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
1
Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, 103 Chudnivsyka Str., Zhytomyr, 10005, Ukraine
2
Institute for Digitalisation of Education of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 9 M. Berlynskoho
Str., Kyiv, 04060, Ukraine
3
Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, 54 Gagarin Ave., Kryvyi Rih, 50086, Ukraine
4
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.
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6825-4697
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2010-200X
c
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
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
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;
M
¨
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;
M
¨
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) (
ˇ
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;
ˇ
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
register in the target languages Ukrainian, Russian,
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
register.
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
W
¨
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
ˇ
si
´
c, N.,
ˇ
Skrabal,
M.,
ˇ
St
ˇ
ep
´
ankov
´
a, B., Vodr
´
a
ˇ
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,
ˇ
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
ˇ
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.
M
¨
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.
M
¨
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.
M
¨
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
ˇ
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.
ˇ
Cerm
´
ak, F. (2010). Notes on compiling a corpus-based dic-
tionary. Lexikos, 20.
ˇ
Cerm
´
ak, F. and Blatn
´
a, R. (2008). Manu
´
al lexicographie.
H&H, Praha.
The Algorithm of Electronic Multilingual Terminological Dictionary Compilation
331