The Declining Role of the In-House Dictionary Staff

THE DECLINING ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE DICTIONARY STAFF Barbara Ann Kipfer The computerization of the lexicographic process may bring changes to more than the collection and representation of dictionary material. Dictionary houses will be able to have projects written, proofread, and typeset with the help of lexicographers who can work at home with computers. The publishers may gain the advantage of continuity in staffing, possibly at less expense than an in-house group, for maintenance of their dictionaries. Staffsize Up to the mid-twentieth century there were many large dictionary projects, and the assemblage of an in-house staff of around fifty people was common. However, such staffs were often reduced greatly once projects were completed, and, consequently, many dictionaries saw only one edition or had inconsistently-edited revisions. There was no way to ensure continuity in practice, especially if publishing houses allowed book editors, rather than trained lexicographers, to handle the repairs and additions. Labor is more expensive now, and it is difficult to entice good workers to enlist for a few years (or much less) knowing they may be out of work when a project is finished. Staffing is a burden for reference book publishers because they must bear long waits for profits; often several years pass before a return on their investments, which include staffing, marketing, and promotion. This circumstance is almost unique to reference books because of the length of time needed for their preparation and the associated high cost of typesetting and production. It is more usual that a dictionary publisher keeps a small group (2-24; an average of 1 1.5) of experienced lexicographers in-house and expands the staff temporarily when necessary. When a general book publisher makes a dictionary, it may often mean keeping only one lexicographer on staff after 237 238The In-House Dictionary Staff publication, if even that. Outside Help Most dictionary publishers have a regular outside group of contributing editors (consultants, advisors) that fluctuates according to the size of a project, the depth of editing or revision, the nature of the expected market for a book, the number and complexity of the features to be included, etc. Also, there are outside readers who collect citations—either to supplement citations collected in-house or as the only source. Some houses (Oxford University Press, for example) do not use any editorial time for quotation collection but rely completely on out-house workers. Longman Inc. has access to a computerized citation-gathering service, and the selections are put into a database format comparable with the rest of Longman's citational material. Collins Publishers, which normally has an in-house staff of around eight, uses 90-100 outside people. The ratio is then about 1:10, but during large projects is brought to half in-house and half out-house by preference of the management. Pierre Cousin, Publishing Manager of dictionaries at Collins, mentioned that one advantage of the in-house staff may be more control over time. "Out-house help may be less expensive, but may cost the project in time—perhaps up to a year," he said. Though consultants and citation readers have consistently worked out-of-house and part-time without computers, the use of computers by such workers has potential benefits of saving time and promoting consistency. Temporary expansion is difficult. It is hard to find qualified workers and expensive to bring them to a central workplace, even for a short period of time. If publishers insist that work must be done in-house and do not investigate the possible merits of letting some staff members work at home, many dictionaries will wallow in unrevised form, particularly unabridged works. Many large projects have been conceived Barbara Ann Kipfer239 only to go by the wayside when publishers were not creative in putting together a staff. Computer Helps, But Does Not Replace Lexicographer Resettings and corrections (including typographical) for many changes, updates, and additions call for revised editions. That process can be very expensive for publishers unless their dictionaries are in machine-readable form. A machine-readable dictionary easily affords checking for errors and inconsistencies in treatment when doing a revision. Lexicographers need to take finished dictionaries apart and...