In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews169 mind, temperament." Though Brockhaus appears to give more lexicalized phrases in this way and define them as clearly as does Duden, Duden's treatment is far more convenient for the user. The Duden editors appear to have made good use of their citation files and their Stilwörterbuch in the stylistic treatment of a great variety of entries. This gives the Duden an edge over the Brockhaus in demonstrating typical usage of a word. In the article Art 'manner,' for example, Duden gives examples which illustrate eleven typical modifiers, while Brockhaus gives only eight. The greater richness of examples in the Duden is particularly evident in the verifiable citations from current sources (listed in the preface). Nearly six hundred sources of reassuring variety from the Federal Republic, German Democratic Republic, Austria and Switzerland are listed in Duden. Brockhaus has consciously omitted all identified citations to avoid the impression of chance that such illustrations give (p. 15). In so doing, Brockhaus has also offered less detail and information on usage, since these illustrations do serve to pinpoint meaning and usage well beyond the limits of a brief circumscriptive definition. Duden's more differentiated picture of the language may frequently be seen in compounds such as abputzen, absahnen and ausfrieren. Neither dictionary works at discriminating a word from its synonyms in the manner of Webster's New Collegiate; both sporadically list synonyms or antonyms for entry words. In conclusion, these dictionaries offer the following respective advantages: BROCKHAUSDUDEN 20% more simplex andcosts less than half of phrase entriesBrockhaus much more technicalricher illustration of materialusage and style simpler system of listingmuch easier finding of entry wordsphrase idioms more encyclopedicverifiable citations of definitions of technicalcurrent sources terms information onpronunciation treated syllabificationmore thoroughly lists of sentence typessuperior grammatical for each verbinformation on verbs Chauncey J. Mellor The University of Tennessee Eugene Ehrlich, Stuart Berg Flexner, Gorton Carruth, and Joyce M. Hawkins, eds. Oxford American Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Pp. xvi + 816, $14.95. When Oxford offers a new dictionary, the lexicographical community (not to mention a few million ready consumers) takes note. The Oxford American 170Thomas E. Toon Dictionary (OAD), however, will not be "long noted" and fully deserves to be "little remembered." These are strong words, but they are occasioned by strong, unsubstantiated, claims (from the dust cover): Building upon the distinguished tradition of Oxford reference works, including the thirteen-volume Oxford English Dictionary . . . This innovative new dictionary brings lexicography into the 1980s. More than six hundred notes separate correct from incorrect usage in a way no other American dictionary does. The pronunciation system has been especially designed so that it needs no elaborate explanation or obscure symbols. It works well for people everywhere. Whatever your questions about American spelling, hyphenation, meaning, pronunciation, or usage, you'll find the answers quickly and easily in this precise and authoritative work. The six page publisher's note continues in the same vein, offering the potential purchaser a fulsomely anecdotal account of the production of the OAD. (Yes, I know fulsome means "cloying, excessive, disgusting," not "copious or plentiful .") Perhaps the eager buyer will be sufficiently overwhelmed and fail to notice that the OAD is the immediate lineal descendent of the Oxford Paperback Dictionaryl Although Americans need an Oxford dictionary, the Oxford paperback tradition will have to meet our humbler, American needs. A quick and random look at what is left out of the OAD reveals what the OAD envisions for the eighties. If we follow the guidance of the OAD, we will need to get on without laboratories, tropological studies, in vitro fertilization, tagmemics, and fungible accounts; aardvarlcs, preppies, Mary Jane (either shoes or smokes), pasties (we're keeping g-strings and hang gliders) will probably be less missed. We'll certainly be relieved not to have to contend with sons of bitches, shit, piss and all that crud. Although I have never personally encountered a codpiece or a gyre, I teach undergraduates who may buy this dictionary and need to know what those words mean. The editors of the OAD apparently think we can accommodate our losses by incorporating a few changes in the way we speak American. Although slob, artsy, and...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 169-171
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.