Download pdf - Bibliometrics in Lexicography

BIBLIOMETRICS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

Gilles-Maurice de Schryver: Department of African Languages and Cultures,Ghent University; Xhosa Department, University of theWestern Cape; and TshwaneDJeHLT ([email protected])

Abstract

Bibliometric methods may be used to study the impact of a field, the impact of certain

trends and researchers within that field, and of course the impact of particular research

articles. This is no different for the field of lexicography, and the output of both

metalexicographers and dictionary makers alike is increasingly being measured and

quantified. Analysing such data enables one (a) to track the growing and waning

popularity of certain lexicographic sub-fields, (b) to pinpoint the new directions

heralded by specific lexicographic papers or by new types of dictionaries, and (c) to map

the lexicographic schools of thought that have formed around some of the pioneering or

most productive scholars. In this article, bibliometrics in lexicography are investigated

by taking the International Journal of Lexicography as the centre piece. In the first half

of the article, various bibliometric tools relevant to lexicography are introduced, and in

the second half these tools are used to show that lexicography has truly become an

independent discipline. In the process, comparisons are also made with two other

lexicographic journals (Dictionaries and Lexikos), as well as with two journals from

other disciplines (Linguistics and Applied Linguistics).

1. The academization of lexicography

Some of us may not have noticed, as it went lightning fast. Ladislav Zgusta

published his ‘Manual of Lexicography’ in 1971 — a work which, less than four

decades ago, laid the foundation for modern lexicography. Then, just twenty-

five years ago, John Sinclair was still musing about lexicography as an

academic subject, claiming that ‘lexicography is not in a proper state to become

an academic subject’ (Sinclair 1984: 3), cautiously placing it at the intersection

of linguistics and information technology. In the intervening years, the field has

indeed developed by leaps and bounds, establishing itself fully as an

independent discipline. Looking back, as for example Reinhard Hartmann

recently did (Hartmann 2008), one cannot but be in awe of the achievements:

regular dictionary conferences, seminars and workshops; well-functioning

International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 22 No. 4. Advance access publication 12 October 2009� 2009 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/ijl/ecp027 423

continental, regional and national lexicography associations; esteemed

dictionary research centres; popular university diplomas in lexicography —

all of this, and more. From an academic angle, that ‘more’ of course refers to

what is increasingly being written on lexicography. Monographs and journal

articles are being produced on a daily basis, and it has become hard to keep

track of, let alone read it all.

This academization has a reward: any research group may publish a journal,

but only the best journals end up being covered in abstracting and indexing

services. As an academic, unless one has been living under a rock over the past

few years, one knows that this now means that the material of one’s discipline

must be published in a journal that is covered by the Thomson Reuters Web of

Science Citation Index (henceforth WoS). The lexicographic community is in

the fortunate position to have not one, but two such journals. Indeed, since the

June 2003 issue, the International Journal of Lexicography (1988–2009,

quarterly; henceforth IJL) has been indexed by what used to be the Institute

for Scientific Information (ISI) Citation Index, nowWoS. Starting with volume

15 (2005), Lexikos was the second journal entirely dedicated to lexicography to

be indexed by ISI/WoS. Members of Afrilex automatically receive their annual

copy of Lexikos, just as membership of Euralex includes the quarterly IJL. It is

to be hoped that Dictionaries, the journal of the Dictionary Society of North

America, will soon follow the WoS-suit, as also the international annual

Lexicographica.

2. A critical note, and the goal of this article

It must be noted, however, that not everyone is entirely happy with this

increased attention to counting, measuring, weighing, comparing, and ranking.

Mere metrics end up governing an academic’s life, and have the potential to

disrupt the inner goings-on of a scientific field. A strong expression of this

dissatisfaction is as follows:

We argue that the prevailing system of impact analysis is deeply flawed. Its

validity as a measure of knowledge is questionable, in which citation

counts are conflated with the contribution made to knowledge, quantity is

valued over quality, popularity is taken as a proxy for intellectual quality,

impact is mostly measured on a short timeframe, ‘impact factors’ are

aggregated for journals or departments in a way that lessens their validity

further, there is a bias for and against certain article types, there are

exclusionary network effects and there are accessibility distortions. —

Cope and Kalantzis (2009)

No doubt, there is a lot of truth here. At Ghent University in Belgium, for

example, one is bombarded on a weekly basis with the message that only WoS

424 Gilles-Maurice de Schryver

articles ‘count’ — the rest might just as well not have been written. Secondly, a

WoS article had better be in a journal that also has an impact factor (not all

do). Thirdly, an impact factor alone is not sufficient — one had better choose a

journal with a high impact factor (from the so-called first quartile). Fourthly,

one must make sure that one’s WoS contribution, of course in a journal with a

high impact factor, also attracts enough citations from others (who also

publish in WoS journals, with impact factors in the first quartiles). Fifthly, vary

your publication channels! As a result, some people are literally forced to

change their research field or to publish in journals that are not read by their

colleagues. Needless to say, many people, especially in the humanities, are in

revolt; but the fact of the matter is, universities are increasingly being funded,

directly and proportionally, on the basis of what their staff publish — and to

measure the latter, the WoS is consulted, blindly. Perhaps, then, rather than

spend time complaining, one could opt for trying to work within a flawed

system, making the best of it. And of course, not everything about the WoS is

bad, as Paul Bogaards (2003: 461) wrote when announcing the inclusion of IJL

in the database:

[O]nly 10–12% of the journals evaluated is selected. In the selection

procedure several factors are of special importance, such as timeliness of

publication, the application of a blind peer review procedure, international

editorial conventions, citation data, as well as the place the journal

occupies in the field. [. . .] the importance of [IJL] for the field of

lexicography and lexicology has now been duly acknowledged.

In order to illustrate some of the features of the WoS, we will use IJL as an

example below. The various results will further be compared with other

bibliometric tools, some freely available, others restricted, still others of our

own making. The end goal is to show where bibliometrics in lexicography is

heading.

3. IJL in the Thomson ReutersWeb of Science Citation Index

3.1.Basic Analysis

For the period June 2003 to June 2009 (just over six years, 25 issues in all), a

total of 232 IJL ‘records’ (articles, review articles, book reviews, etc.) have been

indexed by the WoS. Use of the WoS is not free, but most academic institutions

normally have a subscription making it available for all their staff. Once logged

in, a search interface enables one to bring all the records from IJL together,

and to study and rank those by author, conference title (not relevant for IJL),

country or territory, document type, institution name, language, publication

year, source title, or subject area. As an illustration, Figure 1 shows the

Bibliometrics in Lexicography 425

distribution according to the authors’ country (with the minimum count set

at ‘4’).

Rather surprisingly, perhaps, the top spot in Figure 1 is for the USA, where,

for the past 25 issues, nearly 11% of the contributions to IJL came from. From

this distribution it is also clear that authors from all continents publish in IJL.

As another example, Figure 2 shows the top institution names of the IJL

authors over the same time span. Here, the top spot is for the very active

Poznan School of English, not entirely surprisingly (see Lew 2007). Note,

Figure 1: Distribution of the authors’ countries in IJL (June 2003 to June

2009). This figure appears in colour in the online version of the International

Journal of Lexicography.

Figure 2: Distribution of the authors’ institution names in IJL (June 2003 to

June 2009). This figure appears in colour in the online version of the

International Journal of Lexicography.


however, that these statistics need to be interpreted with some caution. Ghent

University, for example, is variably found as ‘UNIV GHENT,’ ‘GHENT

UNIV,’ and ‘STATE UNIV GHENT.’

3.2.Citation Report

Already more exciting than the basic breakdowns for each record presented in

the previous section, is the so-called ‘citation report’ for IJL. Figure 3 shows

the first section of the first page. Basically, this report lists the number of

citations each record from IJL attracted. Important caveat: the calculation only

includes items in WoS — material in non-covered journals is not included.

From Figure 3, one sees that Fillmore et al.’s ‘Background to FrameNet’ (IJL

16.3) has been cited most often in WoS, 24 times to date. In comparison,

Google Scholar (which, unlike WoS, is freely accessible), records as many as

216 citations for the same article.

3.3. Journal Citation Report, Journal Impact Factor, and Category Box Plot

There are three journal citation databases in the WoS (in addition to two

databases for proceedings):

� Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded)

� Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)

� Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)

Figure 3: Citation report for IJL (June 2003 to June 2009). This figure appears

in colour in the online version of the International Journal of Lexicography.


Only the first two are covered in the Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), and

being included there is a condition for journal Impact Factors (IFs) to be

calculated. IJL started off on the A&HCI in June 2003 (Bogaards 2003: 461),

and beginning with the March 2007 issue, was also indexed in the SSCI

(Bogaards 2008: 215). The data which was already in the WoS databases was

used to start calculating IFs right away, and the first IF for IJL appeared in the

2007 JCR, the second (and latest to date) in the 2008 JCR.

The way IFs are calculated is very crude, as data of the current and past two

years only is included, as follows for IJL in 2008:

Cites in 2008 to items published in: 2007 ¼ 0

2006 ¼ 3

Sum ¼ 3

Number of items published in: 2007 ¼ 14

2006 ¼ 19

Sum ¼ 33

Calculation:

Cites to recent items 3

————————————————— ¼ 0.091

Number of recent items 33

Obviously, with just three references in 2008 to material published in IJL in

2007 or 2006, one obtains a minuscule IF. A tiny two-year window for a small

field such as lexicography, where citations to older publications are often more

relevant than citations to recent publications, means that the value of the IF is

nearly a matter of chance. IJL’s 2007 IF, for example, looks far more

impressive:

Cites in 2007 to items published in: 2006 ¼ 6

2005 ¼ 7

Sum ¼ 13

Number of items published in: 2006 ¼ 19

2005 ¼ 19

Sum ¼ 38

Calculation:

Cites to recent items 13

————————————————— ¼ 0.342

Number of recent items 38

That said, IFs are meaningless without their context. In this case the ‘context’ is

the list to which IJL belongs, being ‘Linguistics.’ In 2008 there were 68 journals

in this category (up from 55 in 2007), the top three for 2008 as follows: (1)

Journal of Memory and Language (IF 3.271), (2) Brain and Language (IF 2.929),

and (3) Computational Linguistics (IF 2.656). With an IF of 0.091, IJL ranks

63rd in this list (down from 46th out of 55 in 2007).


WoS contributions are given different weights depending on the quartile they

are in. Figure 4 shows the so-called category box plot for the Linguistics list in

2008. From it, one sees that with 0.091, IJL belongs to quartile 4 (below the

box; the bottom section of the box is quartile 3, the top section quartile 2, and

above the box quartile 1).

In order to compensate for the tiny two-year window, 5-year impact factors

may also be calculated, which gives 0.321 for IJL in 2008, with which IJL ranks

53rd out of 68. Sadly, such more realistic impact factors are not yet used by the

academic authorities who measure their researchers.

4. Do It Yourself: ‘Google Scholar,’ ‘Harzing’s Publish or Perish,’ and ‘HighWirePress’

4.1.Google Scholar

As pointed out in Sections 1 and 2, the WoS is currently the tool with which

administrators at institutes of higher education evaluate scientific contribu-

tions. Serious (and free) competition is already on the horizon, however. Chief

among them is Google Scholar, which often (though not always) gives far more

citations than the WoS. This, of course, because Google crawl anything and

everything they can lay their hands on. For an example of the use of Google

statistics (and the linked data, again free), see De Schryver (2008: 429–430).

Studies that have compared citation counts between WoS and Google Scholar

have shown to lead to essentially the same results (Pauly and Stergiou 2005).

