The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary

Compilation

Tetiana A. Vakaliuk

1,2,3 a

, Oksana A. Chernysh

1 b

and Vitalina O. Babenko

4 c

Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, 103 Chudnivsyka Str., Zhytomyr, 10005, Ukraine

Institute for Digitalisation of Education of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 9 M. Berlynskoho

Str., Kyiv, 04060, Ukraine

Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, 54 Gagarin Ave., Kryvyi Rih, 50086, Ukraine

V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

Keywords:

Dictionary Compilation, Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary, Algorithm, Terminological Unit,

Information System.

Abstract:

The aim of the present scientiﬁc research is to provide a thorough analysis of the algorithm of electronic mul-

tilingual terminological dictionary compilation. Electronic multilingual terminological dictionary is viewed as

a dynamic electronic lexicographic edition that provides translation, explanatory, encyclopedic parametres of

terminological units and is open to current trends in its ﬁelds of knowledge representation. Electronic multi-

lingual terminological dictionary covers ﬁve knowledge areas, namely Information Technologies, Linguistics,

Accounting and Taxation, Engineering, and Economics. It provides English, French, German, Polish and

Russian equivalents with encyclopedic reference in all target languages. Moreover, it is absolutely adapted to

constant updating, extension and integration with other systems needed. Such dictionary creation presupposes

determination of its volume and structure, lexical units’ selection and their frequency feedback, and proper

arrangement of translation equivalents. Therefore, the algorithm of electronic multilingual terminological dic-

tionary compilation includes seven stages that are dedicated to register creation and arrangement, information

system creation and trial, as well as dictionary set-up. All stages are interconnected and interrelated. Accord-

ingly, meticulous stages completion signiﬁcantly contributes to quality electronic multilingual terminological

dictionary compilation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Dictionaries have already become an all-important is-

sue in our modern world. Due to constant techno-

logical and scientiﬁc progress their importance is in-

evitable. Dictionaries are universal tools to foster

cross-cultural professional communication thus con-

tributing to society advancement. They signiﬁcantly

contribute to thorough objective description of sci-

entiﬁc and technical processes. Dictionaries facili-

tate the users’ understanding of lexical units meaning.

Therefore, lexicographers are constantly trying to en-

hance dictionary quality to absolutely satisfy the tar-

get users’ needs thus making dictionaries a sufﬁcient

source of information.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6825-4697

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2010-200X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-4579

In the digital era, the computer technologies in-

troduce new interactive ways to overcome time and

distance (Toman and Michalik, 2013; Kazhan et al.,

2020). Computerization of dictionary compilation

makes the search for speciﬁc information much eas-

ier and more productive. It greatly reduces the time-

frames and provides more opportunities to acquire

sufﬁcient knowledge on a certain lexical item. More-

over, electronic dictionaries are known for their the-

saurus, encyclopedia, learning programs available,

data transpost possibilities and other added features.

They are user friendly and provide all the necessary

information assisting in both private and professional

communication. Therefore, electronic dictionaries

have already become beneﬁcial for creating a bond

among different cultures which is of a great advantage

for business communication and scientiﬁc advance-

ment.

Furthermore, electronic dictionaries are valued for

Vakaliuk, T., Chernysh, O. and Babenko, V.

The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation.

DOI: 10.5220/0010931400003364

In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2020) - Volume 2, pages 323-331

ISBN: 978-989-758-558-6

323

their translation capability and viewed as the main

tool of scientiﬁc text translation (Tarasenko et al.,

2021). They save a lot of time, as the translation of

terminological units is done within seconds. Elec-

tronic dictionary is mobile and can be easily applied

wherever and whenever it is needed. Therefore the

development of methods, techniques and algorithms

of dictionaries compilation is of primary importance.

1.1 Theoretical Background

Research on dictionary peculiarities, its typology,

typology of its users, analysis of needs and skills

has a long tradition and is presented in (Hartmann,

1983, 1992, 2009; Hausmann, 1976, 1984, 2007;

Kosem et al., 2019; Leffa, 1992a,b; Nesi, 1999, 2000,

2013, 2014; Nimb et al., 2020; Pedersen et al., 2009;

uller-Spitzer et al., 2015, 2018) and many others.

The term “dictionary” was ﬁrst coined in Medieval

Latin in the 13th century on the basis of Latin deriva-

tive ‘diction’ (word). Dictionary is viewed as a lex-

icographic edition arranged in some stated order that

deals with the individual words of a language and pro-

vides their orthography, pronunciation, grammatical

characteristics, derivation and history (Stevenson and

Waite, 2011). It is a systematically arranged list of

socialized linguistic forms derived from the speech-

habits of a certain speech community accompanied by

the author’s remarks on their usage and aimed at the

readers’ better understanding. Dictionary has various

practical purposes. It is a useful reference book, a

‘store house’ for a language; a detailed guidebook for

distinguishing good usages of lexical items from bad

usages, a ‘court house’ for a language (Dash, 2005).

