Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-017-0030-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

The variables for drawing up the profile of dictionary

users

Deny A. Kwary1

Received: 18 April 2017 / Accepted: 8 October 2017 / Published online: 26 January 2018
 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Abstract Dictionary users should be the main considerations in creating dic-

tionaries. A mistake in identifying the users can make a dictionary to be simply a
display without much benefit. Nevertheless, only a small handful of references have
discussed the variables to be considered in determining the dictionary user profiles.
Consequently, a more concise and updated reference is needed to draw up a more
thorough profile of dictionary users. This article starts with reviews of the references
on how to determine the profiles of dictionary users, proposed by Bergenholtz and
Tarp (Manual of specialised dictionaries, John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, 1995), Atkins and Varantola (in: Atkins (ed) Lexicographica Series
Maior 88: using dictionaries, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1998), Denisov (in:
Hartmann (ed) Lexicography: critical concepts, Routledge, London, 2003), Tarp
(Lexikos 14:222–252, 2004), Bergenholtz and Nielsen (Terminology
12(2):281–303, 2006) and, Tarp (Lexicography in the borderland between knowl-
edge and non-knowledge: general lexicographical theory with particular focus on
learner’s lexicography, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2008). A
theory on market segmentation process from Kotler and Keller (Marketing man-
agement, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2006) is also discussed to widen the
perspective on determining the variables for dictionary user profiles. This study has
found fourteen variables which are relevant for drawing up the profile of dictionary
users.

Keywords Dictionary
Dictionary user
Segmentation
Lexicography
User

profile

& Deny A. Kwary

[email protected]
1
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

123
106 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

1 Introduction

Dictionary plays a significant role in documenting a language. In creating a

dictionary, lexicographers need to establish the profile of the dictionary users.
Without establishing its specific users, a dictionary will simply become a display
without anyone benefiting from it. As stated by Bogaards (1999, p. 118),
lexicographers need ‘‘to adopt more often and more systematically the viewpoint
of the learner’’ or the dictionary user. Therefore, it is essential that a dictionary user
profile be drawn up and considered before making a dictionary. Other aspects, such
as functions and features, can only be determined after lexicographers have the
profile of a specific user group in their minds. This is in line with the suggestion
made by Nielsen and Mourier (2004, p. 123) that lexicographers need to draw up a
profile of the intended user group to relate the dictionary’s functions to their needs
and competences.
This article starts with a review of the existing methods to determine the profiles
or characteristics of dictionary users found in six references: Bergenholtz and Tarp
(1995), Atkins and Varantola (1998), Denisov (2003), Tarp (2004), Bergenholtz and
Nielsen (2006), and Tarp (2008). In addition, since, as Landau (2001, p. 345) has
remarked, identifying the market is the first consideration in dictionary publishing,
the discussion in this article also includes the market segmentation process based on
Kotler and Keller (2006). This discussion should widen the perspective on
dictionary users who are the target markets of dictionaries and contribute to a new
method in drawing up the profile of dictionary users.

2 Existing classifications and profiles

One of the first references that makes a classification of dictionary users is

Bergenholtz and Tarp (1995, p. 21). Their focus is on language for specific purposes
(LSP) dictionaries. Therefore, they distinguish four main types of user profiles for
specialized dictionaries: (1) low level of encyclopedic and foreign language
competence, (2) low level of encyclopedic and high level of foreign language
competence, (3) high level of encyclopedic and low level of foreign language
competence, and (4) high level of encyclopedic and foreign language competence.
This is a simple method in determining the dictionary users because it is only based
on two variables: encyclopedic and foreign language competence.
A more complex classification of dictionary user profiles was made by Atkins
and Varantola when they were working on the Research Project on Dictionary Use
which was sponsored by EURALEX and the AILA Scientific Commission on
Lexicology and Lexicography. Atkins and Varantola (1998, p. 25) draw up the
dictionary user profiles using eleven variables which they call definite facts, as
follows:
• Their country of origin and native language
• The number of years they have studied English
• Type of educational institution(s) where they had studied

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 107

• The purpose of their current English studies

• Whether or not their classes were held in English
• Textbooks used
• Whether they had received instruction in dictionary use
• Details of their dictionary ownership
• Their habits of dictionary use
• Their understanding of English parts of speech
• Their understanding of the grammar metalanguage used in English learners’
monolingual and bilingual dictionaries.