4.2.Harzing’s Publish or Perish

Harzing’s Publish or Perish is ‘[a] citation analysis software program, designed

to help individual academics to present their case for research impact to its best

Figure 4: Category box plot for Linguistics (JCR 2008). This figure appears in

colour in the online version of the International Journal of Lexicography.


advantage.’ Given this (free) piece of software uses Google Scholar to obtain its

raw citations, this is a true DIY (do it yourself) bibliometric tool. For an idea

of the output, Figure 5 shows a plain search for ‘International Journal of

Lexicography’, restricted to publications since the year 2000.

4.3.HighWire Press

If one prefers not to install any software, or doesn’t feel like googling single

contributions, there is a third laid-back option to study basic lexicographic

bibliometrics, namely the following two series of statistics provided by

HighWire Press:

� The 50 most-frequently read articles in IJL:

http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/reports/mfr1.dtl

� The 50 most-frequently cited articles from IJL:

http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/reports/mfc1.dtl

Figure 5: Harzing’s Publish or Perish citation analysis software program. This

figure appears in colour in the online version of the International Journal of

Lexicography.


http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/reports/mfr1.dtl

http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/reports/mfc1.dtl

The top 5 of the first of these, for July 2009, is as follows:

(1) Robert Lew, Wlodzimierz Sobkowiak. Phonetics of EFL Dictionary

Definitions. Jun 01, 2009; 22: 218–221.

(2) Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Corpus-driven Lexicography. Sep 01, 2008; 21:

231–242.

(3) Y. V. Chon, The Electronic Dictionary for Writing: A Solution or a

Problem? Mar 01, 2009; 22: 23–54.

(4) Geoffrey Williams, Michael Hoey. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of

Words and Language. London: Routledge. 2005. xiiiþ 202 pages. ISBN 0-

415-32863-2. Sep 01, 2006; 19: 327–335.

(5) Julie Coleman, Sarah Ogilvie, Forensic Dictionary Analysis: Principles and

Practice. Mar 01, 2009; 22: 1–22.

In this list, current and recent contributions almost always outperform older

ones.

5. IJL in the‘Oxford Journals Usage Statistics’

Big publishing houses — such as Oxford Journals, which publishes IJL — also

make their journals available online. Given that subscriptions are needed, with

thus controlled access, detailed personalized logs can be kept of journal usage.

Oxford Journals have developed their own in-house modules to keep track of

who accesses what when. These logs are not publicly available, but we were

granted access while preparing the current contribution. For IJL, the resources

available include:

� Journal usage statistics by month or year

� Top article downloads

� Top advance access downloads

� Single issue downloads

� Single article downloads

From the many statistics, both general and detailed, two are shown below:

Top 10 Full-text PDF Downloads for 2008:

1. The Lexicographical Legacy of John Sinclair / Patrick Hanks / IJL

(2008), 21, 219–229:

693

2. Corpus-driven Lexicography / Ramesh Krishnamurthy / IJL (2008),

21, 231–242:

248

3. Beyond Definition: Organising Semantic Information in Bilingual

Dictionaries / B. L. Fraser / IJL (2008), 21, 69–93:

238

4. Sinclair, Phraseology, and Lexicography / Rosamund Moon / IJL

(2008), 21, 243–254:

222


5. Between Chaos and Structure: Interpreting Lexical Data Through a

Theoretical Lens / James Pustejovsky, Anna Rumshisky / IJL

(2008), 21, 337–355:

208

6. Lexicographers’ Dreams in the Electronic-Dictionary Age / Gilles-

Maurice de Schryver / IJL (2003), 16, 143–199:

207

7. Word Families / Laurie Bauer, Paul Nation / IJL (1993), 6, 253–279: 207

8. Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position / Michael Hoey,

Matthew Brook O’Donnell / IJL (2008), 21, 293–309:

200

9. On Pragmatic Information in Learners’ Dictionaries, with

Particular Reference to LDOCE4 / Wen Xiu Yang / IJL (2007),

20, 147–173:

190

10. Examining the Effectiveness of ‘Bilingual Dictionary Plus’ —

A Dictionary for Production in a Foreign Language / Batia Laufer,

Tamar Levitzky-Aviad / IJL (2006), 19, 135–155:

182

Single Article Download for ‘The Lexicographical Legacy of John Sinclair’ by

Patrick Hanks

Year Month Abstract HTML PDF

2008 August 30 12 25

September 455 202 424

October 72 100 106

November 40 45 77

December 47 43 61

Totals 644 402 693

6. Fuzzy statistics

Comparing the various HighWire Press figures with the Oxford Journals in-

house statistics, we noticed considerable discrepancies, so checked with

Michael Zeyfert, Editorial Data Analyst at Oxford Journals. A section of his

reply follows, as it illustrates well the issues involved — issues of growing

importance for the future, as more and more of our scientific endeavours

actually take place entirely online:

Both the author data pages and the previously-available top 50 article

usage pages are provided by HighWire as a standard service to publishers

who use the platform. They should therefore be consistent with each other.

However, the figures provided will tend to be higher than those reported

by our in-house system. This is because our in-house system is better at

filtering out non-genuine traffic.


Measuring online usage is a complex process because of the large

amount of non-human (robotic) traffic. It is relatively simple to obtain a

count of the raw number of times a page has been accessed, but this is not

meaningful data because a significant number of these ‘hits’ do not

correspond to real people actually reading the page. Here are a few

examples of traffic which we exclude:

� ‘Web crawlers’ or ’robots’ such as those used by indexing services such

as Google.

� ‘Double-clicks’ whereby the same user attempts to download the same

page within a short period of time.

� Usage from OUP and HighWire staff and systems.

� ‘SQL injections attacks’ from infected computers attempting to break

the database behind the website.

[. . .] We also check our usage statistics before publication for any signs of

anomalous usage [. . .] — Zeyfert, personal communication, 11 February

2009.

The problems are probably much more serious than what is reported here.

Oxford Journals are now working on a new reporting system, called HitList,

aimed at counteracting some of these problems.

7. The IJL database

WoS statistics are solid and detailed, but only cover just over the last six

years for IJL (out of over 21 years of total publication). Google Scholar and

Harzing’s Publish or Perish depend entirely on what happens to be crawlable at

Google. HighWire Press and Oxford Journal’s statistics are fuzzy. What’s left?

Copying the technology developed at WoS or Google (especially the modules

that keep track of who cites who when) is of course not an option, but adding

value is.

We undertook to build our own database reflecting all the material published

in IJL from January 1988 up to December 2008 — 21 volumes, 84 issues, 830

different items in all. The first three sections below (7.1 through 7.3) summarize

the database facts.

7.1.Number ofcontributors to IJL

As many as 949 names appear under the 830 contributions in the ‘IJL

database’. A first statistic one may look at is the breakdown in terms of number

of authors, as presented in Table 1. As may be seen, as many as 81% of the IJL

contributions are written without any co-authors, only 13% are joint efforts,


with long lists of contributors being the exception rather than the norm (there

is just a single case of an article with 12 authors). This is indeed a common

pattern in the humanities, unlike in the natural sciences or medicine for

example.

All in all, and subtracting the compilers of the Euralex Newsletters, there are

479 different authors who contributed to IJL during the first 21 years. Most of

them, about three quarters (74%), only contributed once, one tenth (11%)

twice, about 6% thrice, etc., as shown in Table 2. Somehow, one would have

expected more repeat contributors.

Table 1: Author position in the IJL database.

Author position N %

1 768 80.93

2 122 12.86

3 30 3.16

4 12 1.26

5 7 0.74

6 3 0.32

7 2 0.21

8 1 0.11

9 1 0.11

10 1 0.11

11 1 0.11

12 1 0.11

– 62

949 100.00

Table 2: Number of contributions per author in the IJL database.

# contributions N % # contributions N %

1 355 74.11 10 4 0.84

2 52 10.86 8 2 0.42

3 30 6.26 9 1 0.21

4 16 3.34 11 1 0.21

6 7 1.46 15 1 0.21

5 4 0.84 16 1 0.21

7 4 0.84 29 1 0.21

479 100.00


7.2.Top contributors to IJL

Filling in the names of the top contributors (the bottom half of Table 2),

results in Tables 3 to 5 — respectively the top contributors to the

articles and review articles section (3), the book reviews section (4), and

overall (5).

Table 3: Top contributors to articles and review articles in the IJL database.

# Author N # Author N

1 Atkins, B. T. S. 6 9 Ctd. Fellbaum, C. 3

Cormier, M. C. 6 Ilson, R. 3

3 Fillmore, C. J. 5 Kilgarriff, A. 3

4 Bogaards, P. 4 Levin, B. 3

Carr, M. 4 Martin, W. 3

de Schryver, G.-M. 4 Osselton, N. E. 3

Hanks, P. 4 Prcic, T. 3

Mel’cuk, I. 4 Rundell, M. 3

9 Cowie, A. P. 3 Swidzinski, M. 3

Evens, M. W. 3

Table 4: Top contributors to book reviews in the IJL database.

# Author N # Author N

1 Gorlach, M. 27 14 Ctd. Ilson, R. 4

2 Zgusta, L. 13 Stein, G. 4

3 Bogaards, P. 9 Steiner, R. J. 4

4 Bejoint, H. 7 19 Adamska-Salaciak, A. 3

Corpas Pastor, G. 7 Ayto, J. 3

Hartmann, R. R. K. 7 Chalker, S. 3

Osselton, N. E. 7 de Schryver, G.-M. 3

8 Aitchison, J. 6 Lew, R. 3

McCreary, D. R. 6 Margarito, M. 3

Urdang, L. 6 Nida, E. A. 3

11 Ansalone, M. R. 5 Plecinski, J. 3

Fontenelle, T. 5 Riggs, F. W. 3

Knowles, F. 5 Tsai, C.-Y. 3

14 Augarde, T. 4 Williams, G. 3

Boulanger, J.-C. 4


Table

5:Overalltopcontributors

intheIJL

database.

#Author

NArticle

Review

Article

Book

Review

Special

Feature

Conference

Report

References

Glossary

Editorial

Discussion

1Gorlach,M.

29

11

27

2Bogaards,P.

16

22

91

23

Zgusta,L.

15

213

4Hartmann,R.R.K.

11

11

71

15

Cowie,A.P.

10

21

21

4Fontenelle,T.

10

25

12

Ilson,R.

10

21

41

2Osselton,N.E.

10

37

9Bejoint,H.

92

710

McC

reary,D.R.

82

6Urdang,L.

81

61

12

CorpasPastor,G.

77

deSchryver,G.-M.

74

3Pruvost,J.

72

23

Steiner,R.J.

71

42

16

Aitchison,J.

66

Atkins,B.T.S.

66

Boulanger,J.-C

.6

24

Carr,M.

64

2Corm

ier,M.C.

66

Fellbaum,C.

63

21

Fillm

ore,C.J.

64

11

23

Ansalone,

M.R.

55

Frawley,W.

52

21

Knowles,F.

55

Stein,G.

51

4


7.3.Document types and languages in IJL

Table 6, lastly, shows the distribution of all the material in the IJL database

according to document type. Just over 31% are articles, fewer than 2% are

review articles, while close to 43% are book reviews. Also shown is the

distribution across the languages covered by IJL: 88% is in English, 9% in

French, and smaller percentages for Spanish, German, and Italian.

8. The IJL corpus

In addition to the metadata presented in Tables 1 through 6, we also built one

grand corpus (including everything except for the Publications received,

Euralex Newsletters, lists of Euralex members, and biographical statements),

queryable with WordSmith Tools (WST). After conversion to .TXT, we ended

up with 22MB of plain text, 690 files in all, good for about 3.5 million words

(‘tokens,’ consisting of about 150,000 ‘types’). That is for all languages

together; when extracting the English material only, one ends up with 592 files,

good for about 3 million words (3,042,282 tokens; 111,903 types). To have a

feel for the size of this ‘IJL corpus,’ the entire Shakespeare canon contains (cf.