It is the source of linguistic and extralinguistic infor-

mation which is authentic and reliable.

Burada and Sinu (Burada and Sinu, 2009), Kwary

(Kwary, 2011), Weschler and Pitts (Weschler and

Pitts, 2000), Winkler (Winkler, 2001) have recog-

nized the advantages electronic lexicographic edi-

tions. Electronic dictionary (digital dictionary is a

generic term for various types of electronic lexico-

graphic editions and is viewed as any reference ma-

terial presented in electronic form providing informa-

tion about the lexical units’ spelling, meaning, pro-

nunciation and use (Nesi, 2000). Such a dictionary

is a computer database of the speciﬁcally coded en-

tries to enable quick word search with regard to mor-

phological form and with the possibility of searching

word combinations and changing translation direction

(Zavarueva, 2020). It is a new structured text includ-

ing data represented in different media such as audio

ﬁles, videos, graph-based views etc. that has a deﬁnite

volume, a clear aim and serves a speciﬁc idea. There-

fore, an electronic dictionary is networked, linked to

a device, and people-oriented.

Several studies suggest electronic dictionaries

characteristic features, namely (Zavarueva, 2020;

uller-Spitzer, 2014):

• a peculiar combination of text and hypertext form

of lexical material representation;

• verbal as well as non-verbal means of lexical unit

description availability;

• sufﬁcient search facilities within dictionary

wordlist as well as in various Internet sources.

There have been numerous studies to investigate

electronic dictionaries form and function. Thus,

all electronic dictionaries are classiﬁed according

to (Zavarueva, 2020; de Schryver, 2003; Islam and

Purkayastha, 2015):

• a dictionary user (a human or a machine);

• languages involved: monolingual, bilingual and

multilingual dictionaries;

• form: online (located in the Internet) and elec-

tronic (distributed on CD) dictionaries;

• information arrangement: textual and hypertex-

tual (among which one can distinguish between

creolized (with extralinguistic elements such as

pictures, audio and video) and non-creolized dic-

tionaries);

• operational system and loading mode parameters:

dictionaries designed for MS DOS and dictionar-

ies designed for Windows, non-residential (with

their own shell program) and residential (called

from other applications);

• word list arrangement: frequency-ordered, al-

phabetically ordered, thesauruses, thematically

grouped, concordances, special purpose dictionar-

ies, combined dictionaries etc.;

• information medium and devices: computer (set

up on the desktop computers), pocket (recorder in

pocket electronic devices), mobile (used in smart-

phones), stationary (installed on computer hard

disc), portable (distributed on CDs), online (avail-

able in the Internet) dictionaries;

• language varieties: normative, literary language,

regional dialect, social-group dialect dictionaries

and others.

Studies of dictionary structure are well docu-

mented (Zavarueva, 2020; Atkins and Rundell, 2008;

Jackson, 2003). Prior research proves that elec-

tronic dictionary has a well-developed architecture

that contributes to quick word search. It consists of

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

324

macrostructure and microstructure. The macrostruc-

ture is viewed as the organization of the lexical en-

tries in the body of a dictionary (Gibbon, 2007) and

comes in two types – semasiological and onomasio-

logical. It includes introduction that goes before the

body of a dictionary, tables and appendices (supple-

ments) (

Cerm

ak, 2010). The microstructure is the or-

ganization of lexical information within lexical dic-

tionary entries. It outlines the linguistic unit proper-

ties in terms of its content (pragmatics and seman-

tics), structure (syntax and morphology) and render-

ing (form).

In recent years, research on electronic dictionary

compilation has become very popular among lin-

guists (e.g., (Bergenholtz and Bothma, 2011; Rehm

et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2013; Wright and Cervetti,

2017)). There exists a considerable body of litera-

ture on lexicographical modeling (Kudashev, 2007;

Sternyn, 2007), linguistic and machine methods for

dictionary compilation (Oettinger et al., 1959), com-

putational approach to lexicography (Atkins and

Zampolli, 1994;

Cerm

ak and Blatn

a, 2008), text

parsing programs for online dictionaries (Sangeorzan

et al., 2008), dictionary writing systems (Rylova,

2010) etc.

Due to constant scientiﬁc developments and im-

provements, signiﬁcant changes that occur in mod-

ern lingual environment are primarily related to ter-

minology. Therefore, terminological units’ presenta-

tion in electronic dictionaries is in the focus of (Andri-

anova and Makarova, 2016; Sperberg-McQueen and

Burnard, 2004).