Although these criteria have been drawn up specifically for learners of English, it
can also be adapted for any language. However, it does not necessarily mean that
this more complex classification is better than the simpler classification. The profile
drawn may be more specific, but not practical to be implemented when making a
new dictionary, because the questionnaire consists of ten pages. It means that it
takes a lot of time, money and energy to administer and analyze the questionnaires.
In addition, it does not take into account the age of the users. Children and adults
definitely need different dictionaries; consequently, age must be included in making
a profile of dictionary users. Denisov (2003) and Tarp (2004) incorporate this
variable in proposing their method to produce the profile of dictionary users.
In classifying dictionary users, Denisov (2003, p. 84) proposes the following five
categories of users and the types of dictionaries suitable for them: (1) children and
pupils (school dictionaries); (2) students of languages, teachers of Russian and
professional linguists (philological dictionaries); (3) non-language students, tech-
nical professionals (terminological dictionaries); (4) the so-called ‘‘mass reader’’
(normative reference dictionaries, cultural and usage dictionaries), and (5) tourists,
Soviet specialists abroad, businessmen and the like (phrasebooks or pocket
dictionaries). It is true that Denisov’s work focuses on the Russian language, but it
can also be applied to other languages. However, one of the important variables
which is not mentioned by Denisov is the proficiency level of users. For example,
those with lower proficiency in the second language would prefer bilingual
dictionaries than monolingual ones, and vice versa. Therefore, the proficiency level
also plays a significant role in determining dictionary users.
Tarp (2004, p. 225) points out the proficiency level as the first of his five
variables which should be taken into account to produce a more detailed profile of
the potential dictionary user. The other four variables which should also be
considered are: adult or child, emigrant or other types of learners, ‘‘joint’’ or
separate culture, and level of general culture. The unique characterization in this
proposal is a strong emphasis on culture. It is obvious that language is a part of
culture, so any description of a language and its parts must also consider the cultural
aspect. The consideration of the cultural aspect is even more important for
international languages, such as the English language. The English learners’
dictionaries, initially published in the 1930s, started for the inclusion of grammatical
and cultural data on various basic aspects of the English language (Fuertes-Olivera
and Nielsen 2008). However, one of the many problems of the famous British
learners’ dictionaries is that they are compiled for foreign language learners in

123
108 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

general without taking into account the very different cultural backgrounds of the
target users (Tarp 2004, p. 228). For example, Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary (OALD 9th ed. 2015) defines handball as ‘a team game for two teams of
seven players, usually played indoors, in which players try to score goals by
throwing a ball with their hand.’ Since handball is never played in some Asian
countries, an Indonesian who reads that definition might think that handball is like
basketball, but with a greater number of players. In this case, it is obvious that the
extent of cultural data to be included in English learners’ dictionaries should be
tailored to a particular group of users.
One variable which is also important, but not mentioned by Tarp (2004) is the
user’s proficiency level in his or her native language. In a country where the national
language is imposed by the government (e.g., Indonesia) and in multilingual
countries such as Singapore (four official languages) and South Africa (eleven
official languages), it is necessary to determine not only what their native language
is, but also how well they master their native language. This variable is mentioned
by Bergenholtz and Nielsen (2006, pp. 285–286). In general, they note eight
characteristics that must be taken into account in drawing up a profile of a specific
user group:
1. Which language is their native language?
2. At what level do they master their native language?
3. At what level do they master a foreign language?
4. How extensive is their experience in translating between the languages in
question?
5. What is the level of their general cultural and encyclopedic knowledge?
6. At what level do they master the special subject field in question?
7. At what level do they master the corresponding LSP in their native language?
8. At what level do they master the corresponding LSP in the foreign language?