Spevack 1973: v) about 0.9 million words (884,647 tokens; 29,066 types). The

IJL corpus is thus roughly 3.4 times the size of all that Shakespeare wrote.

We partitioned the corpus into three sub-corpora, as follows:

� Phase 1: 1988–1994 (seven years, 164 files)



The assumption was that it would be possible to discover ‘trends’ by looking at

keywords in those three sub-corpora. In order to extract keywords,

comparisons were made with the 100-million-word BNC World Edition,

using the KeyWords function of WST. The top 300 keywords for each sub-

corpus are shown in Addenda 1 to 3.

Going through these Addenda is highly revealing, especially when one

monitors keyness values across time for particular keywords, or when one

studies how certain keywords appear and disappear going from one table to

the next. We will limit our discussion to a few samples only, to illustrate the

potential of this content analysis.

Tables 7 through 9 show the keyword-names extracted from each of the

three IJL sub-corpora. We are dealing with three types of names: those that

really stand out throughout, and are thus truly ‘key’, those that do not appear

in the BNC at all (often non-English names) and quickly ‘stand out’, and those

that ‘spike’ as a result of a Special Issue. Nonetheless, moving in time, one feels

that it is intuitively correct that the input and influence from scholars like

(Ladislav) Zgusta, Ilson, Mel’cuk, Barnhart, Levin, Wierzbicka, or Landau


Table

6:Distributionaccordingto

documenttypeandlanguagein

theIJLdatabase.

Type

N%

English

French

Spanish

German

Italian

Article

259

31.20

230

22

41

2

Review

Article

16

1.93

16

BookReview

353

42.53

291

45

58

4

SpecialFeature

/Debate

13

1.57

12

1

PracticalLexicography

30.36

3

Conference

Report

/Note

60.72

33

References

20.24

2

Glossary

10.12

1

Editorial

23

2.77

21

11

Discussion/Correspondence

13

1.57

13

BiographicalStatements

10.12

1

Errata

10.12

1

PublicationsReceived

44

5.30

44

EuralexNew

sletter

78

9.40

78

ListofEuralexMem

bers

17

2.05

17

830

100.00

N732

73

10

96

%88.19

8.80

1.20

1.08

0.72


decreases; while others such as Hartmann’s remain present throughout; and

this while the influence of others, such as Atkins or Hausmann, is continuously

on the rise. Joining from the middle phase onwards are scholars like

Fontenelle, Bogaards, Cowie, Rundell, and Wiegand — all there to stay; and

in the last phase they receive company from Hanks and Fillmore. The effect of

Special Issues includes spikes for Hornby and Palmer, as well as Johnson and

Sinclair. If anything, all of this doesn’t just confirm what we already know, but

especially confirms the validity of the fully-automated keyword-extraction

procedure used here.

Table 7: Names in IJL sub-corpus 1: 1988–1994.

# Keyword Keyness # Keyword Keyness

85 ZGUSTA 1311.18 237 PASSOW 497.83

108 ILSON 1043.40 250 WIERZBICKA 477.78

117 SALONI 932.60 257 EVENS 465.31

132 SWIDZINSKI 867.96 267 FRAWLEY 446.29

137 MEL’CUK 858.73 272 LADISLAV 439.18

149 BARNHART 792.40 273 HARTMANN 438.50

157 LEVIN 762.03 276 KEGL 433.98

172 SZPAKOWICZ 692.52 283 LANDAU 423.74

195 ATKINS 597.70 289 KIRKPATRICK 415.91

201 BOGURAEV 585.91 297 LITOWITZ 406.28

229 HAUSMANN 525.43



46 HORNBY 2536.06 194 WIEGAND 737.59

63 COWIE 1865.77 201 SINCLAIR 688.87

124 PALMER 1049.19 226 HERBST 618.24

138 HARTMANN 954.01 236 MARELLO 588.19

146 SHCHERBA 904.90 242 HORNBY’S 564.36

156 ATKINS 884.16 262 RUNDELL 533.55

158 ILSON 877.76 272 VARANTOLA 524.84

159 FONTENELLE 876.25 276 KILGARRIFF 515.79

170 HAUSMANN 830.51 278 PALMER’S 514.93

179 BOGAARDS 787.27 296 NESI 488.65

188 ZGUSTA 751.07 297 MICHIELS 488.65


If a fully-automated keyword-extraction procedure gives comforting results,

calculating typical collocates using the Mutual Information (MI) statistic will

likely also be of value. For example, for a selection of the scholars from

Table 3, and with a span of five words to the left and right, one obtains the

following collocates and MI scores in the full IJL corpus (personal and place

names have been taken out of these lists):

� Atkins: virtual (9.66), Euralex (6.65), studies (6.30), using (5.93), lexico-

graphers (4.53), dictionaries (3.12), . . . [cf. Using Dictionaries: Studies of . . .]

� Fillmore: frames (7.18), frame (5.80), . . .

� Bogaards: cherche (13.89), scanning (11.41), editor (7.96), long (6.60), two

(4.77), dictionaries (4.07), . . . [cf. Ou cherche-t-on dans . . . ; Scanning long

entries . . . ; ‘thanks are due to Paul Bogaards, the editor, and two

anonymous reviewers’]

� Hanks: norms (9.13), association (8.88), Collins (6.75), lexicographers

(5.52), definitions (5.47), word (4.5), . . . [cf. Word association norms . . .]

To the in-crowd, these results will be very comforting indeed, yet they are not

trivial. For example, they clearly show that, in IJL, the ‘virtual dictionary’ is

Atkins’s core concept being discussed, while her book with the greatest impact

is ‘Using Dictionaries’; Fillmore is squarely associated with frames and Frame

(Semantics); Bogaards produced two high-impact articles on dictionary use,

and is repeatedly thanked for his input as editor of IJL; and Hanks is most

associated with definitions (while at Collins) and his landmark work on MI.



28 JOHNSON 3769.84 192 LAUFER 866.72

30 BOYER 3730.69 197 HARTMANN 847.18

40 SINCLAIR 3023.87 215 FELLBAUM 794.49

63 BURCHFIELD 2085.35 229 COLES 742.15

84 FILLMORE 1643.85 237 RUNDELL 723.83

92 HANKS 1509.32 250 SIEPMANN 686.15

98 ATKINS 1432.78 257 WIEGAND 673.72

112 BLOUNT 1266.99 267 ABEL 663.79

124 HAUSMANN 1198.02 270 SOBKOWIAK 659.07

133 ENTICK 1137.80 272 CORMIER 658.62

139 SCHRYVER 1107.89 288 PUSTEJOVSKY 618.78

153 BOGAARDS 1020.20 290 PIZAN 615.84

160 ZGUSTA 984.09 298 GOUWS 604.90

165 NESI 966.03 299 FISHER 602.11


Some lexicographic sub-fields are clearly imposing themselves with time.

While we find corpus, frequency, computational and database throughout;

corpora, NLP, WWW, Internet, and concordance enter the scene in Phase 2;

with electronic and BNC added in Phase 3. Similar to the Special Issue spikes,

one also notices the sudden appearance of case-study concepts, such as bake or

monkey (with their Japanese equivalents) in Phase 1, and bogey or morass in

Phase 2.

Also fascinating is to see which types of POSs move in, and especially out, of

the attention of the lexicographers with time. See Table 10 in this regard.

Languages dealt with in Phase 1 include English, Chinese, Japanese,

Burmese, Polish, Pali, Latin, American English, Czech, Sinitic; in Phase 2

English, Maori, Japanese, Spanish, Russian, Hebrew, Pali, Hindi, Ivrit,

German, Italian, American English; while in Phase 3 this list grows

considerably further to include English, Afrikaans, Dutch, Nahuatl, French,

Spanish, Italian, Mutsun, Sm’algyax, Englishes, Latin, Warlpiri, Toqabaqita,

Estonian, Finnish, Australian, Arroyo, Polish, Hebrew, German, Greek,

Alawa. Truly international thus.

With reference to specific dictionaries, and again in order of keyness,

we have for Phase 1: OED, LDOCE, WEBSTER’S, COBUILD, ROGET,

WNWD, RHWCD, AHCD, ROGET’S, MERRIAM, UBDCP, SHUOWEN,

WEBSTER, MW, FFDAI, BBI, CED; for Phase 2: COBUILD, CIDE,

LDOCE, OALD, OED, LDAE, AHD, CED, RHD, LDELC, CHD, OALDE,

EWED, LPD, COD; and for Phase 3: COBUILD, OED, WAT, WEBSTER,

MED, LDOCE, DSFF, CIDE, MERRIAM. It seems that COBUILD has

increasingly monopolized the discussion.

The POSs, languages, and dictionaries listed here are but examples of the

many groupings that can be made based on the tabulated data shown in the

Addenda. It is tempting to cross-compare some of these lists. For instance, with

the increasing number of languages being studied, and in parallel the

decreasing number of parts of speech, one can predict that numerous studies

are to follow, in which also the more challenging parts of speech for the ‘exotic

languages’ will be given due attention.

Even more interesting is to analyse a group of concepts that belongs to a sub-

field of lexicography, in order to study the growing and waning interest of that

sub-field. With regard to the user perspective, for example, Figures 6 through

10 display the keyness values for selected concepts across time. Overall, it is

clear that the high days of the user perspective was the period 1997–2004. The

different graphs each reveal a series of additional facts. During the period

2002–2004 (and 2005), lexicographers oscillate between focusing their energy

on users as a group vs the needs of a single user. Referring to student(s) rather

than user(s) or learner(s) is not particularly popular in lexicography, except

for a sudden peak in 1999 and especially 2002. Referring to specifically learners

sees a first boost in 1996 (recall the so-called ‘Big Four’ monolingual learners’


Table

10:POSs(PartsofSpeech)in

thethreeIJLsub-corpora.

Phase

1:1988–1994

Phase

2:1995–2001

Phase

3:2002–2008

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

4VERBS

9020.90

15

VERB

5414.45

13

VERB

6340.95

10

VERB

6988.55

16

VERBS

5357.05

16

VERBS

5518.53

19

NOUNS

3541.52

19

NOUN

4438.51

27

NOUN

3825.58

21

NOUN

3383.87

40

NOUNS

2703.62

33

NOUNS

3602.16

46

ADJE

CTIV

ES

2022.03

77

ADJ

1621.51

171

ADJE

CTIV

E951.17

48

ADJ

1899.69

88

ADJE

CTIV

E1433.16

172

ARTIC

LE

942.55

52

ADVERBS

1813.49

94

TRANSIT

IVE

1331.76

173

ADJE

CTIV

ES

939.48

73

TRANSIT

IVE

1494.56

95

ADJE

CTIV

ES

1310.78

174

PREFIX

ES

938.02

81

ADVERB

1368.05

131

INTRANSIT

IVE

993.46

183

SUFFIX

ES

901.96

95

ADJE

CTIV

E1146.06

205

PRON

662.28

194

ADJ

850.58

102

INTRANSIT

IVE

1113.78

220

PRONOUN

637.23

116

ADV

947.00

224

CAUSATIV

E632.89

119

PRONOUNS

926.54

261

ADV

533.88

134

PREPOSIT

ION

865.84

281

PREPOSIT

ION

510.70

136

PREPOSIT

IONAL

860.36

239

VT

574.22


138

AFFIX

ES

857.12

170

PRONOMIN

AL

711.51

187

ADVERBIA

L641.57

192

VERBAL

612.13

200

SUFFIX

588.84

214

PRONOUN

546.58

265

IRREGULAR

447.08

268

ADJE

CTIV

AL

443.16

271

NOMIN

AL

440.02

282

AFFIX

425.96

293

CONJU

NCTIO

NS

409.95

299

CAUSATIV

E404.31

300

PLURALS

402.80

207

SG

579.49

236

TR

499.74


dictionaries (MLDs) had appeared in 1995), and then again in 1998–1999, 2001

and 2006. This runs partly in parallel with references to MLDs themselves, as

seen from Figures 8 versus 9.

