of more than 320,000 words and phrases with 520,000 translations. It comes only six years after the previous edition of the same work, dating from 1999. The two-volume Langenscheidt 's Muret-Sanders (henceforth MS) indicates — with a label on the cover — that it contains about 240,000 words and phrases with over 420,000 translations . It replaces a four-volume set (which takes up over twice the space of the current edition) from 1963-1975. After a word about the structure of entries and arrangement of information , I will briefly compare the two dictionaries on some points particularly relevant to most users of bilingual dictionaries. These fall into two groups: first, two familiar issues — inclusion of regional/national variants and recent loanwords — and then two more difficult ones — culturally sensitive vocabulary and taboo/offensive words. After that, I turn to some comments about the appendices and additional materials in both works. A reviewer's task is to probe the limits of these books, and the following should be taken in that spirit, not read as overly critical of these tomes. 'This review has benefited from discussions with Orin Hargraves, Nils Langer, Monica Macaulay, B. Venkat Mani, Antje Petty, Luanne von Schneidemesser, and Dilara Tepeli. I alone am responsible for any errors. Dictionaries:Journal oftheDictionary Society ofNorth America 27 (2006), 168-177 Reviews169 Entry Structure and Organization of Information The lemma structure in these dictionaries will be thoroughly familiar to dictionary users and it is generally userfriendly. MS has a relatively sparse design and layout, for example giving noun genders compactly withjust m, f n, rather than with full definite articles (der, die, das) as OD does. OD employs more explicit structure, using blue ink (with boldface) for its headwords and then marking derivational forms listed under a headword with letters set in small blue boxes (A for transitive verb, B for intransitive, C for noun, etc.) and it employs numbers for individual senses. Black boldface is then reserved for phrases and idioms. I find this very easy on the eye — headwords are easy to recognize in particular — and it offsets the disadvantage of the smaller typeface compared to MS. OD also gives IPA transcription for each English word. For lexical entries rich in polysemy, these arrangements unavoidably become complex and the two works reflect different decisions about arranging such complex information: Zug 'train, procession, draft, pull, stroke, swig,' etc. is listed with 20 senses in OD but 14 in MS. MS lists as its second basic sense a set of cases where groups are moving together, including 'procession, column, convoy, flight (of birds) , shoal (of fish) , team (of draft animals) , platoon, section , watch (of firefighters).' In contrast, OD spreads this range of meanings over four distinct senses. For some less common meanings, coverage differs, like OD's inclusion of the regional meaning 'drawer,' where MS contains only the narrower (and not distinctly regional, as far as I know) meaning of 'handle for pulling,' but both provide solid coverage. Of more consequence are the editors' decisions about where particular information is to be found. As an example, consider the web of entries associated with the terms for goalie. In OD, the entry for goalie tells us that it is a colloquial term, and it is translated with two terms, Tormann and Schlußmann. The entry for goalkeeperyields what is designated a more formal term, Torwart. Checking the German-to-English entries, Torwächterand Torh...