They consider that these eight variables are the most important ones in drawing
up a profile of a specific user group; however, they also mention that there may be
other relevant types of characteristics for a particular dictionary. These variables
work well for determining the users of LSP dictionaries. They do not include the age
as one of the variables because it is very unlikely for a child to use an LSP
dictionary. LSP dictionaries are of course mostly (if not always) used by adults.
For LGP dictionaries, Tarp (2008, p. 138) lists twelve criteria or variables which
must all be included to identify the precise characteristics of a dictionary user:
1. What is the mother tongue of the learner?
2. To what extent does the learner master their mother tongue?
3. To what extent does the learner master the foreign language in question?
4. How great is the learner’s general cultural knowledge?
5. How great is the learner’s knowledge of culture in the foreign-language area in
question?
6. Why does the learner wish to learn the foreign language in question?
7. Does the foreign-language learning process take place spontaneously or
consciously?

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 109

8. Is the foreign language being learned within or outside the foreign-language

area concerned?
9. Is the learner exposed to their mother tongue during the learning process?
10. Does the learner use a specific textbook or didactic system?
11. Does the learner use a specific didactic method?
12. Is the learning process related to a specific subject?

Based on these characteristics, it can be assumed that Tarp only focuses on adult
learners. He does not include the age as one of the criteria for drawing up the profile
of a dictionary user.

3 Segmentation

By viewing a dictionary as a product and dictionary users as target markets, it is

possible to consider the consumer market segmentation variables in drawing up the
profile of dictionary users. According to Kotler and Keller (2006, pp. 247–258),
there are four major consumer market segmentations:
1. Geographic segmentation: dividing the market into different geographical units
such as nations, states, regions, counties, cities, or neighborhoods.
2. Demographic segmentation: dividing the market into groups on the basis of
variables such as age, family size, family life cycle, gender, income,
occupation, education, religion, race, generation, nationality, and social class.
3. Psychographic segmentation: buyers are divided into different groups on the
basis of psychological/personality traits, lifestyle, or values.
4. Behavioural segmentation: buyers are divided into groups on the basis of their
knowledge of, attitude toward, use of, or response to a product.

From the four segmentations above, it is the demographic one which is the most
frequently used to distinguish customer groups, because demographic variables
often determine consumer needs, wants, and usage rates, and product and brand
preferences (Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 249). In addition, the segmentation is also
the easiest one to be measured. Furthermore, some variables in the demographic
segmentation can also be applied in determining the profile of dictionary users.
Some adjustments, however, have to be made.
From the twelve variables mentioned in the demographic segmentations, some of
them should be omitted and others can be grouped together as there seem to be
overlaps between them. Family size and family life-cycle are not important in
drawing up a profile of dictionary users. Age and generation can be put into one
variable, that is, age; race and nationality can be simplified into nationality (but we
need to note that race and nationality cannot be integrated into one in multiracial
countries where significant differences could exist beyond racial lines); and, income
and social class can be merged into socio-economic class. Therefore, the applicable
ones only comprise seven variables: namely, age, gender, occupation, education,
religion, nationality, and socio-economic class.

123
110 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

4 Proposed variables

From the discussion on the seven references mentioned previously (Bergenholtz and
Tarp 1995; Atkins and Varantola 1998; Denisov 2003; Tarp 2004; Bergenholtz and
Nielsen 2006; Tarp 2008; Kotler and Keller 2006), a new proposal for drawing up
the profile of dictionary users can be made. The variables and the rationale to choose
them are explained in the following sub-sections. These variables are selected on the
basis of literature review, and are meant to be the compilation of the variables which
have been mentioned in several studies.