References to pedagogical (lexicography) and EFL (i.e. English as a Foreign

Language) also peak in 1998–1999.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Key

nes

s

learner learners

Figure 8: Keyness values across time for learner and learners in the IJL corpus.

This figure appears in colour in the online version of the International Journal

of Lexicography.

0100200300400500600700

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Key

nes

s

user users

Figure 6: Keyness values across time for user and users in the IJL corpus. This

figure appears in colour in the online version of the International Journal of

Lexicography.

0

500

1000

1500

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Key

nes

s

student students

Figure 7: Keyness values across time for student and students in the IJL

corpus. This figure appears in colour in the online version of the International



9. Lexicography as an independent discipline

In Section 1, reference was made to lexicography as an independent discipline.

Although the lexicographic bibliometrics presented above implicitly confirm

this, one can now also make this explicit.

9.1. Inward-looking: IJL vs Dictionaries, and IJL vs Lexikos

One journal only has been looked at so far, IJL, so before drawing

comparisons with other disciplines, it is desirable to obtain some metrics that

transcend a single journal. For variety, two additional journals from different

continents were chosen in this regard: Dictionaries (1979–2008, annually) and

Lexikos (1991–2008, annually). While Dictionaries was compared to IJL with

regard to author patterns, Lexikos was compared to IJL with regard to

keyword patterns.

0

250

500

750

1000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Key

nes

s

pedagogical EFL

Figure 10: Keyness values across time for pedagogical and EFL in the IJL



0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Key

nes

s

learner’s MLD MLDs

Figure 9: Keyness values across time for learner’s, MLD and MLDs in the IJL




Even though it is clear that each of these three journals — IJL, Dictionaries

and Lexikos — serve their own readership, and thus tend to focus on ‘their’

continent’s languages and language families mainly, and even though each of

those journals has its own peculiar history, again linked to the lexicographic

histories of the (main) continents they serve, the assumption is thus that there is

also enough overlap to be dealing with one homogenous lexicographic field.

With no coverage in the WoS, and no material available in electronic form,

we manually built a ‘Dictionaries database.’ To facilitate a direct comparison

with IJL, we extracted the information for the period 1988–2008 from this

database. That period contains 327 records (articles, review articles, book

reviews, etc.), by 360 authors, 198 different authors. All contributions by these

198 authors were compared with those of the 479 authors in IJL, with a focus

on the author overlaps. Table 11 summarizes the outcome.

Table 11: Authors of material in both Dictionaries and IJL.

Author N Dictionaries� N IJL

Author N Dictionaries� N IJL

Zgusta, L. 16 � 15 Carr, M. 1 � 6

Algeo, J. 8 � 4 Stein, G. 1 � 5

Frawley, W. 6 � 5 Benson, M. 1 � 4

Landau, S. I. 5 � 4 Dolezal, F. 1 � 4

Murphy, M. L. 4 � 2 Hanks, P. 1 � 4

Cassidy, F. G. 4 � 1 Evens, M. 1 � 3

Knowles, E. M. 4 � 1 Gouws, R. H. 1 � 3

Creamer, T. B. I. 3 � 2 Nesi, H. 1 � 3

Gilman, E. W. 3 � 1 Sharpe, P. A. 1 � 3

Gorlach, M. 2 � 29 ten Hacken, P. 1 � 3

de Schryver, G.-M. 2 � 7 Cruse, D. A. 1 � 2

Steiner, R. J. 2 � 7 Battenburg, J. D. 1 � 1

Cormier, M. C. 2 � 6 Bray, L. 1 � 1

Farina, D. M. T. Cr. 2 � 2 Francoeur, A. 1 � 1

Van Male, T. 2 � 2 Lubensky, S. 1 � 1

Gold, D. L. 2 � 1 McCawley, J. D. 1 � 1

Milic, L. T. 2 � 1 McCorduck, E. 1 � 1

Prinsloo, D. J. 2 � 1 Ogilvie, S. 1 � 1

Hartmann, R. R. K. 1 � 11 Roberts, J. 1 � 1

Fontenelle, T. 1 � 10 Rottet, K. 1 � 1

McCreary, D. R. 1 � 8 Shapiro, M. C. 1 � 1

Urdang, L. 1 � 8 Veldi, E. 1 � 1

Atkins, B. T. S. 1 � 6


Figure

11:Citationmapin

lexicography(herelookingbackwardsfrom

DeSchryver

2003).Thisfigure

appears

incolourin

the

onlineversionoftheInternationalJournalofLexicography.


Table

12:Keywordsandkeynessvalues

foraLexikosabstractssub-corpus:2005–2008.

#Keyword

Keyness#

Keyword

Keyness#

Keyword

Keyness#

Keyword

Keyness

1DIC

TIO

NARY

3862.28

26

ALRI

260.45

51

FRANCAIS

161.83

76

NON

112.15

2DIC

TIO

NARIE

S2764.50

27

LEXIC

OGRAPHER

256.30

52

TEXT

157.28

77

POLYSEMOUS

111.45

3LEXIC

OGRAPHY

1861.22

28

ISN

252.46

53

VOCABULARY

157.10

78

MULTI

110.26

4LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

1253.44

29

COMPIL

ATIO

N251.78

54

ISIC

HAZAMAZWI

154.47

79

RESEARCH

108.94

5LANGUAGE

925.53

30

SOTHO

249.98

55

LEMMATIZ

ATIO

N154.47

80

INFORMATIO

N108.30

6ARTIC

LE

822.28

31

LEXIC

OGRAPHERS

229.12

56

MEDIO

STRUCTURE

154.47

81

LEMMATISATIO

N105.73

7BIL

INGUAL

801.65

32

TSHWANELEX

223.13

57

SESIN

DEBELE

154.47

82

ARTIC

LES

105.03

8SHONA

789.05

33

GABON

222.71

58

INDEX

153.85

83

AFRIK

AANSE

102.98

9MONOLIN

GUAL

699.61

34

DATA

214.45

59

OF

148.34

84

AFRIL

EX

102.98

10

NDEBELE

652.28

35

MIC

ROSTRUCTURE

206.49

60

ZULU

145.61

85

METALEXIC

OGRAPHY

102.98

11

LANGUAGES

636.30

36

SESOTHO

191.64

61

LIN

GUISTIC

142.08

86

POVE

102.98

12

CORPUS

574.83

37

CIL

UBA

188.80

62

LIN

GUISTIC

S136.84

87

ETYMOLOGIC

AL

98.69

13

AFRIK

AANS

530.23

38

LEBOA

188.80

63

WORDS

136.66

88

DIA

LECTS

97.44

14

USER

468.50

39

IDIO

MS

186.79

64

LEARNERS

131.81

89

LEMMAS

96.09

15

TERMIN

OLOGY

435.66

40

ITEMS

185.63

65

WORD

131.51

90

CHALLENGES

94.81

16

TRANSLATIO

N421.08

41

MACROSTRUCTURE

185.37

66

TREATMENT

131.38

91

PLANNIN

G94.13

17

AFRIC

AN

396.76

42

OUTER

184.37

67

TYPES

128.69

92

ILLUSTRATIO

NS

93.84

18

LEXIC

AL

373.45

43

TRANSLATORS

179.58

68

EQUIV

ALENCE

126.97

93

SEMANTIC

93.20

19

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

AL

370.76

44

TEXTS

179.03

69

PHAROS

125.80

94

EFL

92.90

20

ENGLISH

363.77

45

CORPORA

178.48

70

INCLUSIO

N123.23

95

ACCESSIB

ILIT

Y92.67

21

ACCESS

345.00

46

MIC

ROSTRUCTURAL

177.64

71

VENDA

122.72

96

ENTRIE

S92.42

22

GABONESE

332.43

47

FUNCTIO

NS

174.17

72

DURAMAZWI

120.14

97

ETYMOLOGY

91.70

23

MEDIO

STRUCTURAL

291.79

48

STRUCTURE

172.62

73

PROSCRIPTIO

N118.56

98

TAAL

91.52

24

USERS

265.94

49

TSHIV

ENDA

171.64

74

ZIM

BABWE

117.09

99

HOMONYMS

91.18

25

LEMMA

261.62

50

LEARNER’S

164.99

75

TARGET

115.35

100

STANDARDIZ

ATIO

N90.12


Of the 198 scholars who contributed to Dictionaries, as many as 45 also

contributed to IJL in the same period, or nearly one quarter (22.73%). This

outcome, no doubt, is comforting, as it points to an inter-journal homogeneity

of the field. (This is especially so when one takes into account that only

members of the Dictionary Society of North America are eligible to submit

material to Dictionaries.) From the moment more lexicographic journals are

indexed by the WoS, one will therefore truly be able to walk through the cited

material while staying within the field — as suggested by Figure 11, with just

two lexicographic journals.

Addenda 1 to 3 showed the keywords for three IJL periods, and this based

on the full texts of all the contributions in those periods. There is a shortcut for

the current purpose: one may also extract keywords from a corpus that only

contains the abstracts of each contribution. This is what was done for Lexikos:

an ‘abstracts corpus’ covering the material indexed by the WoS (2005–2008)

was built, and the keywords extracted, as shown in Table 12.

It is satisfying to see that Table 12 is very much like Addenda 1 to 3. Of

course, the languages dealt with are mainly African, here the result of a

thematic section on Zimbabwean lexicography at ALRI (Shona, Ndebele,

Isichazamazwi SesiNdebele¼ ISN), a focus on some of the main South African

languages (Northern Sotho¼Sesotho sa Leboa, Zulu, Venda¼Tshivenda), in

addition to Gabonese Pove and Congo’s Ciluba. Languages such as English,

Afrikaans and French also receive attention in Lexikos. As far as the key

concepts of the field are concerned, however, one could easily mistake

Lexikos’s list for IJL’s and vice versa.

9.2.Outward-looking: IJL vs Linguistics, and IJL vs Applied Linguistics

Now that we have confirmed the homogeneity of lexicography from within,

one can contrast it with the outside world. We will compare lexicography with

linguistics on the one hand, and applied linguistics on the other. To do so, we

chose to build a ‘metadata database’ as well as an ‘abstracts corpus’ for both

the journals Linguistics (1963–2009, six times per year) and Applied Linguistics

(1981–2009, quarterly).

In the 2008 JCR, Linguistics has an IF of 0.476 (nr. 49 in the list, in the third

quartile). The WoS contains 1,282 records for the journal Linguistics in the

period 1988–2008. What is immediately telling is that Ladislav Zgusta

contributed as many as 26 times to Linguistics in the period 1963–1987, but

not once since the launch of IJL — where, in contrast, he published 15 times

(cf. Table 5). This is radical; for others one sees a ‘move’ rather, such as for

Mel’cuk, with 7 contributions in Linguistics before IJL came on the scene, only

2 after that, but 4 in IJL.


Table

13:Authors

ofmaterialin

both

Linguistics

andIJL.

Author

NLinguistics

�N

IJL

Article

Review

Article

Book

Review

Note

Proceedings

Paper

Editorial

Correction,

Addition

Practical

Lexicography

Mel’cuk,I.

2�4

2�4

Sampson,G.

4�2

1�

2�2

1�

deSchryver,G.-M.

1�7

1�4

�3

Espinal,M.T.

1�1

1�1

Kuiper,K.

1�3

1�1

�2

Levin,B.

1�3

1�3

VanDen

Eynde,

K.

1�1

1�1

Warner,N.

1�1

1�1

Gorlach,M.

38�29

�1

1�1

37�27

Austin,P.K.