The aim of our study is to investigate the algo-

rithm of electronic multilingual terminological dic-

tionary (EMTD) compilation. EMTD is viewed as

a dynamic electronic dictionary that is open to cur-

rent trends in its ﬁelds of knowledge representation. It

is absolutely adapted to constant updating, extension

and integration with other systems needed. Moreover,

it is rather ﬂexible as for quantitative and qualitative

terms. EMTD does not only outline the deﬁnition

of terms, but also provides English, French, German,

Polish and Russian equivalents with encyclopedic ref-

erence in the target language. EMTD has a lot of ad-

vantages as it aims at providing detailed encyclope-

dic information which is absolutely necessary for ad-

equate translation. Moreover, it gives illustrative ex-

amples that greatly highlight the distinctive features

of a terminological unit and shows its usage in differ-

ent contexts.

2 RESULTS

Electronic dictionary compilation is a meticulous pro-

cess which takes time and efforts. To compile a qual-

ity electronic lexicographic edition all regulations and

requirements should be decently followed. In short,

the literature pertaining to the peculiarities on dictio-

nary compilation strongly suggests that it is a mul-

tifaceted process that includes the following stages

(Coward and Grimes, 1995):

• structural, semantic, functional and socio-cultural

understanding of language(s);

• structuring and ordering entry information;

• compiling the lexical database;

• checking and reﬁning lexical database informa-

tion;

• manipulating the data for analytic or other pur-

poses;

• output which presupposes deciding on the format

and making the necessary adjustments;

• printing (for printed dictionaries);

• marketing and distribution.

The analysis of existing approaches to electronic

dictionaries compilation has driven the further devel-

opment of the algorithm of EMTD compilation (ﬁg-

ure 1).

Figure 1: The algorithm of electronic multilingual termino-

logical dictionary compilation.

The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation

325

EMTD compilation undergoes several stages

aimed at improving its quality and satisfying the dic-

tionary users’ needs. It starts with the creation of the

Polish, French and German. As soon as the register is

ready, it is sufﬁciently checked and arranged accord-

ing to the requirements of terminology codiﬁcation

and uniﬁcation. The next step is dedicated to EMTD

entry structure that presupposes thorough macro and

microstructure arrangement. Then EMTD informa-

tion system is created and register data is entered. Af-

ter that EMTD should undergo a thorough functional

check. Last but not least is EMTD start-up.

Moreover, EMTD creation presupposes compar-

ative and contrastive studies that are based on gen-

eral principles of terminology analysis. The follow-

ing principles include comparability, consistency, and

sequence of linguistic data analysis (Sternyn, 2007).

Comparative analysis is conducted at the level of sub-

systems, ﬁelds and groups, whereas contrastive anal-

ysis is done at the level of a deﬁnite terminological

unit from one language to its possible equivalence in

the languages given.

For the current research, it is sufﬁcient to point out

the peculiarities of the stages mentioned above.

2.1 Creating a Register

As it has been previously reported, the basis of any

dictionary lies in its register. Each word of the regis-

ter has its own EMTD entry with peculiar structure. A

terminological unit is the main structural component

of the entry that highlights its grammatical parame-

ters, phonetic and morphological peculiarities as well

as synonymic variants if any (Vakaliuk and Chernysh,

2020).

It should be noted that for terminological units’

selection we use only authentic texts that meet the fol-

lowing requirements:

• authentic language (written in the author’s mother

tongue);

• sufﬁcient academic degree of the author (Doctor

of Philosophy (PhD), Associate Professor, Profes-

sor);

• issue date (less than 10 years).

To create the register the main academic princi-

ple of terminological units’ selection should be im-

plied. The principle presupposes conducting linguis-

tic and statistical analysis of lexical units from se-

lected sources. The analysis starts with ranking of the

terminological units to the frequency of their usage.

If a term is widely used the compilers include it in the

Each EMTD section is dedicated to a certain area

of knowledge and consists of 300 entries. Therefore,

a careful and thorough terminological units’ mini-

mum selection is a signiﬁcant prerequisite for efﬁ-

cient EMTD. A well-organized and sufﬁciently se-

lected register is necessary for the expression of an

idea or concept. Therefore, decent register creation

greatly depends on mutual efforts and effective coop-

eration of linguists and specialists in the correspond-

ing subject areas.

2.2 Arranging a Register

Arranging the register special features of terminologi-

cal units should be considered. Therefore, contrastive

and systemic analysis should be implied. Contrastive

description of the lexical units’ meanings from vari-

ous semantic categories and different languages has a

paramount value. It helps to avoid unwanted termino-

logical confusion and signiﬁcantly contributes to the

users’ better understanding of a certain phenomenon.

Systemic analysis is done both at the level of compa-

rable subsystems and parallel pairs of terms. It aims

at coordination and harmonization of terminological

units. Peculiar attention is given to avoid termino-

logical confusion as presence of several terminologi-

cal units’ translations and lack of their thorough dis-

tinguishing features as well as erroneous translation

equivalents lead to distortion of a term and cause mis-

understanding. Thus, terminological system model-

ing requires the use of comparable logical-conceptual

schemes.

2.3 Arranging the Dictionary Entry

Recent theoretical developments have revealed that

EMTD compilation should be done in accordance

with the following requirements (Verbinenko, 1):

• thorough and sufﬁcient vocabulary coverage of

the subject areas;

• availability of the necessary information about the

terminological units;

• avoidance of redundant information that increases

the dictionary volume, prevents easy word search

and consequently causes misunderstanding;

• uniﬁcation of the dictionary structure and appara-

tus of links to facilitate the users’ search;

• coherence between the dictionary structural com-

ponents.

Therefore, EMTD entry is of primary importance

as it is one of the main EMTD structural components.

EMTD entries are viewed as sets of information about

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

326

terminological units and classiﬁed into thematic ar-

eas: Information Technologies; Linguistics; Engi-

neering; Accounting and Taxation; and Economics.

EMTD entry arrangement should signiﬁcantly con-

tribute to thorough systematization of terminological

unit knowledge on all levels – phonetic, morphologi-

cal and semantic, therefore it comprises the following

parts:

• deﬁnition which is one of the most signiﬁcant

constituents of a EMTD entry that provides expla-

nation of terminological units meaning. It serves

to resolve the communicative EMTD users needs

of decoding and encoding (Atkins and Rundell,

2008). Deﬁnition should include only relevant

information to meet the expectations of the tar-

get users and comply with the general principles

(Landau, 2001). It should avoid circularity there-

fore contributing to better understanding of a ter-

minological unit meaning. Moreover, it should

deﬁne every word used in a deﬁnition not to pre-

vent the user from full understanding. Deﬁnition

should explain but not just talk about the word and

its usage, thus being enough informative

• pronunciation contributes to the correct way of ut-

tering terminological units;

• grammatical information indicates a part of

speech, differentiates between transitive and in-

transitive verbs, countable and uncountable nouns

etc.;

• labels are viewed as orientation marks of the re-

gion, ﬁeld or any other speciﬁcations according to

which the use of a terminological unit can be lim-

ited. Labels fall into three types: status, regional

and subject. Among them register, style, time and

attitude may be as well distinguished (Atkins and

Rundell, 2008);

• semantic relations particularly refer to synonyms,

antonyms, collocations, cases of hyponymy or hy-

pernymy (de Sousa, 2009).

• phraseology includes phrasal verbs, idioms and

collocations which are usually stated at the end of

the entry. It may be marked with signs referring to

limitations in a word use and followed by relevant

examples;

• etymology highlights the origin of a word and

its development during the time. It signiﬁcantly

contributes to better understanding of the current

meaning and thus enhances the general knowl-

edge of it;

• providing examples is a negotiable issue and de-

pends on the users’ expectations. Although, ex-

amples should be natural and typical, thus present

a term in the most frequent contexts, syntactic

patterns, collocations and multiword expressions

keeping the balance between too much context

and too little (Atkins and Rundell, 2008). More-

over, examples should be informative implying

only relevant information not dispersing the users’

attention. Last but not least refers to intelligi-

bility which is gained by avoiding sophisticated

lexis and structures wherever possible (Atkins and

Rundell, 2008).

Most early studies as well as current work focus

on the importance of a thorough terminological unit

deﬁnition. Undoubtedly, a good deﬁnition facilitates

EMTD users’ understanding and greatly contributes

to their professional competence development. Ac-

cordingly, it should have the following features (De-

vel and Kovalchuk, 2016):

• have no logical contradictions. The deﬁnition

should be transparent in meaning. It should not

imply difﬁcult terms for rendering the notion;

• be clear and precise;

• have positive predicate;

• be neither overdeﬁned nor underdeﬁned;

• be deﬁned in the simplest possible language.

Furthermore, to meet EMTD users’ requirements

the compilers make the lexicon easily searchable con-

sidering the following features (Burke, 1998):

• headword lookup should be in accordance with

printed dictionaries primary macrostructure thus

enabling EMTD users to access EMTD entries by

simply searching for headwords matching a string

they type in;

• part-of-speech indices that help EMTD users to

search for entries of a certain subcategory of a part

of speech;

• etymology or morphological composition indices;

• register indices that imply reference to literary,

slang, professionalisms and other words;

• semantic ﬁeld indices to provide EMTD users

with a hyperlink to a list of all other terms be-

longing to a particular area of knowledge;

• phonological content of headwords to contribute

to EMTD users’ correct pronunciation.