4.1 Native language competence

Taking the native language of the user into consideration has been stated as one of
the most important criteria in creating a dictionary. However, the question should
not simply ask what the native language is, like one of the variables mentioned by
Atkins and Varantola (1998). The question should be made more specific, that is,
about the level of the mastery of the native language, as pointed out by Bergenholtz
and Nielsen (2006) and Tarp (2008). The mother tongue of which one is a native
speaker might be officially defined variously as ‘the language spoken by the
individual from the cradle,’ ‘parent tongue,’ ‘thinking language,’ ‘language of their
homes,’ ‘language of everyday use,’ and so on (Pattanayak 1998, p. 125). Therefore,
two people from the same country of origin may have different competence in their
native language.
The competence in the native language can at least be divided into two:
colloquial and proficient. Colloquial competence means that the speaker can use his
or her native language in conversation but not in formal speech or writing. This is
usually the case for the people who are either less educated or experience language
attrition. Under-educated people have low access to formal vocabulary and
grammar. Therefore, a dictionary targeting this group must have a limited set of
vocabulary in all of its parts (e.g., headwords, definitions, and examples). This is
also the case for other people who, though highly educated, experience language
attrition due to the intense and prolonged interaction with a foreign language. For
example, a German who has lived and spent his/her secondary school and university
years in the U.S. might feel more comfortable using English than German. It is
possible that the person can write better in English (L2) than in German (L1).

4.2 Foreign language competence

There are different approaches to determine foreign language competence. Wingate

(2002) differentiates between an intermediate learner and an advanced learner in
terms of the number of lessons. Wingate defines an intermediate learner as a foreign
language student who has attended at least 450-h lessons, and an advanced as a one
who has attended more than 800-h lessons. Nation (2001: 20) claims that language
users probably need a vocabulary of 15,000 to 20,000 words to read with minimal
disturbance from unknown vocabulary. However, neither the number of lessons nor

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 111

the number of vocabulary items is a valid measure for foreign language competence.
There are other aspects that influence the competence, such as, the teacher, the
teaching method, the number of students in the class, the exposure to the foreign
language and the learner’s attitude.
Tarp (2008, p. 141) proposes the following classifications of learners for the
reception of texts in a foreign language:
a. Beginners are learners who need the foreign language explained in their mother
tongue (using explanations or simple equivalents)
b. Intermediate learners are learners who can understand a simple foreign
language explanation based on a reduced vocabulary.
c. Advanced learners are learners who are able to understand complex explana-
tions in the foreign language.

The problem with these classifications is the unclear division between simple and
complex foreign language explanations. The degree of complexity of a text may be
determined by various factors. One scholar may assume that it is the number of
words in a text that makes it more complex than another text. Another scholar may
consider that it is the number of compound/complex sentences that really counts.
Yet, another expert may also hypothesize that it is the type of vocabulary that
determines the level of complexity of a text. Still another issue is the schemata or
background knowledge of the reader. For example, a graduate management student
might feel comfortable reading a complex text on management, but may experience
difficulty in comprehending a simple text on phonology. The classification of
learners can be based on the result of the proficiency test of the second language.
In connection with the foreign language competence, where the foreign language
is English, there are two widely used tests to determine the level of competence of
the learner: IELTS (International English Language Testing System) and TOEFL
(Test of English as a Foreign Language). IELTS is designed to assess the language
ability of candidates who need to study or work where English is the language of
communication. It is jointly managed by the University of Cambridge ESOL
(English for Speakers of Other Languages) Examinations, British Council, and IDP
(International Development Program) IELTS Australia. This test is recognized by
universities and employers in many countries, including Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S.A. It is also recognized by professional bodies,
immigration authorities, and other government agencies. Based on the IELTS band
scores, learners are divided into nine groups. The description of each group can be
found in the IELTS website (www.ielts.org). One of the problems with the IELTS
band score description above is the integration of the four different language skills
into one. For example, a learner who has excellent receptive skills (reading and
listening) but poor at productive skills (writing and speaking) will only obtain a
modest score. The new Internet-Based TOEFL solves this problem by providing a
separate description for each language skill. The complete description for Reading,
Listening, Writing, and Speaking skills can be found in the TOEFL (website www.
ets.org/toefl).

123
112 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

4.3 Cultural distance between native and foreign languages

Tarp (2004, p. 228) wrote that the compilers of a learner’s dictionary must also have
at least some knowledge about the target group’s cultural background and whether
this is close to or far from the culture related to the target language. There are two
main points from this statement, that is, the necessity for a compiler to know the
target group’s cultural background and the distance between the two cultures. An
English language dictionary made for Danish students does not need as much
cultural explanation as the dictionary for Chinese students, because the cultural
distance between the U.K. and Denmark is not as great as that between the U.K and
China.
The cultural distance in this case is based on the Lewis Model shown in Fig. 1.
Lewis (2006) divides the countries into three cultural types: the linear-active group,
the reactive group, and the multi-active group. The linear-active group comprises
the English-speaking countries (North America, Britain, Australia and New
Zealand) and Northern Europe, including Scandinavia and Germanic countries.
The Reactive group consists of all major countries in Asia, except the Indian sub-
continent. The multi-active group is more scattered: Southern Europe, Mediter-
ranean countries, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Arab and other cultures in the
Middle East, India and Pakistan and most of the Slavs. As shown in Fig. 1, the
distance between U.K. and Denmark is closer than that between U.K. and China.

Fig. 1 Lewis cultural types model (adapted from Lewis 2006, p. 42)

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 113

4.4 Residence status

Learners who reside in their home country may require different dictionaries from
those residing in other countries for various reasons. For immigrants, learning a new
language is a part of the process of integration into the new country. Therefore,
authors of learners’ dictionaries which are designed for immigrants must remember
the special lexicographical needs of such users, including the selection and
explanation of words referring to relevant laws, institutions, and cultural phenomena
(Tarp 2008, p. 144). The market for these immigrants has increased over time.
Based on the United Nations data, between 1960 and 2005 the number of
international migrants in the world more than doubled, rising from an estimated 75
million in 1960 to almost 191 million in 2005, an increase of 121 million over
45 years. If we see the data more closely, the increase has actually accelerated over
the past few decades. The United Nations reported that in 2013, the number of
international migrants worldwide reached 232 million, up from 175 million in 2000
and 154 million in 1990 (www.unpopulation.org, accessed on 14 March 2016).
People who only stay in other countries for short periods of time will also have
different lexicographical needs. These people should prefer using a dictionary which
is easy to carry and contains phrases which are usually used in casual conversation.
Denisov (2003, p. 84) notes that dictionaries created for tourists may simply be
phrasebooks or pocket dictionaries for practical purposes. Other people who stay in
other countries for short periods of time, but with different purposes, may also
prefer the same type of dictionaries.

4.5 Age

A dictionary aimed at children must be different from that aimed at adults. It is the
fact that children have smaller vocabulary than adults do. Anglin (1993) found that
6-year-old know about 3000 root words, 8-year-old about 4500 root words, and
10-year-old about 7500 words. In addition, Nippold (1998) wrote that their lexicons
would gradually expand so that by early adulthood, they will understand and use at
least 60,000 different words. In a further study, Nippold (2006, p. 371) found that in
a sample of conversational speech, a 6-year-old child will produce sentences of
approximately six words in length, on average, but a 30-year-old adult will exhibit a
mean sentence length of at least 10 words. Therefore, a dictionary for children must
contain not only a limited set of vocabulary items but also shorter sentences,
compared with a dictionary for adults.

4.6 Education level

The education level has a positive correlation with the number of vocabulary items
and the amount of information needed for each article. The higher the education
level of the targeted users are, the more vocabulary and information the users
expect. If the education level becomes one of the main variables, the lexicographer
must consider the curriculum for each education level which is particular to each
country. In Singapore, for example, there are clear differences between the English

123
114 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

language requirements for primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-level students, which

in turn affects their purposes of dictionary use.
Based on the Report of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review
from the Singapore Minister of Education (www.moe.gov.sg), the English language
for primary school students focuses on developing oral language, reading, and
spelling skills using authentic children’s literature. A dictionary focusing on this
group should at least make the entries in bigger fonts to enhance spelling abilities
and provide sentence examples taken from children’s literature. At the secondary
level, the students are introduced to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA);
listening and speaking skills are emphasized by oral presentations, drama, and
debates; and students are also given more exposure to a wide range of text types to
encourage reading and to stimulate writing. Consequently, the articles in the dic-
tionary targeting at this group must at least include the IPA, pronunciation, collo-
cations, etc.

4.7 Language skills

Language teachers usually divide language skills into four: Listening, Speaking,
Reading, and Writing. A dictionary aiming at a group interested in learning a
particular skill should provide particular features as well. For example, a study
conducted by Graham (2006) showed that a group of English-speaking learners of
French were less successful in listening than in the other language skills. The main
problems highlighted by these learners were dealing adequately with the speed of
text reading, making out individual words in a stream of spoken French, and making
sense of any words identified. A suitable dictionary for this group of students should
at least have the pronunciation of each lemma. It is even better if the collocations or
common utterances are provided along with their audio recordings, so that the
learners can listen to the words in a stream of speech, hence they can improve their
listening skills. With advances in technology, it may be possible to integrate the
Speech Recognition Software and the Oxford Genie Application with electronic
dictionaries. Consequently, the stream of speech can be decoded into written text,
and the definitions or equivalents can pop up directly by pointing at a word in the
text.
Some electronic dictionaries (especially on CD-ROM) enable users to input their
own speech and to compare it with a stored, ‘original’ recording (de Schryver 2003,
p. 167). One example of the user group for this type of dictionaries is a group of new
entrants in banks in Hong Kong. Chew (2005) who, investigated the English
language skills of new entrants in banks in Hong Kong, found that about three-
quarters of these new entrants expressed an interest in speaking skills. An electronic
dictionary which enables users to record their own speech—a word, a phrase, or a
sentence—and to compare it with a stored recording, will be suitable to satisfy the
demand of this group. The same conditions also apply to a group of users who are
interested more in the writing and reading skills. A dictionary user who is interested
in writing a text will need more information about the grammar than a user who
wants to comprehend a reading text.

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 115

4.8 Dictionary use skills

When making a dictionary, lexicographers usually use some conventions which are
assumed to be understood easily by the target users. In this case, dictionary use
skills of the users plays an important role. The users who have good dictionary use
skills will be able to understand more complex conventions used in a dictionary. In
the case of second language learners, the poor dictionary use skills are often
associated with the learners with a lower ability. East (2006) found that the lower
ability learners were not able to utilize the information found in the dictionary to
improve the accuracy of their writing. Nevertheless, the main consideration should
not just be the language ability or language skill level but the dictionary use skill
level. Lexicographers need to know whether the target users have joined dictionary
use skill training and have used various dictionaries for a good amount of time or
not. If the target users have good dictionary use skills, the lexicographers can use
many dictionary conventions in the dictionary. However, if the target users have
poor dictionary use skills, the use of dictionary conventions have to be limited. For
example, abbreviations such as ‘vt’ (verb transitive) and ‘ant’ (antonym) should not
be used if the target users are still beginners and have never had dictionary use skill
training.

4.9 Socio-economic class

The socio-economic class of the target group should be taken into account when
creating dictionaries for commercial purposes. The price that the customer is willing
to pay for a dictionary is also one of the concerns mentioned by Landau (2001,
p. 349). The size and the content of a dictionary sometimes have to be simplified to
decrease the production cost and enable the target group to purchase it. For
example, in some developing countries, there is the so-called International Student’s
Edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD). The list price of the
regular OALD is approximately 60USD, while the International Student’s Edition
costs only a half of that regular price. The contents of both dictionaries are exactly
the same; the only difference is that the size and quality of paper for the student’s
edition is a few centimetres smaller than the regular edition.

4.10 Subject-specific competence in the native language

This variable is particularly important to consider in creating LSP dictionaries. The

difference in the subject-specific competence in the native language may result in
different expectations on the information provided in a dictionary article. A concrete
example for this is given in combination with the explanation of the next variable.

