Abstract
Restricted dictionaries are fully-fledged dictionaries and their contribution to lexicography should never be underestimated. Because restricted dictionaries often are neglected in lexicographic discussions this article emphasises the significance of their role as members of the lexicographic family. Within a comprehensive dictionary culture the focus should not only be on dictionaries dealing with languages for general purposes but also on dictionaries in which languages for special purposes are treated. This paper firstly offers some terminological clarity and distinguishes between subject field dictionaries and special field dictionaries. The user-perspective is then discussed before it is shown how aspects of a general theory of lexicography also prevail in these dictionaries. This applies among others to the subtypological classification as well as different lexicographic functions. Using a dictionary from each of the categories of subject field and special field dictionaries it is indicated how dictionary structures are employed and further developed in an innovative way. Attention is given to structures like the article structure and the frame structure and to a transtextual approach in monolingual dictionaries with a bilingual dimension. The focus in the discussion of the subject field dictionary is on different aspects of the macrostructure. An explanation is given of double-layered sublemmata and it is shown how integrated macrostructures are employed in this dictionary. It is indicated how this section of the lexicographic practice can enrich the field of metalexicography and dictionary research. Keywords: back matter texts; double-layered sublemmata; first level sublemmata; guiding element; integrated macrostructure; learner's dictionary; partial article stretches; special field dictionary; specialised dictionary; subject field dictionary; sublemmata; transtextual approach; user-perspective
Highlights
Kilgarriff (2012: 27) says: "When ordinary people refer to dictionaries, they mean general language dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary, Le Grand/Petit Robert, Duden, Webster, etc." He criticises an approach where a quantitative comparison between general language dictionaries and what he calls special language dictionaries is used to indicate that many dictionaries do not have language as their object
Dictionary research is directed at all types of dictionaries. In this regard Schierholz (2003: 10) says that the total of all theories directed at lexicography and dictionaries as well as the scientific practice are regarded as dictionary research
Lexicography, both the practice and the theory, contains a variety of subdomains, including domains that have their focus on e.g. general language dictionaries, subject-specific dictionaries or dictionaries focusing on a specific data type, e.g. pronunciation dictionaries or spelling dictionaries
Summary
Kilgarriff (2012: 27) says: "When ordinary people refer to dictionaries, they mean general language dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary, Le Grand/Petit Robert, Duden, Webster, etc." He criticises an approach where a quantitative comparison between general language dictionaries and what he calls special language dictionaries is used to indicate that many dictionaries do not have language as their object. In this regard Schierholz (2003: 10) says that the total of all theories directed at lexicography and dictionaries as well as the scientific practice are regarded as dictionary research Lexicography, both the practice and the theory, contains a variety of subdomains, including domains that have their focus on e.g. general language dictionaries, subject-specific dictionaries or dictionaries focusing on a specific data type, e.g. pronunciation dictionaries or spelling dictionaries. This paper aims to show some mutual aspects of special field lexicography and general language lexicography This can be illustrated by means of typological diversity but it can be seen in the way in which lexicographic functions and different dictionary structures come to the fore in these different domains of the lexicographic practice. This can be illustrated by means of typological diversity but it can be seen in the way in which lexicographic functions and different dictionary structures come to the fore in these different domains of the lexicographic practice. Bergenholtz (1995: 53) aptly captures the approach to be followed in this paper, when he says that lexicography has both general language and the language of subject fields in its scope
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