EMTD should become a sufﬁcient tool in helping

EMTD users to enhance understanding in their read-

ings. Hence, EMTD offers the opportunity of quick

six-language A/Z search that makes the search pro-

cess rather user-friendly and less time-consuming.

The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation

327

2.4 Creating EMTD Information

System

Creating EMTD information system requires much

time and consideration. The primary concern goes to

laying out the database and data ﬂow to the sort of

terminological units’ visual presentation on the page.

Undoubtedly, the era of designing electronic dictio-

naries in the same way as paper dictionaries has al-

ready gone (Heid et al., 2012). Therefore, EMTD

should be architected in order to satisfy its users’

needs. Every EMTD feature has to be thoroughly

planned to make the users’ beneﬁt from the dictionary

layout.

EMTD has minimal constraints on adding new

features or implying more languages. It has two-

level expandability, namely: depth (new terminologi-

cal items may be added to each language); width (new

languages may be added). Consequently, EMTD

could be further developed and enriched which is

signiﬁcantly important due to constant scientiﬁc and

technological progress. Thus, we have no technical

obstacles to further develop the project on EMTD

compilation.

Moreover, EMTD enables smooth data manipula-

tion. It is hosted on university servers that make all

the documentation, codebase and language database

securely backed up. Furthermore, to satisfy EMTD

users’ needs, three device types are proposed: com-

puters, tablets and mobile phones. Therefore, the

compilers have to ensure optimal accessibility of data

on display to EMTD users. Accordingly, respon-

sive design-driven methodology to scale EMTD de-

sign down to resolution of 480x960 pixels retaining

all the features of the page is implied.

2.5 Entering Register Data Into EMTD

Information System

As soon as EMTD information system is created and

the register is done in compliance with the require-

ments of terminology codiﬁcation and uniﬁcation,

entering register data stage begins. The following

stage is rather time-consuming and requires signiﬁ-

cant efforts. Nonetheless, thorough and meticulous

approach used signiﬁcantly facilitates the process.

2.6 EMTD Functional Feedback

EMTD quality greatly depends on active implemen-

tation of EMTD users’ needs. Therefore, to corrob-

orate the necessary data several research instruments

are used. Open-ended questionnaires, focus group in-

terviews, and email responses are rather helpful in

getting EMTD users feedback. A sound idea lies

in an urgency to obtain the feedback from the target

users while dictionary compilation is still in progress

(de Schryver, 2003). Thus, the dictionary-making

process is strictly guided in order to satisfy all target

users’ needs.

What is more, EMTD evaluation is carried out by

linguists and specialists in the corresponding areas of

knowledge. The specialists take into consideration its

suitability and applicability to the curriculum as well

as test its features, for instance:

• accuracy;

• multi aspect educational value;

• up-to-date educational standards;

• sufﬁcient language wording;

• complete data;

• ability to encourage and motivate the users’ inter-

est;

• ability to improve the users’ professional skills.

The following features guarantee the quality of

EMTD and its applicability in the educational pro-

cess. Moreover, EMTD is tested for its reliability,

interactivity, controllability, menu, search and control

methods, appropriate font, consistent screen layout,

technical errors etc.

2.7 EMTD Start-up

Right after EMTD information system is checked, it

is given wide public access. It is worth noting that

EMTD start-up is not the ﬁnal stage. This stage

presupposes numerous testing of EMTD functions,

which is of paramount importance for further EMTD

improvement and, accordingly, support.

3 CONCLUSIONS

Constant scientiﬁc and technological progress greatly

necessitates lexicographical modeling of electronic

multilingual terminological dictionaries that hold a

central place in the wide range of terminographic edi-

tions. EMTD is viewed as a special electronic lexi-

cographic edition that is characterized by translation,

explanatory, encyclopedic parameters. It is divided

into 5 thematic areas, namely Information Technolo-

gies, Linguistics, Accounting and Taxation, Engineer-

ing, and Economics. It presents information about

terminological units on all levels – phonetic, mor-

phological and semantic. EMTD is valued for quick

six-language A/Z search that makes it rather user-

friendly. From the research that has been carried out,

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

328

it is possible to conclude that the process of EMTD

compilation undergoes 7 stages including register cre-

ation and arrangement as well as EMTD information

system creation and functional check. Following the

requirements of EMTD compilation algorithm con-

tributes to a quality electronic dictionary creation. Fu-

ture investigations are necessary to validate the kinds

of conclusions that can be drawn from this research.

In addition, investigating EMTD model might prove

important.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable

and profound commentaries, which have signiﬁcantly

improved the quality of the paper.