4.11 Subject-specific competence in the foreign language

In addition to the subject-specific competence in the native language, the

competence in the foreign language should also be considered in drawing up the
profile of an LSP dictionary user. For example, an Indonesian teacher of

123
116 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

mathematics may be considered an expert in that subject in his/her native language,

but he/she might be a layman for that subject in a foreign language. To satisfy his/
her need to understand an English mathematics text, for example, he/she will need a
dictionary that simply provides at least the Indonesian equivalents of the English
terms. The condition is different from a freshman at a mathematics department in an
Indonesian university who is still a beginner in that subject both in his/her native
language and in the foreign language. In this situation, a dictionary which simply
provides the Indonesian equivalents of the English terms will not help him/her to
understand an English mathematics text. He/She should prefer using a dictionary
which also provides the explanations of the terms in the Indonesian language.

4.12 Occupation

Nowadays, there are more and more dictionaries aimed at people in particular
professions. Some of the examples are a dictionary for investors (www.
investorwords.com), a dictionary for painters (Larousse Dictionary of Painters
1990), a dictionary for hackers (Webster’s New World Hacker Dictionary 2006),
and even a dictionary for soap makers (http://www.ccnphawaii.com/glossary.htm).
The Dictionary of Occupational Titles from JobGenie (www.stepfour.com/jobs/)
lists 12,741 different jobs. A dictionary publisher may focus on one of the occu-
pational titles to find a good demand for a particular dictionary. For example, a
search in Yahoo.com and Amazon.com did not show any result of a dictionary for
actuaries. This can be a good market because according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor (www.bls.gov/oco/), there were about
15,000 actuarial positions in 2002, and the number keeps growing over time.

4.13 Gender

A dictionary for women should have some differences from one for men or for both.
The difference should not be only in the topic or the lemmata, but also in the
explanation of the articles. In some languages, the speaker’s gender determines the
phonological, morphological, syntactical, or lexical forms chosen. Bradley’s study
(1998) on Yanyuwa, an Australian aboriginal language, clearly shows that the
choice of particular case-marking suffixes depends on the gender of the speaker, so
a speaker who uses a form inappropriate for their gender will be strongly
reprimanded. In this case, a dictionary of Yanyuwa language cannot be created for
both men and women as the gender differences in the language are clearly marked.

4.14 Religion

Some words may be considered offensive in some religions, but not in others. There
are also possibilities that the same word is interpreted differently in different
religions. Consequently, creating a special dictionary for a religious group requires
knowledge of their religion. Take for example the word heaven. Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary (9th ed. 2015) defines it as ‘the place believed to be the home
of God where good people go when they die.’ This is different from the definition

123
Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118 117

provided in the dictionary for Buddhists, entitled Buddhism A to Z (Epstein 2003),

which defines the word as ‘the dwelling places of the gods.’ In addition, Buddhists
always use the word heaven in the plural form, because they believe that there are
several groups of heavens.
Another example is the word djinn or genie which is defined by Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary as ‘a spirit with magic powers, especially one that lives in a
bottle or a lamp.’ This is different from its definition found in the Islamic Dictionary
(www.muttaqun.com/dictionary3.html): ‘A creation of Allah made from smokeless
fire. They are also invited to accept Islam and will have to give account of their
deeds on the Day of Judgment.’ Cognizance of the great influence of religion is
probably one of the reasons for Oxford University Press to produce Oxford
Wordpower Dictionary for Arabic-speaking Learners of English (2005). Therefore,
it is also important for a lexicographer to make some adjustments in the dictionary
(i.e., definitions), if the dictionary is aimed at people living in a region where a
particular religion highly controls their lives.

5 Conclusion

Language documentation is usually fulfilled by making a dictionary for that

language. This paper shows that there are certain variables that need to be
considered by lexicographers when creating a dictionary. Based on the study of the
relevant literature, this study has found 14 variables or characteristics which should
be considered when drawing up the profile of dictionary users. The fourteen
variables are: Native language competence, Foreign language competence, Cultural
distance between native and foreign languages, Residence status, Age, Education
level, Language skills, Dictionary use skills, Socio-economic class, Subject-specific
competence in the native language, Subject-specific competence in the foreign
language, Occupation, Gender, and Religion. The first nine variables are useful for
drawing up the profile of LGP dictionary users. The next three variables are related
to LSP dictionary users. The last two variables, gender and religion, are only
applicable to clearly gender-marked languages and religiously governed countries,
respectively.