1�1

�1

1�

Aitchison,J.

10�6

9�6

1�

Kilgarriff,A.

5�4

�3

5�

�1

Bauer,L.

6�1

�1

4�

1�

1�

Cruse,D.A.

2�2

2�2

Hudson,R.

2�1

�1

2�

Adamska-Salaciak,A.

1�3

1�3

Benson,M.

1�4

�2

1�2

McC

reary,D.R.

1�8

�2

1�6

Stein,G.

1�5

�1

1�4

Wekker,H.

1�1

�1

1�


Table


foraLinguistics

abstractssub-corpus:1988–2008.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

1VERBS

3088.03

26

FUNCTIO

NAL

752.71

51

SPEAKERS

455.23

76

CONSTRAIN

T359.19

2LANGUAGE

2910.76

27

CLAUSES

750.59

52

LIN

GUISTIC

S453.85

77

STRUCTURES

358.15

3VERB

2578.13

28

CONSTRAIN

TS

641.95

53

PREDIC

ATE

447.76

78

VP

357.84

4LANGUAGES

2505.29

29

WORD

621.85

54

CHIN

ESE

442.75

79

JAPANESE

356.41

5SYNTACTIC

2020.98

30

GRAMMATIC

ALIZ

ATIO

N601.78

55

OBJE

CT

440.07

80

CORPUS

355.80

6LEXIC

AL

1920.88

31

PHONOLOGY

599.09

56

FORMS

439.04

81

MORPHOSYNTACTIC

351.10

7SEMANTIC

1774.89

32

THEORY

593.56

57

MARKERS

432.99

82

PROSODIC

350.19

8CONSTRUCTIO

NS

1758.93

33

MORPHEMES

582.37

58

CLEFTS

425.83

83

VARIA

TIO

N349.00

9DISCOURSE

1635.29

34

MARKIN

G577.78

59

CATEGORIE

S410.02

84

LEARNERS

343.86

10

ENGLISH

1377.51

35

NOUNS

577.32

60

PREDIC

ATES

402.54

85

DATIV

E340.77

11

MORPHOLOGIC

AL

1336.66

36

SENTENCES

574.47

61

OPTIM

ALIT

Y400.29

86

ARGUE

339.81

12

GRAMMAR

1286.41

37

PRONOUNS

568.00

62

DIA

CHRONIC

395.27

87

MEANIN

G338.38

13

LIN

GUISTIC

1177.20

38

PRAGMATIC

552.80

63

DUTCH

394.68

88

STUDY

335.83

14

STRUCTURE

1142.95

39

NOUN

545.51

64

CLIT

ICS

391.61

89

IN334.06

15

ACQUISIT

ION

1117.62

40

CLAUSE

540.37

65

PROPERTIE

S386.05

90

BASED

326.67

16

SYNTAX

1116.20

41

OF

540.36

66

TYPOLOGIC

AL

386.04

91

NOMIN

ALS

323.34

17

SEMANTIC

S1048.47

42

TYPOLOGY

521.64

67

CONTRASTIV

E381.09

92

ANAPHORA

322.55

18

MORPHOLOGY

1048.30

43

TENSE

508.89

68

DATA

380.96

93

ASPECTUAL

322.53

19

ARTIC

LE

996.17

44

NP

501.36

69

VERBAL

375.20

94

ACCUSATIV

E320.23

20

PAPER

949.77

45

TOPIC

499.93

70

REDUPLIC

ATIO

N371.71

95

ANALYZED

318.49

21

GERMAN

945.36

46

CONSTRUCTIO

N499.11

71

SENTENCE

369.40

96

CATEGORY

317.99

22

GRAMMATIC

AL

924.05

47

SPANISH

488.53

72

TEMPORAL

366.90

97

NOMIN

AL

314.44

23

ANALYSIS

899.65

48

TYPES

478.73

73

LEXIC

ON

365.79

98

COMPLEMENT

313.26

24

PHONOLOGIC

AL

825.01

49

FOCUS

464.03

74

REFLEXIV

ES

364.61

99

ARGUMENTS

309.69

25

LOCATIV

E814.00

50

FIN

ITENESS

457.55

75

ARGUMENT

359.40

100

ACCOUNT

309.60


Table

15:Authors

ofmaterialin

both

Applied

Linguistics

andIJL.

Author

NAppl.Ling.

�N

IJL

Article

Review

Article

Book

Review

Editorial

Special

Feature

Reference

Laufer,B.

6�1

6�1

Nation,P.

5�1

3�1

2�

Carter,R.

4�1

3�

�1

1�

Bogaards,P.

4�16

1�4

�2

3�9

�1

Bauer,L.

1�1

1�1

Frawley,W.

1�5

1�2

�2

�1

Howarth,P.

1�2

1�1

�1

Sinclair,J.

1�3

1�1

�1

�1

Barnbrook,G.

1�1

�1

1�

Dodd,W.S.

1�3

�1

1�

�2

Scholfield,P.

1�1

�1

1�


Table


foranApplied

Linguistics

abstractssub-corpus:1988–2008.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

1LANGUAGE

7773.74

26

SECOND

529.93

51

STUDIE

S302.79

76

BIL

INGUALISM

210.34

2LEARNERS

2390.86

27

APPLIE

D525.72

52

ANALYSES

289.34

77

RHETORIC

AL

206.32

3ACQUISIT

ION

1971.96

28

DATA

523.02

53

SOCIO

LIN

GUISTIC

286.39

78

FOCUS

205.76

4DISCOURSE

1779.19

29

COMMUNIC

ATIV

E492.82

54

PRACTIC

ES

282.20

79

FLUENCY

203.95

5ENGLISH

1389.87

30

INSTRUCTIO

N491.75

55

EMPIR

ICAL

274.55

80

NNS

203.21

6LEARNIN

G1275.79

31

INTERACTIO

N484.69

56

GRAMMATIC

AL

273.13

81

CONVERSATIO

N198.91

7PROFIC

IENCY

1216.66

32

STUDENTS

481.60

57

MEANIN

G271.71

82

THEORETIC

AL

197.50

8LIN

GUISTIC

S1109.07

33

OF

479.33

58

ARTIC

LE

264.12

83

IN191.51

9LIN

GUISTIC

1108.05

34

LEARNER

469.77

59

PRAGMATIC

262.53

84

MULTIL

INGUAL

191.35

10

PAPER

1097.90

35

GRAMMAR

468.42

60

EXAMIN

ES

262.03

85

MODEL

190.39

11

VOCABULARY

1070.95

36

SPEECH

443.58

61

FREQUENCY

252.69

86

PEDAGOGY

186.51

12

STUDY

1007.90

37

ESL

424.41

62

FORMULAIC

244.88

87

COMPLEXIT

Y184.60

13

RESEARCH

998.62

38

BASED

415.91

63

DIF

FERENCES

242.08

88

TEXT

182.00

14

LEXIC

AL

973.47

39

COMPETENCE

414.54

64

READIN

G238.13

89

IMPLIC

ATIO

NS

181.89

15

SLA

950.88

40

STRATEGIE

S405.76

65

THEORY

237.07

90

EFL

178.70

16

ANALYSIS

919.77

41

FIN

DIN

GS

337.93

66

CONTEXTS

235.16

91

TEXTS

177.22

17

CLASSROOM

818.50

42

BIL

INGUAL

336.76

67

PERSPECTIV

E231.82

92

RECASTS

175.47

18

NATIV

E791.46

43

GENRE

336.57

68

VERBS

226.12

93

BEHAVIO

R175.46

19

SPEAKERS

715.32

44

TASK

335.44

69

CREATIV

ITY

224.69

94

CONTRASTIV

E173.33

20

INTERLANGUAGE

706.66

45

INTERACTIO

NAL

331.19

70

PARTIC

IPANTS

224.68

95

SOCIA

LIZ

ATIO

N172.77

21

CORPUS

650.39

46

WRIT

ING

321.77

71

ANALYTIC

219.21

96

INPUT

172.36

22

KNOWLEDGE

637.74

47

ACADEMIC

321.71

72

PROCESSIN

G218.70

97

LIN

GUISTS

169.82

23

NON

601.86

48

USE

321.56

73

SELF

215.88

98

INVESTIG

ATES

166.10

24

COMPREHENSIO

N532.16

49

LANGUAGES

316.78

74

ORAL

212.63

99

METAPHOR

165.18

25

TEACHIN

G530.81

50

RESULTS

314.70

75

COGNIT

IVE

210.65

100

SYNTACTIC

165.11


A total of 1,001 different authors contributed to Linguistics during the

period 1988–2008. Analogous to Table 11, Table 13 lists those authors only

who also contributed to IJL during the same period.

Of the 1,001 scholars who contributed to Linguistics, only 20 also

contributed to IJL in the same period, or just 2%. Moreover, only half of

that, a mere 1%, concerns articles or review articles. For some of the

scholars (the current writer included), the sole reason for also publishing in

non-lexicographic journals has simply to do with the requirement, imposed by

those who fund research, to vary one’s publication channels (cf. Section 2

above). If anyone still doubted it, this comparison between Linguistics and IJL

clearly confirms that linguistics on the one hand, and lexicography on the

other, are simply two different, separate disciplines, each with their own

scholars.

Further proof of the independence of the two disciplines can be found when

comparing the keywords in the Linguistics abstracts corpus, as seen in

Table 14, with those in IJL (Addenda 1 to 3). Here too, there is hardly any

overlap.

As a last comparison we now contrast the journal Applied Linguistics with

IJL. In the 2008 JCR, Applied Linguistics has an IF of 2.217 (nr. 5 in the list, in

the first quartile). The WoS contains 823 records for the journal Applied

Linguistics in the period 1988–2008, by 742 different authors. The author

overlap with IJL is shown in Table 15.

Of the 742 scholars who contributed to Applied Linguistics, only 11 also

contributed to IJL in the same period, or just 1.48%. This suggests that the

distance between lexicography and applied linguistics is even larger than the

distance between lexicography and linguistics. Viewed from the author

patterns, lexicography is thus most definitely not applied linguistics.

Moreover, from Table 15 it is also clear that the natural habitat of some

scholars (such as Laufer) is actually applied linguistics, rather than

lexicography. Stronger, some scholars even manage to publish lexicographic

material in Applied Linguistics, such as Frawley’s ‘Lexicography and

mathematics learning — a case-study of variable’ (1992).

A look at the keywords further confirms this large distance between

lexicography and applied linguistics; see Table 16 (again to be compared with

Addenda 1 to 3).

10. Conclusion

In this article, the International Journal of Lexicography (IJL) has been

subjected to a detailed content analysis as well as a citation analysis. For the

content analysis, a corpus containing all the material published in IJL was

built, and was compared with the BNC World Edition. For the citation

analysis, data was drawn from the (commercial) Thomson Reuters Web of


Science Citation Index, as well as from (the freely accessible) Google Scholar

and Harzing’s Publish or Perish. Bibliometric facts were further also sourced

from the (restricted) Oxford Journals Usage Statistics database, as well as from

(the publicly available) HighWire Press. Author patterns as well as content

patterns were further analysed both within and outside the field of

lexicography, through comparisons of IJL with the journals Dictionaries and

Lexikos, and the journals Linguistics and Applied Linguistics respectively.

With reference to IJL in particular, eight out of ten contributions are

authored by just one person. While three out of four scholars only publish

once, there still is a core group of authors who publish frequently. About 30%

of the contributions in IJL are articles, 40% are book reviews. Among the

diachronic analyses, it was shown that parallel with the increase in the interest

in the sub-fields of computational and corpus lexicography, a decrease may be

noted in the attention to lemmatization issues of the various parts of speech.

Attention to the user perspective was shown to fall in the period around the

turn of the millennium.

