Introduction

In a series of earlier publications (Adamska-Sałaciak 2010, 2015; Lew and Adamska-Sałaciak 2015; Adamska-Sałaciak and Kernerman 2016), detailed arguments have been presented demonstrating the need for bilingual learners’ dictionaries (henceforth BLDs), geared specifically to the needs of learners whose proficiency in the foreign language varies from beginner to upper intermediate. In what follows, the fact that (properly constructed) BLDs constitute an invaluable aid in foreign/second language learning and teaching will therefore be taken for granted.

BLDs on the spectrum of lexicographic genres

Metalexicographic literature abounds in dictionary typologies (e.g., Geeraerts 1984; Hannay 2003; Hartmann 2005; Landau 1984; Malkiel 1967; Rey 1970; Sebeok 1962; Swanepoel 2003). While some seem more convincing than others, all suffer from a number of deficiencies. They are either not inclusive enough (i.e., do not cover the whole spectrum of dictionaries), not sharp enough (i.e., do not distinguish between ‘adjacent’ types on the spectrum), not elegant enough (i.e., employ a variety of criteria, so that the resulting typology suffers from a lot of overlap), or all of the above. This is less the fault of the authors than of the subject matter itself: the world of dictionaries is simply too varied and multifaceted for a neat, convincing classification to be possible, one based on no more than a couple of judiciously chosen criteria.

Some authors (e.g., Rundell 2012) do not see this as a problem, claiming that an exhaustive typology is hardly a priority at a time when dictionary types are all merging in the digital medium anyway. Nonetheless, when discussing a specific, relatively new dictionary genre, it seems fitting to try and relate it to other, more firmly established varieties.

Class versus type

In an attempt to establish the place of BLDs among other dictionaries, let us start with the beginning and turn to the earliest dictionary typology in Europe. Its author, Lev Ščerba (1940), proposed the following six dichotomies:

• – academic vs informative;

• – encyclopedic vs general;

• – concordance vs ordinary;

• – ordinary vs ideological;

• – explanatory vs translational;

• – non-historical vs historical.

Not surprisingly, the above is not of much help – after all, BLDs in the form advocated here did not exist at the time Ščerba wrote his essay.