REFERENCES

Andrianova, S. and Makarova, A. (2016). Terminolog-

ical dictionaries in ESP training of engineer physi-

cist. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences,

236:230–234.

Atkins, B. T. and Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford guide

to Practical Lexicography. Oxford University Press,

Oxford. https://nubip.edu.ua/sites/default/ﬁles/u5/

atkins b t s rundell m the oxford guide to practical

lexicog.pdf.

Atkins, B. T. and Zampolli, A., editors (1994). Compu-

tational approach to the lexicon. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Bergenholtz, H. and Bothma, T. J. D. (2011). Needs-

adapted data presentation in e-information tools.

Lexikos, 21:53–77.

Burada, M. and Sinu, R. (2009). A critical approach to on-

line dictionaries – problems and solutions. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2nd ROASS Conference, pages 565–

574.

Burke, S. M. (1998). The Design of Online Lexicons. Mas-

ter’s thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

https://interglacial.com/ sburke/ma/.

Coward, D. F. and Grimes, C. E. (1995). Making dictionar-

ies: a guide to lexicography and the Multi-Dictionary

Formatter (Version 1.0). Summer Institute of Linguis-

tics, Waxhaw.

Dash, N. S. (2005). The art of lexicography.

https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/C04/E6-

91-16.pdf.

de Schryver, G. (2003). Lexicographers’ Dreams in the

Electronic-Dictionary Age. International Journal of

Lexicography, 16(2):143–199.

de Sousa, J. M. (2009). Manual basico de lex-

icographia. Ediciones Trea, S. L., Gij

on.

https://pdfcoffee.com/qdownload/martinez-de-sousa-

manual-basico-de-lexicograﬁapdf-5-pdf-free.html.

Devel, L. A. and Kovalchuk, O. S. (2016). Electronic mul-

tilingual terminological dictionary (EMTD) for busi-

ness and professional foreign language teaching and

learning. Bulletin of PNRPU. Issues in Linguistics and

Peadagogics, 4:162–169.

Gibbon, D. (2007). How to make a dictionary: The

architecture of a dictionary. http://web.archive.

org/web/20120915231409/http://wwwhomes.

uni-bielefeld.de/gibbon/Classes/Classes2007WS/

HTMD/htmd03-architecture-v01.pdf.

Hartmann, R. R. K. (1983). The bilingual learner’s dictio-

nary and its uses. Multilingua, 2(4):195–202.

Hartmann, R. R. K. (1992). Lexicography, with particular

reference to english learners’ dictionaries. Language

Teaching, 25(3):151–159.

Hartmann, R. R. K. (2009). Dictionaries Today: What Can

We Do With Them?

Hausmann, F. J. (1976). Ist das franz

osische -ant- adjek-

tiv verbaladjektiv?: Wissenschaftliche und didaktis-

che beschreibung. Folia Linguistica, 9(1-4):175–196.

Hausmann, F. J. (1984). Das erste franz

osisch-deutsche

orterbuch Levinus Hulsius’ Dictionaire von 1596-

1607. Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, 100(3-

4):306–320.

Hausmann, F. J. (2007). The collocation in the framework

of phraseology - Systematic and historical presenta-

tion (Die kollokationen im rahmen der phraseologie -

Systematische und historische darstellung). Zeitschrift

fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55(3):217–234.

Heid, U., Prinsloo, D. J., and Bothma, T. J. (2012). Dictio-

nary and corpus data in a common portal: state of the

art and requirements for the future. Lexicographica,

28(2012):269–292.

Islam, S. and Purkayastha, B. S. (2015). Development of

multilingual assamese electronic dictionary. Interna-

tional Journal of Computer Science and Information

Technologies, 6(6):5446–5452. http://ijcsit.com/docs/

Volume%206/vol6issue06/ijcsit20150606131.pdf.

Jackson, H. (2003). Lexicography: An Intro-

duction. Routledge, London and New

York. https://nubip.edu.ua/sites/default/ﬁles/u5/

1jackson

howard lexicography an introduction.pdf.

Kazhan, Y. M., Hamaniuk, V. A., Amelina, S. M.,

Tarasenko, R. O., and Tolmachev, S. T. (2020). The

use of mobile applications and Web 2.0 interactive

tools for students’ german-language lexical compe-

tence improvement. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2643:392–415.

Kosem, I., Lew, R., M

uller-Spitzer, C., Silveira, M. R.,

Wolfer, S., Dorn, A., Gurrutxaga, A., Ceberio,

K., Etxeberria, E., Lefer, M.-A., Geeraerts, D.,

Despot, K., Stojanov, T., Ljube

c, N.,

Skrabal,

M.,

ankov

a, B., Vodr

zkov

a, V., Lorentzen, H.,

Trap-Jensen, L., Kallas, J., Tuulik, M., Koppel, K.,

Langemets, M., Heinonen, T., Thomas, I., Margili-

tadze, T., Markantonatou, S., Giouli, V., Mulhall,

C., Kernerman, I., Ben-Moshe, Y., Sadan, T., Abel,

A., Curcio, M. N., Tanturovska, L., Nikovska, B.,

Tiberius, C., Grønvik, O., Hovdenak, M., Berg-Olsen,

S., Karlsen, K. E., Ore, C.-E. S., Biesaga, M., Kuhn,

The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation

329

T. Z., Silvestre, J., Tamba, E., Haja, G., Clim, M.-R.,

Patrascu, M.-I., Tasovac, T., Petrovi

c, S., Holdt,

S. A.,

Riveiro, C. V., V

azquez, M. J. D., Volodina, E., Pil

an,

I., Sk

oldberg, E., Holmer, L., and Nesi, H. (2019).

The Image of the Monolingual Dictionary Across Eu-

rope. Results of the European Survey of Dictionary

use and Culture. International Journal of Lexicogra-

phy, 32(1):92–114.

Kudashev, Y. S. (2007). Proektirovanie perevod

ceskih slo-

varej special’noj leksiki (Designing LSP Dictionar-

ies for Translators), volume 3 of Helsinki Univer-

sity Translation Studies. Helsinki University Print,

Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.ﬁ/bitstream/handle/

10138/19272/proektir.pdf.

Kwary, D. A. (2011). Towards a Typology of Deﬁnitions for

LSP Dictionaries. Journal of English Studies, 9:55–

73.

Landau, S. I. (2001). Dictionaries: the art and craft of lexi-

cography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2

edition.

Leffa, V. J. (1992a). Making foreign language texts compre-

hensible for beginners: An experiment with an elec-

tronic glossary. System, 20(1):63–73.

Leffa, V. J. (1992b). Reading with an electronic glossary.

Computers and Education, 19(3):285–290.

uller-Spitzer, C. (2014). Textual structures in electronic

dictionaries compared with printed dictionaries :

a short general survey. In Dictionaries : an in-

ternational encyclopedia of lexicography ; Suppl.,

pages 367 – 381. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin [u.a.].

https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-

17097.

uller-Spitzer, C., V

azquez, M., Curcio, M. N., Dias, I.

M. S., and Wolfer, S. (2018). Correct hypotheses

and careful reading are essential: Results of an obser-

vational study on learners using online language re-

sources. Lexikos, 28:287–315.

uller-Spitzer, C., Wolfer, S., and Koplenig, A. (2015).

Observing online dictionary users: Studies using wik-

tionary log ﬁles. International Journal of Lexicogra-

phy, 28(1):1–26.

Nesi, H. (1999). A user’s guide to electronic dictionaries

for language learners. International Journal of Lexi-

cography, 12(1):55–66.

Nesi, H. (2000). Electronic dictionaries in second language

vocabulary comprehension and acquisition: The state

of art. In Heid, U., Evert, S., Lehmann, E., and Rohrer,

C., editors, IX EURALEX International Conference,

pages 839–847, Stuttgart.

Nesi, H. (2013). Alternative e-dictionaries: Uncovering

dark practices.

Nesi, H. (2014). Dictionary use by english language learn-

ers. Language Teaching, 47(1):38–55.

Nimb, S., Hartvig Sørensen, N., and Lorentzen, H. (2020).

Updating the dictionary: Semantic change identiﬁca-

tion based on change in bigrams over time (Posodabl-

janje slovarja: Prepoznavanje semanti

cnih sprememb

na podlagi diahronih sprememb bigramov). Sloven-

scina 2.0, 8(2):112–138.

Oettinger, A. G., Foust, W., Giuliano, V., Magassy, K.,

and Matejka, L. (1959). Linguistic and machine

methods for compiling and updating the harvard au-

tomatic dictionary. In Proceedings of the Inter-

national Conference on Scientiﬁc Information, vol-

ume 2, pages 951–974. The National Academic Press.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10866/chapter/64.

Pedersen, B. S., Nimb, S., Asmussen, J., Sørensen, N. H.,

Trap-Jensen, L., and Lorentzen, H. (2009). Dannet:

The challenge of compiling a WordNet for Danish

by reusing a monolingual dictionary. Language Re-

sources and Evaluation, 43(3):269–299.

