Macmillan's move was somewhat predictable. That is definitely the way forward in 21st century lexicography. Full digitisation however comes with the assumption that the entire English-speaking world has comparable access to electronic material.... Which is far from true. Charles Tiayon on mobile app Sidney Landau <slandau1755@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >There is no question that digitization in dictionaries describes the >future, but the question I have is this: Though electronic storage >allows, as we are endlessly reminded, continuous updating, what is >the financial incentive of dictionary publishers to fund such >updating continuously in a robust way? In print, the incentive was >selling a new edition of thousands of books. So I remain a bit >skeptical that the new world of electronic dictionaries will, in the >end, result in better dictionaries. > >Sidney Landau >On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver wrote: > >> To round off this thread, from Michael Rundell ... >> >> From: Michael Rundell [mailto:michael.rundell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of >> Michael Rundell >> Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 16:32 >> To: euralex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: braasch@xxxxxxxxx; Simon Krek Gmail; Gilles-Maurice de >> Schryver; Bullon, >> Stephen >> Subject: Macmillan's recent announcement >> >> I thought it was time I waded into this debate. Thanks to everyone >> who has >> contributed so many interesting and pertinent points. Much of what >> I have to >> say on the subject has already been said more eloquently by people >> like >> Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, Simon Krek, and Anna Braasch, and my >> colleague >> Stephen Bullon, but i'll put my two cents in anyway. >> >> I think the arguments against abandoning print fall into two main >> categories, practical and cultural/emotional. >> >> The practical argument is that not everyone in the world enjoys >> good (or >> even any) web connectivity. True (though becoming less true all the >> time). >> As any publisher would, Macmillan took soundings from its sales people >> worldwide to gauge future demand for print dictionaries (which of >> course >> varies wildly from place to place). The current, final print run takes >> account of these forecasts, and means we'll be able to satisfy that >> demand >> for some time to come. Another model (which we have already applied >> in a few >> cases) is that a local publishing partner can produce locally-printed >> versions of our dictionaries under licence: an elegant and efficient >> approach for which there may continue to be some demand over the >> next few >> years. But the process of digitization is unstoppable - surely we all >> believe that? - and we see these measures as contingencies, to >> respond to a >> transitional situation. (An aside: I seem to remember Sarah >> Ogilvie, in a >> plenary on endangered languages at Euralex 2010, mentioning that in >> remote >> areas of Western Australia, aboriginal people took advantage of the >> satellite technology installed by mining companies there, and all >> had mobile >> phones with bilingual dictionaries on them. So even thousands of >> miles from >> big cities, digital dictionaries are by no means 'exotic'.) >> >> This doesn't mean paper dictionaries will disappear any time soon: >> rather >> that, like vinyl LPs (as we used to call them) they will be more of >> a niche. >> There are many languages in the world that haven't yet benefited >> from the >> last big lexicographic revolution - the 'corpus revolution' that >> began in >> the 1980s - and publishers like Ilan Kernerman have provided excellent >> resources for what we (reluctantly) refer to as 'smaller' >> languages. But >> Macmillan produces dictionaries of English, and that most >> definitely is not >> a niche. >> >> The second argument, roughly, is that we all like delving into >> physical >> books, and printed dictionaries offer serendipitous discoveries as >> we idly >> browse them. Well, up to a point. But as Anna put it, 'most people >> are not >> lexicographers or lovers of words, for them a dictionary is just a >> tool'. >> The primary market for Macmillan's pedagogical dictionaries >> consists either >> of learners of English or people whose first language isn't English >> but who >> need to use English in their professional or academic lives (an >> enormous >> group). This cohort is predominantly young, and many are digital >> natives. >> The odds of a 19-year-old Korean undergraduate taking a paper >> dictionary >> down from a shelf in order to resolve a reference query are, like >> it or not, >> vanishingly long, and getting longer. Of course, I too appreciate >> the joys >> of browsing a dictionary, but then I am (a) in my sixties and (b) a >> lexicographer. >> >> Besides, as Simon noted, there are plenty of browsing opportunities in >> electronic reference materials. In Macmillan's online dictionary >> you can (a) >> click on any word in a definition or example sentence and go >> straight to the >> entry for that word; (b) click on the 'T' thesaurus button at any >> word, >> phrase or word sense and have access to relevant thesaurus data; >> (c) scroll >> down the pane to the right of the entry showing 'Related >> definitions' (thus >> at the noun 'box' you could also, instantly, look up entries such >> as box in, >> inbox, box room, box someone's ears, or think outside the box). >> >> There are winners and losers, upsides and downsides, whenever >> things change. >> But do we want to be like those people who wrote angry letters to >> the Times >> when motorized transport first came to London at the beginning of >> the last >> century, asking about the future employment prospects for people >> who made >> their living by clearing the horse manure from the streets (I am >> not making >> this up). As far as Macmillan is concerned, better to embrace a >> future that >> will come anyway, than to hang grimly on to a way of doing things >> whose time >> is passing. And the advantages of digital over paper are so great, >> and the >> opportunities this medium offers are only beginning to be exploited. >> >> And by the way, how would today's exchange of views have worked if >> we'd all >> stuck to quill pens and the postal service? >> >> Michael Rundell >> >> Editor-in-Chief >> >> Macmillan Dictionaries >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> __._,_.___ >> Reply via web post Reply to >> sender Reply to group >> Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) >> RECENT ACTIVITY: >> Visit Your Group >> For more information about the DSNA: http://www.dictionarysociety.com >> Post message: DSNA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Unsubscribe: DSNA-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> ******** REMEMBER: "REPLY" REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST. ******** >> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest â Unsubscribe â Terms of Use â >> Send us Feedback >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >