Dictionary Review

By Geoff Barton

Primary

Oxford Primary Dictionary, £9.99

Collins Primary Illustrated Dictionary, £8.99

Collins Primary Dictionary, £7.99

Jolly Dictionary, Jolly Learning Ltd, £5.95

Oxford Junior Rhyming Dictionary, £7.99

Black’s Rhyming and Spelling Dictionary, A&C Black, £7.99

Chambers Primary Rhyming Dictionary, £7.99

Secondary

Collins Student’s Dictionary, £6.99

Collins School Dictionary (“Gem”), £3.99

Chambers Mini School Dictionary, £3.99

Collins School Dictionary, £5.99

Chambers School Dictionary, £7.99

Chambers Study Dictionary, £9.99 [NOT MENTIONED]

Oxford School Dictionary and Thesaurus, £7.99

[Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary, £13.90] IS THIS ELT?

Chambers Pocket Dictionary, £8.99

Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, £9.99

Independent study

Compact Oxford English Dictionary, £14.99 [NOT MENTIONED]

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, [NOT MENTIONED]

Bloomsbury Concise English Dictionary, £19.99

Bloomsbury English Dictionary, £30

Oxford Dictionary of English, £35 [any concise version???]

Oxford English Dictionary on CD-Rom

Chambers Concise Dictionary, £17.99

The Chambers Dictionary, £30

Chambers Dictionary & Thesaurus (CD-ROM), £30

You have to take your hat off to Dr Johnson, whose first English

dictionary is 250 years old this year. When he wasn’t dazzling London

with his conversational repartee, or kicking gravestones to demonstrate to

new age philosophers that of course the world does not exist only in our

minds, he was also penning the first English dictionary.

That first edition, which we are reliably informed weighed the same as a

large turkey, consisted of 2300 pages. It cost four pounds and ten

shillings, which would be around £300 today. The good Doctor harvested

some 42,773 words for which he was paid a handsome (something he

wasn’t, by all accounts) £1575 – around £10,000 today.

So here’s a survey of the current landscape of dictionaries, many of

which are designed particularly for school use. Making comparisons is

tricky because our taste in dictionaries is often as personal as our taste in

fiction – with dictionaries so much comes down to layout and

presentation. So to add a little credibility and nudge us away from my

own dictionary obsessions, I’ve called for the first impressions of

someone who straddles the target readership, one Nicholas Barton (aged

12) who was persuaded that it was a privilege to be asked to compare so

many dictionaries and may in due course wish to look up the word duped.

Developing pupils’ skills and confidence in using dictionaries is part of

the Primary Strategy from the earliest years. This is when we want our

pupils to develop a love of books and to learn how to use a dictionary.

Publishers respond with a collection of texts which are vivid and varied.

The Oxford Primary Dictionary shows its Johnsonian roots by including

many citations from literature. Topically, many of these come from Harry

Potter and other popular children’s books (“Malfoy gave Professor Lupin

an insolent stare” - plus definition?). . Definition: “Very rude and

insulting”. The visual mix of two-colour printing, boxes for word origins

and word families makes it very easy to use.

The Collins Primary Dictionary (age 9+) is similarly clear and lucid,

though primary teachers may be attracted to the Illustrated version (8+).

Whilst this doesn’t have pictures on every page, the images are used

judiciously and not just decoratively. For the definition of “rook” for

example the description “a chess piece that can move any number of

squares in a straight but not diagonal line” has a picture that really helps

our understanding.

Then there’s the Jolly Dictionary which blends development of children’s

dictionary skills with their distinctive emphasis of teaching synthetic

phonics. There’s no reference to “insolent” but here’s how it explains

“infection”: “infecshen: an illness caused by germs”.[any example to

demonstrate how this dictionary is different? Or how it demonstrates

pronunciation?] The book begins with a colourful picture section,

designed to teach pupils about word classes, and a code to demonstrate

pronunciation. The main dictionary uses cartoon images for decoration.

(Iit’s hard to imagine they are for educational reasons – for example the

definition of a cow is accompanied by a picture of a cow. Not sure what

you mean by this comment! ie Everyone would know what a cow looks

like so why bother??). Since I think we can assume most readers will

know what a cow looks like, the illustrations are chiefly, well, illustrative

At primary level there are also the hybrid dictionariess, such as rhyming

and spelling dictionaries, and these show more variation than their more

strait-laced relations. Oxford’s Junior Rhyming Dictionary comes from

the ubiquitous John Foster. Looking for something to rhyme with “boss”?

Try “moss” or candyfloss”. Throughout there are lively, not to say wacky,

pictures and short poems by John Foster. [Do these help with definitions?

In fact, I have just realised that I have no idea what a rhyming dictionary !

]These both help to illuminate word meaning and to make learning fun, as

in this example for “jug”:

“A slimy slug drank from a jug.

A grubby bug drank from a mug.

Then the slug gave the bug a hug.”

Shakespeare it isn’t, but the rhymes throughout, and perhaps especially

the illustrations (by Melanie Williamson and Rupert Van Wyk), reinforce

an important sense of this being a reference book to enjoy rather than

leave to gather dust.

Black’s Rhyming & Spelling Dictionary has a distinguished pedigree,

with one of its authors being Pie Corbett, well known to primary teachers

and a key architect of the National Literacy Strategy. This book has an

early section on how to use a rhyming dictionary and a brief summary of

different types of poetry (haiku, limericks, acrostics, and so on). The

pages themselves are organised by word endings (a page on “eece to eed”

is followed by one on “eek to eeen”. It’s simple, colourful, and

compelling.

Chambers’ Primary Rhyming Dictionary is a less colourful affair, using a

pink and black layout with black-and-white illustrations. What is striing

is its use not of words but suffixes or rhyming sounds, such as “-ision”, “-

isk” and “-ister”. Its unique selling point is sixty sample poems written by

Benjamin Zephaniah, like this one: “I wrote a poem with a twist / And

turned into a novelist” (helping to illustrate rhymes for “-ist”. The format

is perhaps the least appealing of the bunch, but Zephaniah’s presence

adds a lively and often unexpected tw-ist.. [ is this to assist which word?]

The secondary market sees a huge range of dictionaries reflecting the

different ages and needs of its readership. This is where we want our

students to become increasingly self-reliant in finding out the information

they need for study. Let’s start with the smallest, pocket formats. Collins

Student’s Dictionary packs a huge amount of information into a tight but

very clear format. It has brief definitions, guidance on usage, frequent and

useful panels on usage and word history: (“The first people to wear

anoraks were Eskimos. In the Eskimo language anoraq means ‘a piece of

clothing’ and denotes a long, hooded jacket made from fur such as

sealskin or haribou skins …” - maybe add full definition?). We admired

the brevity of the definitions and Nick appreciated the ‘survival guide’ at

the back – a nicely-pitched summary of grammar and spelling advice.

Collins also have their small Gem format in tiny print (and I do mean

tiny), ideal for quick reference, and also packing in an enormous amount

of information beyond just definitions, including grammar and spelling

guidance. The Chambers Mini School Dictionary does the same – an

extraordinary compendium of knowledge in a format that will sit easily

alongside the packed lunch (no vending machines, of course - not sure

what you mean by this!) , now that they have been given the Ruth Kelly

life-sentence) in the school bag.

Then there is a large range of medium size dictionaries for classroom and

home use. Collins’ School Dictionary has the clear format of their

Student’s Dictionary. The lucidity of the definitions is admirable and

spot-on for the target age group [can we add an example?].(for example,

“gaudy – very colourful in a vulgar way”) The Chambers School

Dictionary is a direct competitor and has an attractive two-colour format.

It contains brisk, mostly clear definitions [for example? (“gaudy – showy;

vulgarily bright in colour”) ], plus a heavy emphasis on etymology and

background to meanings. There are also regular ‘Language Study’ panels

on issues like borrowed words, grammar, and dialects.

The Oxford School Dictionary and Thesaurus divides each page into

dictionary (top half) and thesaurus (bottom half) – a neat and easy-to-use

format. It also There are examples for each definition to show usage in

context and a two-tone colour scheme that gives clarity. So in the top half

you get “fund” – “money collected or kept for a special purpose” and in

the lower part you get “pool, kitty, store, reserve, cahce, source and

supply”. How simple is that? [can we give an example?].

[Is this an ELT dictionary? ie is for non-English-speakers?] The

Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary is similar, but with a colour picture

section in the middle labelling, for example, items in the bathroom. I’m

not quite sure what the purpose is, though ‘learners’ might benefit from

knowing that a cistern in the UK is a tank in the USA. My guess is that

the target audience more strongly emphasises overseas students. The

advice on studying, writing and spelling is eminently sensible and useful.

The real bonus for intermediate users of English is the CD which gives

pronunciation of every word and other PC-based resources.

Next there’s Chambers Study Dictionary aimed at students aged 15

upwards. Its distinguishing feature is a 48-page study supplement – a very

focused and relevant guide to writing essays and scientific reports, plus

advice on paragraphing, linking ideas, and choosing the right words. It’s

unpatronising, pitched at the right level, and very useful.

[Chambers Study Dictionary??? mentioned in the list at the beginning?]

Chambers and Oxford have their hardback Pocket dictionaries, though

you’d need pockets like Fagan in Oliver Twist to carry these to school.

Both demonstrate the skill of contemporary lexicographers in providing

detailed, non-patronising information in a manageable format. The

Oxford puts more emphasis on word origins in most definitions [is an

example relevant? don't worry if you don't think necessary]; (eg

“jingoism – from by jingo! In a song adopted by those who supported the

sending of a British fleet into Turkish waters to resist Russia in 1878),

whilst the Chambers usesing small panels for interesting etymological

facts (such as “ombudsman” being a Swedish word for ‘administration

man’). Both would be an indispensable reference book in any classroom

or study.

Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English describes itself as “the

living dictionary”. It’s full of illustrative examples (for example a total of

48 different meanings of “light”, each explained with a phrase, including

the rarely heard “I set off for work with a light heart”). There are

occasional pictures, panels of usage guidance, plus a CD version with

pop-up definitions and interactive exercises.

Simpler but hugely authoritative is the Compact Oxford English

Dictionary, a two-colour production with clear headwords, pronunciation

guide, real-life examples and a central supplement on “Effective English ”

which provides high-level advice on writing accurately in various styles.

.

Then there are the heavyweights of the market, the dictionaries for fuller

reference, either at school or home. These are the books we want to be

able to reach for to clarify our thoughts or and sharpen our expression.

The Bloomsbury Concise English Dictionary was new to me. Like all of

the books in this category, it’s authoritative, comprehensive and

contemporary. It’s an adult dictionary, with embedded guidance on

spelling (“Do not confuse accede with exceed – your spelling checker

will not catch this error”), occasional tiny illustrations (how glaciers are

formed, what the ginseng plant looks like) - any for instance? (which I

could easily live without), usage, and biographical information. There’s

an impressive range of colloquial and slang words (clobber and

farkleberry [what does it mean?] jumped out, though I’ll leave it to you to

look upo the latter in case you’re eating as you read this), and a modern-

feeling attention to technological words. It’s full version, The

Bloomsbury English Dictionary is equally impressive – an asset in any

home or classroom..

The Chambers Dictionary is what it says [??????] and, as the official

reference book for Scrabble, and benefits from a clear page design that

will be useful when looking to settle a double letter score dispute over a

word like zimocca (a type of bath sponge). Its Concise version is more

spacious, with less dense use of text, [ie - layout is less dense? ] and ideal

for a student in further or higher education.

Finally, bringing us back to Dr Johnson [why does this bring us back to

Johnson?], there’s the Oxford Dictionary of English which sets the

standard for lucidity and sheer range of reference. There are definitions,

origins, hints on usage, and an impressive quantity of biographical

information. Like its Chambers equivalent, there’s also a CD-ROM

version, giving users the capacity to interrogate a huge database of

language.

[No mention of the Oxford Compact English Dictionary or the Longman

Dictionary of Contemporary English - both in lists at the beginning]

For me – old-fangled that I am – I like a dictionary I can hold and browse

through, with the unexpected pleasure of stumbling across unfamiliar

words and origins (for example I’ve just learnt that ‘hantavirus’ is carried

by rats and causes kidney failure – another useful cocktail party opening

line).

With dictionaries, like cocktails, we all have our personal preferences,

many to do with layout as much as content. Overall I admire the unfussy

clarity of the Oxford English Dictionary. Nick goes for the Chambers

School Dictionary. But that’s as arbitrary saying whether one flavour of

apple is “better” than another: I comes down to how we like the texture,

taste, colour and bite.

[do you have a favourite - the Oxford? - or should we not say? And did

Nick have a favourite?]. What all of these books show is just how much

in this online information age the text has fought back, showing its

versatility and, in many cases, portability. It’s a reminder of what a great

information technology source the humble dictionary is. Long may it last.