We further noted that the mere fact that IJL and subsequently Lexikos have

been included in the Web of Science Citation Index is testimony to the fact that

lexicography has been recognized as a discipline in its own right. Where

lexicographers used to ‘have to’ publish in journals like Linguistics in order to

achieve academic recognition, they are now in a position to establish their

credentials in their own discipline in their own top journals. Both the journal

author and content patterns also showed that lexicography has indeed achieved

an independent status: while close to a quarter of the scholars overlap in cross-

lexicographic comparisons, less than 2% do so when a lexicographic journal is

compared with the journals Linguistics or Applied Linguistics. The key concerns

of lexicographic journals also represent a homogenous pool, very distinct from

those in linguistics or applied linguistics journals. Each of these disciplines thus

has its own, unique researchers, who use their own, unique terminology, and

who are concerned with very different and discipline-specific research

questions. Linguistics, applied linguistics and lexicography are three indepen-

dent disciplines.

ReferencesBNC World Edition: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Bogaards, P. (ed.). 2003. ‘IJL is an ISI referenced Journal now.’ International Journal of

Lexicography 16.4 (Euralex Newsletter, Winter 2003): 461–466.Bogaards, P. (ed.). 2008. ‘Thomson Scientific Products and Services.’ International

Journal of Lexicography 21.2 (Euralex Newsletter, Summer 2008): 215–217.

Cope, B. and M. Kalantzis. 2009. ‘Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the

knowledge system of the academic journal.’ First Monday 14.4 (6 April 2009).

Available from: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/

viewArticle/2309/2163.


http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/

De Schryver, G.-M. 2003. ‘Lexicographers’ Dreams in the Electronic-Dictionary Age.’International Journal of Lexicography 16.2: 143–199.

De Schryver, G.-M. 2008. ‘Book Review: P. Hanks, ed. 2008. Lexicology: CriticalConcepts (Routledge, six volumes, 2,793 pages).’ International Journal ofLexicography 21.4: 419–438.

Frawley, W. 1992. ‘Lexicography and mathematics learning – a case-study of variable.’Applied Linguistics 13.4: 385–402.

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/.

Hartmann, R. R. K. 2008. ‘Twenty-five Years of Dictionary Research: Taking Stock ofConferences and other Lexicographic Events since LEXeter’83’ in Bernal, E. andJ. DeCesaris (eds.). 2008. Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress(Barcelona, 15–19 July 2008) (Serie Activitats 20): 131–148. Barcelona: Institut

Universitari de Linguıstica Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Harzing’s Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.HighWire Press: http://highwire.stanford.edu/.

Lew, R. 2007. ‘Lexicography at the Poznan School of English.’ Kernerman DictionaryNews 15: 12–13.

Oxford Journals Usage Statistics: http://reports.oxfordjournals.org/usage/journals [log

in required].Pauly, D. and K. L. Stergiou. 2005. Equivalence of results from two citation analyses:

Thompson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar service. Ethics in Science andEnvironmental Politics (22 December 2005): 33–35.

Sinclair, J. M. 1984. ‘Lexicography as an academic subject’ in Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.).1984. LEXeter’83 Proceedings (Lexicographica Series Maior 1): 3–12. Tubingen: MaxNiemeyer Verlag.

Spevack, M. 1973. The Harvard concordance to Shakespeare. Cambridge, MA: BelknapPress of Harvard University Press.

Web of Science: http://apps.isiknowledge.com/ [subscription required].

WordSmith Tools: http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/.Zeyfert, M. 2009. ‘IJL bibliometrics’ (E-mail to the author, 11 February 2009).Zgusta, L. 1971. Manual of Lexicography (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 39). Prague:

Academia. / The Hague: Mouton.