Rehm, G., Marheinecke, K., Hegele, S., Piperidis, S.,

Bontcheva, K., Haji, J., Choukri, K., Vasijevs, A.,

Backfried, G., Prinz, C., P

erez, J. M. G., Meertens, L.,

Lukowicz, P., van Genabith, J., L

osch, A., Slusallek,

P., Irgens, M., Gatellier, P., K

ohler, J., Le Bars, L.,

Anastasiou, D., Auksorit, A., Bel, N., Branco, A.,

Budin, G., Daelemans, W., de Smedt, K., Garab

ık, R.,

Gavriilidou, M., Gromann, D., Koeva, S., Krek, S.,

Krstev, C., Lind

en, K., Magnini, B., Odijk, J., Ogrod-

niczuk, M., R

ognvaldsson, E., Rosner, M., Pedersen,

B., Skadia, I., Tadi, M., Tuﬁ, D., V

aradi, T., Vider, K.,

Way, A., and Yvon, F. (2020). The european language

technology landscape in 2020: Language-centric and

human-centric ai for cross-cultural communication in

multilingual europe. In LREC 2020 - 12th Interna-

tional Conference on Language Resources and Evalu-

ation, Conference Proceedings, pages 3322–3332.

Rylova, A. (2010). Electronic dictionary and dic-

tionary writing system: how this duo works

for dictionary users’ needs (Abbyy Lingvo

and Abbyy Lingvo Context Case). In Pro-

ceedings of EURALEX, pages 463–467.

https://euralex.org/elx proceedings/Euralex2010/

030 Euralex 2010 1 RYLOVA Electronic%

20Dictionary%20and%20Dictionary%20Writing%

20System how%20this%20duo%20works%20for%

20dictionary%20users%20ne.pdf.

Sangeorzan, L., Burada, M., and Iakab, K. K. (2008).

Designing a text parsing programme for a spe-

cialized bilingual online dictionary. In Mas-

torakis, N. E., Demiralp, M., Mladenov, V.,

and Bojkovic, Z., editors, New Aspects of Ap-

plied Informatics and Communications, pages

110–114. WSEAS Press. http://www.wseas.us/e-

library/conferences/2008/rhodes/aic/aic17.pdf.

Sperberg-McQueen, C. M. and Burnard, L., editors (2004).

Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Inter-

change. https://tei-c.org/Vault/P4/doc/html/TE.html.

Sternyn, Y. A. (2007). Kontrastyvnye yssledovanye y

kontrastyvnye slovary (Contrastive research and con-

trastive dictionaries). Voronezhskyi hosudarstvennyi

unyversytet, Voronezh.

Stevenson, A. and Waite, M., editors (2011). Concise Ox-

ford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Ox-

ford, 12 edition.

Tarasenko, R. O., Amelina, S. M., Semerikov, S. O., and

Shynkaruk, V. D. (2021). Using interactive seman-

tic networks as an augmented reality element in au-

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

330

tonomous learning. Journal of Physics: Conference

Series, 1946(1):012023.

Toman, J. and Michalik, P. (2013). Possibilities of

implementing practical teaching in distance educa-

tion. International Journal of Modern Education,

2(4):77–83. https://issuu.com/sep2011–now/docs/1-

ijmef5489- 77-83 .

Vakaliuk, T. and Chernysh, O. (2020). The compilation of

a multilingual terminological dictionary as a means of

students’ professional and lexical competence devel-

opment. Innovative Educational Technologies, Tools

and Methods for E-learning. Seria on E-learning,

12:113–125.

Verbinenko, J. I. (1). Multilingual terminological dictionary

in the context of a national terminology system forma-

tion. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National

University. Series “Philology”, (73):162–166. https:

//periodicals.karazin.ua/philology/article/view/5709.

Weschler, R. and Pitts, C. (2000). An Exper-

iment Using Electronic Dictionaries with EFL

Students. The Internet TESL Journal, VI(8).

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-ElectroDict.html.

Winkler, B. (2001). Students working with an En-

glish learners’ dictionary on CD-ROM. In ELT

Perspectives on Information Technology & Multi-

media: Selected Papers from the ITMELT 2001

Conference (Hong Kong, June 1-2, 2001), volume

2433, pages 227–254. Hong Kong, The English Lan-

guage Centre, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-

sity. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED459601.

Wright, S., Fugett, A., and Caputa, F. (2013). Using e-

readers and internet resources to support comprehen-

sion. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1):367–

379.

Wright, T. and Cervetti, G. (2017). A systematic review

of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts

text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,

52(2):203–226.

Zavarueva, Y. Y. (2020). Ob odnoi vozmozhnoi klassy-

fykatsyy ellektronnykh slovarei (One possible classi-

ﬁcation of electronic dictionaries). Visn. Khark. nats.

un-tu imeni V.N. Karazina. Ser.: Filolohiia, 765:67–

70.

Cerm

ak, F. (2010). Notes on compiling a corpus-based dic-

tionary. Lexikos, 20.

Cerm

ak, F. and Blatn

a, R. (2008). Manu

al lexicographie.

H&H, Praha.

The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation

331