References
A dictionary for soap makers. http://www.ccnphawaii.com/glossary.htm.
Anglin, J.M. 1993. Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Serial 238 (58): 10.
Atkins, B.T.S., and K. Varantola. 1998. Language learners using dictionaries: The final report on the
EURALEX/AILA research project on dictionary use. In Lexicographica Series Maior 88: Using
dictionaries, ed. B.T.S. Atkins, 21–81. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Bergenholtz, H., and S. Nielsen. 2006. Subject-field components as integrated parts of LSP dictionaries.
Terminology 12 (2): 281–303.
Bergenholtz, H., and S. Tarp. 1995. Manual of specialised dictionaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

123
118 Lexicography ASIALEX (2018) 4:105–118

Bogaards, P. 1999. Access structures of learner’s dictionaries. In The perfect Learners’ dictionary (?), ed.
T. Herbst, and K. Popp, 113–130. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Bradley, J. 1998. Yanyuwa: Men speak one way, women another. In Language and gender: A reader, ed.
J. Coates, 13–20. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chew, K.S. 2005. An investigation of the English language skills used by new entrants in banks in Hong
Kong. English for Specific Purposes 24: 423–435.
Dansk-Englesk Ordbog. http://www.ordbogen.com.
de Schryver, G. 2003. Lexicographers’ dreams in the electronic-dictionary age. International Journal of
Lexicography 16 (2): 143–199.
Denisov, P.N. 2003. The typology of pedagogical dictionaries. In Lexicography: Critical concepts, ed.
R.R.K. Hartmann, 70–89. London: Routledge.
Dictionary for Investors. http://www.investorwords.com.
East, M. 2006. The impact of dictionaries on lexical sophistication and lexical accuracy in tests of L2
writing proficiency: A quantitative analysis. Assessing Writing 11: 179–197.
Epstein, R.B. 2003. Buddhism A to Z. Burlingame, CA: Buddhist Text Translation Society.
Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., and Sandro Nielsen. 2008. Translating politeness in bilingual English-Spanish
business correspondence. META 53 (3): 667–678.
Graham, S. 2006. Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System 34: 165–182.
Islamic Dictionary. http://www.muttaqun.com/dictionary3.html.
JobGenie Dictionary of Occupational Titles. http://www.stepfour.com/jobs/.
Kotler, P., and K.L. Keller. 2006. Marketing management, 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Landau, S.I. 2001. Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Larousse Dictionary of Painters. 1990.
Lewis, R.D. 2006. When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. Boston: Nicholas Brealey.
Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nielsen, S., and L. Mourier. 2004. Design of a function-based internet accounting dictionary. dictionary
visions. In Research and practice: selected papers from the 12th international symposium on
lexicography, Copenhagen.
Nippold, M.A. 1998. Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years, 2nd ed. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Nippold, M.A. 2006. Language development in school-age children, adolescents, and adults. In
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ed. K. Brown, 368–373. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 9th ed. 2015.
Oxford Wordpower Dictionary for Arabic-speaking Learners of English. 2005.
Pattanayak, D.P. 1998. Mother tongue: An Indian context. In The native speaker: Multiple perspectives,
ed. R. Singh, 124–147. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Report of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review. http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/
elcpr-executive-summary.pdf. Accessed Oct 2006.
Tarp, S. 2004. Basic problems of learner’s lexicography. Lexikos 14: 222–252.
Tarp, S. 2008. Lexicography in the borderland between knowledge and non-knowledge: General
lexicographical theory with particular focus on learner’s lexicography. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
The United Nations. 2013. Population Facts. www.unpopulation.org. Accessed on 14 Mar 2016.
Webster’s New World Hacker Dictionary. 2006.
Wingate, U. 2002. The effectiveness of different learners dictionaries: an investigation into the use of
dictionaries for reading comprehension by intermediate learners of German. In Lexicographica
Series Maior 112. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

123