http://scholar.google.com/

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

http://highwire.stanford.edu/

http://reports.oxfordjournals.org/usage/journals

http://apps.isiknowledge.com/

http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/

Addendum


forIJL

sub-corpus1:1988–1994.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

1DIC

TIO

NARY

36202.82

26

EXAMPLES

2819.99

51

PHRASE

1818.36

76

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

AL

1419.75

2DIC

TIO

NARIE

S20912.09

27

BIL

INGUAL

2799.51

52

ADVERBS

1813.49

77

USER

1409.85

3ENGLISH

10742.25

28

ED

2770.64

53

LIN

GUISTIC

S1740.91

78

SYNONYMS

1404.02

4VERBS

9020.90

29

GRAMMATIC

AL

2735.15

54

MONOLIN

GUAL

1739.45

79

LEARNERS

1380.79

5LEXIC

AL

8873.04

30

EDIT

ION

2724.44

55

COBUIL

D1735.48

80

PRONUNCIA

TIO

N1378.34

6LEXIC

OGRAPHY

8045.13

31

NON

2689.13

56

EXAMPLE

1723.52

81

ADVERB

1368.05

7WORD

7833.76

32

COLLOCATIO

NS

2626.51

57

IS1709.75

82

CONCEPTS

1365.11

8WORDS

7603.14

33

LIN

GUISTIC

2625.13

58

LEXIC

OGRAPHER

1697.06

83

ECD

1363.79

9ENTRY

7487.99

34

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

2624.54

59

WORDNET

1680.53

84

MONKEY

1336.29

10

VERB

6988.55

35

VOCABULARY

2569.69

60

INFORMATIO

N1670.18

85

ZGUSTA

1311.18

11

ENTRIE

S6872.97

36

CHIN

ESE

2563.30

61

EQUIV

ALENTS

1629.00

86

OR

1259.05

12

SEMANTIC

6858.16

37

MEANIN

GS

2499.00

62

BURMESE

1607.56

87

LEMMA

1247.83

13

LANGUAGE

6237.15

38

CORPUS

2443.52

63

ET

1603.54

88

SEMANTIC

S1221.55

14

DEFIN

ITIO

NS

4909.38

39

ETC

2329.04

64

SENSE

1602.07

89

TEXTS

1206.95

15

OED

4297.30

40

LONGMAN

2272.84

65

HEADWORD

1601.15

90

POLISH

1199.89

16

MEANIN

G3943.78

41

LDOCE

2165.12

66

FIN

DERLIST

1560.49

91

SENTENCE

1198.53

17

USAGE

3829.38

42

JAPANESE

2163.99

67

LEXEMES

1559.90

92

YAMATO

1194.45

18

DEFIN

ITIO

N3730.73

43

TEXT

2088.79

68

PHRASES

1557.51

93

OXFORD

1179.79

19

NOUNS

3541.52

44

BAKE

2065.41

69

FORMS

1539.39

94

OBJE

CT

1173.73

20

LEXIC

OGRAPHERS

3428.25

45

ETYMOLOGY

2032.17

70

LANGUAGES

1515.65

95

ADJE

CTIV

E1146.06

21

NOUN

3383.87

46

ADJE

CTIV

ES

2022.03

71

USE

1511.05

96

GLOSS

1144.12

22

LEXIC

ON

3276.94

47

CF

1899.84

72

HEADWORDS

1505.78

97

THESAURUS

1141.75

23

SYNTACTIC

3250.57

48

ADJ

1899.69

73

TRANSIT

IVE

1494.56

98

GLOSSES

1141.08

24

SENSES

3047.30

49

WEBSTER’S

1859.95

74

ROGET

1484.04

99

VALENCY

1133.57

25

GRAMMAR

2884.68

50

TRANSLATIO

N1844.95

75

LEXEME

1450.92

100

FORM

1126.92

Continued


Addendum

1:Continued.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

101

VOL

1122.95

126

ALPHABETIC

AL

897.98

151

LIN

GUISTS

785.65

176

BAKED

673.68

102

INTRANSIT

IVE

1113.78

127

AMERIC

AN

895.65

152

SCHEMATA

781.30

177

DESCRIPTIO

N673.50

103

SPELLIN

G1099.74

128

REFERENCE

890.63

153

ROGET’S

780.70

178

POLYSEMOUS

671.81

104

CIT

ATIO

NS

1088.50

129

SPECIA

LIZ

ED

889.88

154

MERRIA

M775.77

179

BOOK

668.60

105

UNIV

ERSIT

Y1079.81

130

DAMASHII

886.43

155

ILLUSTRATIV

E770.83

180

CZECH

666.10

106

PALI

1077.35

131

ARE

870.33

156

TRANSLATIO

NS

767.59

181

USES

661.87

107

ETYMOLOGIC

AL

1076.41

132

SWID

ZIN

SKI

867.96

157

LEVIN

762.03

182

TECHNIC

AL

661.17

108

ILSON

1043.40

133

EXPRESSIO

NS

867.43

158

SPEAKERS

753.20

183

ANTONYMS

658.11

109

WNWD

1043.40

134

PREPOSIT

ION

865.84

159

UBDCP

747.92

184

WEBSTER

656.32

110

IDIO

MS

1034.44

135

INFLECTIO

NAL

861.74

160

LEARNER’S

745.42

185

GENUS

647.18

111

OF

1002.50

136

PREPOSIT

IONAL

860.36

161

SEMANTIC

ALLY

744.24

186

ANGLIC

ISMS

646.35

112

LATIN

999.95

137

MEL’CUK

858.73

162

REEL

740.55

187

ADVERBIA

L641.57

113

TERMIN

OLOGY

987.44

138

AFFIX

ES

857.12

163

SHUOWEN

738.69

188

ALGORIT

HMS

640.54

114

RHWCD

960.30

139

COMPUTATIO

NAL

847.75

164

SENTENCES

737.75

189

ENCYCLOPEDIC

624.27

115

WHIC

HIN

960.30

140

TERM

845.80

165

ESP

737.09

190

COLLOCATIO

N621.24

116

ADV

947.00

141

SYNONYMY

842.25

166

AL

720.52

191

SEARCH

616.62

117

SALONI

932.60

142

AHCD

831.02

167

SUCH

717.10

192

VERBAL

612.13

118

REFERENCES

931.95

143

NATIV

E819.88

168

HU

715.56

193

CIT

ATIO

N608.39

119

PRONOUNS

926.54

144

LEMMATIZ

ATIO

N812.56

169

USED

712.52

194

LIST

605.81

120

DEFIN

ING

924.58

145

PRESS

812.37

170

PRONOMIN

AL

711.51

195

ATKIN

S597.70

121

FREQUENCY

913.80

146

POLYSEMY

797.74

171

EDS

710.83

196

MORPHOLOGIC

AL

597.14

122

TERMS

908.80

147

ITEMS

795.55

172

SZPAKOWIC

Z692.52

197

WORTERBUCH

590.95

123

USERS

907.65

148

SYNSETS

794.09

173

QUOTATIO

NS

686.47

198

NOMENCLATOR

590.95

124

TERMIN

OLOGIC

AL

906.06

149

BARNHART

792.40

174

SYNONYM

682.64

199

SYNTAX

589.58

125

COLLIN

S902.85

150

ALTERNATIO

N787.78

175

JOURNAL

680.59

200

SUFFIX

588.84


201

BOGURAEV

585.91

226

VARIA

NT

531.50

251

LISTS

476.84

276

KEGL

433.98

202

MW

585.32

227

USU

528.64

252

STRUCTURE

470.46

277

LEXIC

ALIZ

ED

433.47

203

ELEMENTS

585.22

228

LOANWORDS

527.22

253

TEXTUAL

467.99

278

ENGELSK

433.47

204

DIC

TIO

NNAIR

E585.13

229

HAUSMANN

525.43

254

ALTERNATIO

NS

467.62

279

ING

430.67

205

NAMES

582.71

230

PLURAL

522.46

255

LISTED

467.33

280

CONTEXTS

430.56

206

DEF

581.83

231

EDIT

IONS

519.26

256

SUPERORDIN

ATE

466.58

281

FIG

URATIV

E430.38

207

SG

579.49

232

QUASI

514.31

257

EVENS

465.31

282

AFFIX

425.96

208

ETYMOLOGIE

S572.52

233

NP

506.97

258

CROSS

464.94

283

LANDAU

423.74

209

FFDAI

563.25

234

DEFIN

ED

506.92

259

WLA

461.68

284

CLASSIF

ICATIO

N422.44

210

READABLE

560.35

235

GLOSSARIE

S500.15

260

EDIT

ORS

459.59

285

COLLOCATIO

NAL

419.82

211

XIN

YUAN

554.01

236

TR

499.74

261

GIV

EN

456.91

286

GLOSSARY

418.01

212

CONCEPT

547.79

237

PASSOW

497.83

262

CONTAIN

S456.27

287

INFLECTED

417.94

213

CONSTRUCTIO

NS

547.41

238

CONTEXT

496.26

263

PROPERTIE

S454.13

288

TUBIN

GEN

417.31

214

PRONOUN

546.58

239

ANALYSIS

491.61

264

DAIJIT

EN

452.44

289

KIR

KPATRIC

K415.91

215

SELECTIO

NAL

546.09

240

BEHAVIO

R489.84

265

IRREGULAR

447.08

290

SIN

ITIC

415.51

216

STH

546.09

241

INDEX

489.45

266

READER

446.35

291

EQUIV

ALENT

412.73

217

QUOTATIO

N544.89

242

BBI

489.38

267

FRAWLEY

446.29

292

TYPE

412.08

218

PP

544.83

243

FIN

DERLISTS

489.38

268

ADJE

CTIV

AL

443.16

293

CONJU

NCTIO

NS

409.95

219

YIM

A544.78

244

ACCUSATIV

E486.81

269

ILLUSTRATIO

NS

440.85

294

CONCEPTUAL

408.67

220

TYPES

539.54

245

SUB

485.94

270

SPEECH

440.41

295

FEATURES

407.91

221

CATEGORY

539.16

246

INDO

484.94

271

NOMIN

AL

440.02

296

DATABASE

407.55

222

WORDFORMS

535.55

247

CATEGORIE

S482.11

272

LADISLAV

439.18

297

LIT

OWIT

Z406.28

223

DATIV

E533.27

248

INCLUSIO

N481.40

273

HARTMANN

438.50

298

ANTONYMY

405.66

224

THUS

533.26

249

LABELS

480.28

274

IDIO

MATIC

436.69

299

CAUSATIV

E404.31

225

ORTHOGRAPHY

532.25

250

WIE

RZBIC

KA

477.78

275

CED

435.63

300

PLURALS

402.80


Addendum


forIJLsub-corpus2:1995–2001.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

1DIC

TIO

NARY

52990.63

26

OXFORD

3356.96

51

UNIV

ERSIT

Y2305.35

76

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

AL

1622.25

2DIC

TIO

NARIE

S33938.70

27

VOCABULARY

3350.16

52

TEXT

2302.87

77

ADJ

1621.51

3ENGLISH

17234.48

28

LONGMAN

3291.77

53

GRAMMATIC

AL

2278.41

78

WORDNET

1610.74

4LEXIC

OGRAPHY

10836.74

29

INFORMATIO

N3283.35

54

USER

2274.60

79

COLLOCATIO

N1608.46

5WORDS

10198.84

30

CID

E3140.09

55

LIN

GUISTIC

S2264.93

80

ETC

1604.60

6WORD

9238.17

31

IDIO

MS

3136.81

56

KANJI

2253.64

81

LDAE

1601.69

7LANGUAGE

9177.85

32

EDS

3088.79

57

OALD

2208.24

82

JAPANESE

1524.89

8LEXIC

AL

7975.09

33

LEXIC

OGRAPHERS

2853.43

58

EQUIV

ALENTS

2071.97

83

STH

1511.03

9LEARNERS

7240.27

34

LEARNER’S

2837.33

59

ITEMS

1977.01

84

THESAURUS

1499.73

10

CORPUS

6838.77

35

ED

2798.28

60

OED

1961.55

85

REFERENCES

1498.19

11

BIL

INGUAL

6649.45

36

LIN

GUISTIC

2786.99

61

IDIO

M1910.22

86

COLLOCATIO

NAL

1463.99

12

SEMANTIC

6026.07

37

MEANIN

GS

2743.91

62

IS1882.77

87

ENCYCLOPEDIC

1438.83

13

ENTRIE

S5846.48

38

PRONUNCIA

TIO

N2729.96

63

COWIE

1865.77

88

ADJE

CTIV

E1433.16

14

TRANSLATIO

N5539.29

39

USAGE

2728.33

64

SENSE

1859.68

89

SPEAKERS

1422.08

15

VERB

5414.45

40

NOUNS

2703.62

65

MAORI

1843.99

90

PRESS

1413.90

16

VERBS

5357.05

41

LDOCE

2689.61

66

USE

1840.39

91

GRAMMAR

1392.86

17

MEANIN

G4948.75

42

EXAMPLES

2644.70

67

LEARNER

1782.38

92

PHRASES

1370.84

18

ENTRY

4626.32

43

DEFIN

ITIO

N2602.59

68

USERS

1776.07

93

PHRASEOLOGY

1364.94

19

NOUN

4438.51

44

NON

2595.53

69

NATIV

E1742.72

94

TRANSIT

IVE

1331.76

20

DEFIN

ITIO

NS

4138.75

45

HEADWORD

2553.07

70

LEXIC

ON

1737.64

95

ADJE

CTIV

ES

1310.78

21

COBUIL

D4125.01

46

HORNBY

2536.06

71

HEADWORDS

1737.25

96

PHRASAL

1308.37

22

MONOLIN

GUAL

4016.89

47

CORPORA

2355.74

72

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

1653.80

97

SPANISH

1305.42

23

SENSES

3909.08

48

LANGUAGES

2330.28

73

EFL

1635.77

98

JOURNAL

1271.43

24

EDIT

ION

3830.12

49

CF

2320.12

74

LABELS

1630.19

99

REFERENCE

1264.66

25

COLLOCATIO

NS

3821.35

50

SYNTACTIC

2316.35

75

SYNONYMS

1628.04

100

TUBIN

GEN

1263.93


101

IPA

1261.42

126

SLANG

1011.31

151

PHRASEOLOGIC

AL

895.85

176

LIN

GUISTS

793.04

102

LEXIC

OGRAPHER

1238.71

127

MULTIL

INGUAL

1005.45

152

PHRASE

895.11

177

COMPUTATIO

NAL

792.25

103

TEXTS

1222.87

128

DIC

TIO

NNAIR

E1000.84

153

ALPHABETIC

AL

891.81

178

PALI

789.32

104

COLOR

1214.51

129

OR

1000.73

154

DATABASE

887.72

179

BOGAARDS

787.27

105

EURALEX

1212.58

130

LIST

996.51

155

CATEGORIE

S885.50

180

ENCODIN

G781.77

106

AHD

1199.02

131

INTRANSIT

IVE

993.46

156

ATKIN

S884.16

181

CONTRASTIV

E780.21

107

AMERIC

AN

1195.72

132

HTTP

986.35

157

SPELLIN

G883.81

182

CHD

777.19

108

RUSSIA

N1178.65

133

TYPE

978.24

158

ILSON

877.76

183

PAGES

762.08

109

FREQUENCY

1167.00

134

LEMMA

964.09

159

FONTENELLE

876.25

184

ETYMOLOGIC

AL

759.50

110

EXAMPLE

1165.65

135

UPS

963.26

160

RHD

864.81

185

EQUIV

ALENCE

758.61

111

SEMANTIC

S1147.08

136

SEMANTIC

ALLY

958.73

161

WORDFORMS

859.66

186

SENTENCES

756.22

112

POLYSEMY

1126.05

137

CED

956.37

162

ABBREVIA

TIO

NS

859.31

187

CAMBRID

GE

751.25

113

EXPRESSIO

NS

1122.21

138

HARTMANN

954.01

163

LDELC

850.61

188

ZGUSTA

751.07

114

HEBREW

1120.39

139

COLLIN

S941.77

164

IDIO

MATIC

848.13

189

TYPES

750.64

115

CONTEXT

1118.17

140

MLDS

941.10

165

APPENDIX

843.48

190

LISTS

750.26

116

AL

1105.52

141

COMBIN

ATIO

NS

939.13

166

IRET

841.56

191

ENCYCLOPEDIA

746.30

117

NLP

1104.93

142

TRANSLATIO

NS

938.22

167

TRANSLATED

839.41

192

OALDE

742.02

118

CONTEXTS

1104.91

143

STUDENTS

921.58

168

EDIT

IONS

836.36

193

ESP

737.79

119

NIE

MEYER

1084.75

144

DEROGATORY

920.35

169

EDIT

ORS

834.00

194

WIE

GAND

737.59

120

USED

1081.06

145

OCCURRENCES

905.30

170

HAUSMANN

830.51

195

VERLAG

731.31

121

ET

1074.19

146

SHCHERBA

904.90

171

COMPOUNDS

820.20

196

POLYSEMOUS

727.49

122

DEFIN

ING

1069.86

147

CO

904.45

172

USES

808.38

197

LABELLIN

G719.50

123

LABEL

1061.77

148

ILLUSTRATIO

NS

901.89

173

LEXEMES

806.90

198

FIG

URATIV

E718.65

124

PALMER

1049.19

149

ETYMOLOGY

896.80

174

IN798.91

199

TERM

710.90

125

ARE

1030.58

150

ERODE

896.36

175

WWW

795.19

200

TERMS

705.76

Continued


Addendum

2:Continued.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

201

SIN

CLAIR

688.87

226

HERBST

618.24

251

MORASS

549.43

276

KIL

GARRIF

F515.79

202

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

A687.73

227

EWED

615.33

252

SPEECH

548.87

277

PEGAR

515.79

203

OF

681.01

228

LPD

608.47

253

TRANSCRIPTIO

N546.02

278

PALMER’S

514.93

204

COLLOCATES

676.23

229

PEDAGOGIC

AL

607.09

254

LEXIC

ONS

545.59

279

DEROG

514.73

205

PRON

662.28

230

SUBIR

606.28

255

SUBJE

CTS

544.91

280

ITALIA

N514.51

206

AME

659.22

231

PHONEMIC

603.17

256

CONCORDANCE

543.90

281

PREPOSIT

ION

510.70

207

GIV

EN

658.37

232

LEXEME

601.51

257

MLD

543.37

282

IJL

506.74

208

ITEM

656.07

233

MORPHOLOGIC

AL

595.82

258

CROSS

538.11

283

BASED

506.29

209

INSTANCE

652.78

234

SB

593.58

259

DESCRIPTIV

E537.66

284

RELEVANT

506.00

210

HIN

DI

650.29

235

RESPELLIN

G588.19

260

SUCH

537.05

285

PRONUNCIA

TIO

NS

504.39

211

EQUIV

ALENT

649.09

236

MARELLO

588.19

261

ADV

533.88

286

PATTERNS

499.11

212

READER

647.17

237

TERMIN

OLOGY

582.98

262

RUNDELL

533.55

287

DEFI

498.91

213

FORMS

644.91

238

OBJ

575.59

263

CONCEPTS

531.03

288

NOTES

498.64

214

ANTONYMS

643.92

239

VT

574.22

264

VOL

528.42

289

BIL

INGUALIZ

ED

497.69

215

PP

643.67

240

ISBN

571.34

265

PRIN

TED

527.26

290

ARTIC

LE

496.99

216

DIF

FERENT

642.84

241

AS

564.66

266

GERMAN

527.24

291

VOLUME

496.74

217

WORTERBUCH

642.48

242

HORNBY’S

564.36

267

TES

526.95

292

TABLE

496.08

218

IVRIT

642.48

243

NAMES

563.83

268

DESCRIPTIO

N526.89

293

SPOKEN

494.52

219

TOKYO

638.49

244

ANTONYMOUS

561.26

269

CATEGORY

526.52

294

METAPHORIC

AL

492.58

220

PRONOUN

637.23

245

LAROUSSE

560.56

270

COD

526.43

295

LEXIC

OLOGY

492.04

221

PHONETIC

635.62

246

PREFACE

559.55

271

CLASSIF

ICATIO

N526.39

296

NESI

488.65

222

INTERNET

633.96

247

SECTIO

N556.64

272

VARANTOLA

524.84

297

MIC

HIE

LS

488.65

223

LOANWORDS

633.18

248

OCCURRENCE

555.07

273

ROM

523.68

298

METAPHORS

487.62

224

CAUSATIV

E632.89

249

CIT

ATIO

NS

554.55

274

MIC

ROSTRUCTURE

521.41

299

POCKET

487.28

225

BOGEY

618.48

250

ANALYSIS

553.50

275

COMPIL

ERS

517.37

300

RELATED

486.63


Addendum


forIJLsub-corpus3:2002–2008.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

1DIC

TIO

NARY

49744.26

26

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

4150.94

51

INFORMATIO

N2673.61

76

WWW

1792.30

2DIC

TIO

NARIE

S36201.32

27

NOUN

3825.58

52

DEFIN

ITIO

N2658.98

77

EXPRESSIO

NS

1751.86

3ENGLISH

16970.15

28

JOHNSON

3769.84

53

TEXT

2620.36

78

ELECTRONIC

1738.57

4LEXIC

OGRAPHY

12926.67

29

FRAMENET

3737.84

54

LEMMA

2574.25

79

HEADWORDS

1724.12

5LANGUAGE

11826.85

30

BOYER

3730.69

55

VOCABULARY

2535.41

80

USER

1688.26

6LEXIC

AL

11607.89

31

LEXIC

OGRAPHERS

3690.82

56

LEXIC

ON

2500.75

81

OED

1682.02

7WORDS

11520.16

32

EDIT

ION

3676.13

57

EXAMPLE

2459.58

82

IJL

1679.28

8WORD

10159.40

33

NOUNS

3602.16

58

POLYSEMY

2407.73

83

JOURNAL

1667.97

9CORPUS

9587.17

34

FRAME

3538.22

59

AL

2357.95

84

FIL

LMORE

1643.85

10

ENTRIE

S8609.85

35

ED

3436.48

60

LEXIC

OGRAPHER

2261.78

85

TEXTS

1624.52

11

BIL

INGUAL

7743.79

36

IDIO

M3247.80

61

UNIV

ERSIT

Y2180.68

86

DUTCH

1603.18

12

SEMANTIC

7368.81

37

COLLOCATIO

N3246.18

62

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

AL

2145.71

87

PRESS

1591.43

13

VERB

6340.95

38

LIN

GUISTIC

3108.35

63

BURCHFIE

LD

2085.35

88

HTTP

1589.00

14

MEANIN

G6327.69

39

ET

3061.34

64

AFRIK

AANS

2005.60

89

PRAGMATIC

1537.30

15

LEARNERS

6221.33

40

SIN

CLAIR

3023.87

65

LEARNER

1951.77

90

USE

1517.51

16

VERBS

5518.53

41

USAGE

2926.73

66

USERS

1937.65

91

LEXEMES

1514.48

17

IDIO

MS

5033.68

42

OXFORD

2919.13

67

HEADWORD

1908.06

92

HANKS

1509.32

18

LANGUAGES

4805.74

43

MEANIN

GS

2909.30

68

SYNTACTIC

1904.42

93

SPEAKERS

1499.37

19

EXAMPLES

4671.80

44

COBUIL

D2865.41

69

LEXIS

1887.74

94

NAHUATL

1477.49

20

ENTRY

4580.73

45

NON

2857.41

70

PRONUNCIA

TIO

N1885.92

95

IDIO

MATIC

1463.20

21

EDS

4575.88

46

CORPORA

2840.35

71

CF

1883.24

96

LOANWORDS

1459.05

22

MONOLIN

GUAL

4468.19

47

SENSES

2771.78

72

DATABASE

1876.00

97

COLLOCATES

1439.90

23

DEFIN

ITIO

NS

4376.91

48

GRAMMATIC

AL

2771.68

73

BIL

INGUALISED

1832.77

98

ATKIN

S1432.78

24

TRANSLATIO

N4286.24

49

EQUIV

ALENTS

2716.89

74

SEMANTIC

S1803.26

99

CONCEPTUAL

1399.56

25

COLLOCATIO

NS

4170.59

50

LIN

GUISTIC

S2705.26

75

SENTENCES

1802.30

100

GRAMMAR

1395.34

Continued


Addendum

3:Continued.

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

#Keyword

Keyness

101

COLLOCATIO

NAL

1381.38

126

NATIV

E1191.04

151

TUBIN

GEN

1029.46

176

UNIT

S933.40

102

ITEMS

1362.96

127

LU

1184.96

152

WORDNET

1029.23

177

FREQUENCY

931.76

103

REFERENCES

1341.13

128

ETC

1184.12

153

BOGAARDS

1020.20

178

AUTHORS

927.74

104

WAT

1328.64

129

TERMS

1165.50

154

FALSE

1007.18

179

WORTERBUCH

927.67

105

ROM

1327.19

130

MUTSUN

1155.63

155

TABLE

1005.58

180

BNC

923.84

106

PHRASEOLOGIC

AL

1318.14

131

FORMS

1149.68

156

PHONETIC

1005.47

181

CONCEPTS

916.94

107

FRENCH

1295.03

132

NP

1140.64

157

QUOTATIO

NS

1004.02

182

SPELLIN

G907.15

108

EURALEX

1291.06

133

ENTIC

K1137.80

158

LATIN

998.32

183

SUFFIX

ES

901.96

109

SENSE

1290.55

134

OMBI

1137.57

159

TYPES

988.58

184

MIC

ROSTRUCTURE

897.09

110

PHRASAL

1279.04

135

PHRASEOLOGY

1127.92

160

ZGUSTA

984.09

185

MACROSTRUCTURE

889.54

111

SEMANTIC

ALLY

1268.61

136

DATA

1127.10

161

DELLA

980.78

186

POLYSEMOUS

884.30

112

BLOUNT

1266.99

137

WEBSTER

1119.39

162

DIZ

IONARIO

975.06

187

PREFACE

883.18

113

DIC

TIO

NNAIR

E1262.89

138

ANNOTATIO

N1110.58

163

CAMBRID

GE

970.09

188

BASED

882.23

114

TERMIN

OLOGY

1261.44

139

SCHRYVER

1107.89

164

CONTEXT

969.72

189

FIG

URE

873.18

115

AUTHOR

1250.96

140

LABELS

1105.32

165

NESI

966.03

190

LDOCE

867.57

116

USED

1249.22

141

CD

1103.43

166

JSH

966.03

191

CIT

ATIO

NS

867.44

117

MULTIL

INGUAL

1234.84

142

PHRASES

1098.92

167

ANGLIC

ISMS

957.00

192

LAUFER

866.72

118

SPANISH

1232.45

143

LONGMAN

1094.03

168

SIM

ULLDA

957.00

193

SPECIF

IC852.23

119

ETYMOLOGIC

AL

1231.02

144

SM’A

LGYAX

1083.40

169

WARLPIR

I957.00

194

ADJ

850.58

120

MULTI

1228.04

145

INTERLIN

GUAL

1062.83

170

SENTENCE

956.28

195

LEXIC

OGRAPHIC

A848.66

121

FRAMES

1219.08

146

SYNONYMS

1057.94

171

ADJE

CTIV

E951.17

196

VOCABOLARIO

848.66

122

EXEMPLIF

ICATIO

N1205.05

147

ENGLISHES

1055.26

172

ARTIC

LE

942.55

197

HARTMANN

847.18

123

ITALIA

N1198.16

148

NIE

MEYER

1055.26

173

ADJE

CTIV

ES

939.48

198

TOQABAQIT

A839.63

124

HAUSMANN

1198.02

149

ETYMOLOGY

1054.14

174

PREFIX

ES

938.02

199

PHRASE

836.77

125

TRANSLATIO

NS

1194.38

150

MED

1043.20

175

STUDENTS

936.27

200

PEDAGOGIC

AL

832.13


201

BENJA

MIN

S830.93

226

FE

762.12

251

NEDERLANDS

684.34

276

NEOLOGISMS

650.90

202

DIF

FERENT

826.26

227

EFL

748.03

252

VOWEL

684.11

277

EUROWORDNET

650.04

203

COLLIG

ATIO

N821.97

228

TARGET

743.25

253

SYNONYMY

682.82

278

ITALIA

NO

641.49

204

CRUSCA

821.58

229

COLES

742.15

254

COLLIN

S680.78

279

CID

E641.01

205

ARE

816.94

230

CONTRONYMY

740.32

255

TERM

675.08

280

GERMAN

638.02

206

SPEECH

814.69

231

RBN

740.32

256

EQUIV

ALENCE

674.47

281

LISTED

634.71

207

VOLUME

811.92

232

FES

736.46

257

WIE

GAND

673.72

282

CONTEXTUAL

633.11

208

ILI

811.29

233

ANALYSIS

735.30

258

ELEMENTS

672.92

283

DIA

LECT

631.39

209

ESTONIA

N810.27

234

CLVV

731.29

259

AUSTRALIA

N671.40

284

HOMONYMY

630.49

210

ALPHABETIC

AL

809.96

235

USES

729.12

260

ZEALAND

670.32

285

TRANSLATIO

NAL

630.31

211

FIN

NISH

804.24

236

RELATED

725.33

261

EDIT

ORS

670.20

286

METAPHORIC

AL

629.36

212

FCFS

803.52

237

RUNDELL

723.83

262

DIC

CIO

NARIO

669.66

287

MORPHOLOGIC

AL

626.38

213

LEXEME

802.65

238

PAGES

721.84

263

COMPUTATIO

NAL

669.17

288

PUSTEJO

VSKY

618.78

214

ABBREVIA

TIO

NS

795.51

239

VALENCE

721.74

264

ARROYO

666.53

289

TERMIN

OLOGIC

AL

616.38

215

FELLBAUM

794.49

240

LIST

717.15

265

STRUCTURE

666.33

290

PIZ

AN

615.84

216

LEMMAS

787.27

241

LIN

GUA

712.84

266

ILLUSTRATIV

E665.70

291

GRAMMARIA

NS

615.35

217

ICFS

785.46

242

COMPIL

ATIO

N711.20

267

ABEL

663.79

292

LIN

GUISTS

610.32

218

DESCRIPTIO

N784.26

243

EQUIV

ALENT

709.87

268

POLISH

662.06

293

OCCURRENCES

607.50

219

INTERNET

779.31

244

SECTIO

N705.45

269

VERLAG

660.31

294

PRE

607.40

220

VOL

777.07

245

DEFIN

ITIO

NAL

702.84

270

SOBKOWIA

K659.07

295

GREEK

607.24

221

GLOSSARY

776.05

246

ATTESTED

699.08

271

TYPE

658.92

296

MERRIA

M607.02

222

METAPHOR

773.82

247

SUCH

698.52

272

CORMIE

R658.62

297

ALAWA

604.90

223

MIT

770.04

248

TRANSLATED

697.37

273

HEBREW

655.38

298

GOUWS

604.90

224

VS

768.28

249

DSFF

695.18

274

TRANSCRIPTIO

N653.49

299

FISHER

602.11

225

REFERENCE

767.39

250

SIE

PMANN

686.15

275

LEXIC

OLOGY

651.76

300

SPECIA

LISED

600.65
