Folk defining in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries

Shĭzhòu Piān
(probably an 
effort of orthographic standardisation from the late ninth and early eighth centuries BC), the 
Cāngjié Piān
(a character manual first compiled in the third century BC), and the 
Jíjiù Piān
(a 
thematically sorted vocabulary list created in the second half of the first century BC). It was 
common for said manuals to rely on rhyming phrases, potentially for mnemotechnic purposes. 
The missing link between these early manuals and dictionaries as we know them today is found 
in early collections of glosses and synonyms. These include the 
Ěryă
, traditionally referred to 
as the oldest Chinese dictionary. This work contains a number of glosses, scholia, and texts 
written between the fifth and the first centuries BC, ultimately compiled during the first century 
BC. This was also the time when the 
Fāngyán
, a compilation of regional lexical items, came 
into existence. Approximately a century later we find the 
Shìmíng
, which provides a presumably 
etymological explanation for some 1,500 words. These tend to be semantically linked into 
thematic sections based on their homophony. Ultimately, Bottéro identifies two lexicographic 
works which ‘can uncontroversially be called dictionaries’—the 
Shuōwén Jiĕzì
(c. AD 100) and 
the 
Yùpiān
(AD 543). A basic characteristic already found in the former—and which appears 
to be crucial for a compilation to be regarded as a dictionary proper—is that ‘all the characters 
included in the work were presented according to a new system of classification invented by 
the author’ (p. 59). This reminds us of modern lexicography, in which proactive awareness is 
key to creating any given piece. This appears to be in contrast with previous works, which were 
typically limited to the compilation of pre-existing materials by relying on scarce structural or 
content-related criteria. 

---

4 
In ‘Ancient India,’ Lata Mahesh Deokar indicates that Sanskrit lexicography starts with 
the ‘sacred texts of the Brahmanical tradition such as the 
Ṛgveda
(c. 1500 BC), the earliest 
extant Indian literature’ (p. 67). It was considered essential for the words to be pronounced 
correctly, which explains the emergence of several methods of recitation (e.g. 
saṁhitāpāṭha
‘continuous recitation,’ 
padapāṭha
‘word-by-word recitation’). The Brāhmaṇa texts provide 
semantic clarification on usual words found in the Vedic hymns. 
Nighaṇṭus 
or wordlists are 
typically comprised of five sections (e.g. synonyms, homonyms, deities), each of which 
includes a list of 
paryāyavacanas
(lit. ‘convertible terms’), an umbrella term from the Sanskrit 
grammatical tradition which includes synonymic expressions, but also largely encompasses 
lexical items that may replace a specific term in the context of the Vedic hymns (e.g. deity-
designating epithets, such as 
-vákṣas 
‘gold-backed’ to refer to or replace 
bhūmi
‘Mother Earth’). 
Nighaṇṭus
were apparently taken quite seriously, as attested by the existence of related scholarly 
commentaries. A well-known example is found in Yāska’s 
Nirukta
(c. 500 BC), one of the first 
works which provides an explicit contrasting definition of the concepts of synonymity and 
homonymy. Also, Pāṇini included an appendix to his famous grammar of the Sanskrit language 
known as 
Aṣṭādhyāyī
, which encompasses 2,000 verbal roots and a list of nominal stems in 
connection with specific grammatical operations.
1
However, it is not until the creation of the 
Amarakośa
(c. 500 AD) that we encounter ‘the first classical Sanskrit lexicon which is extant 
in its entirety’ (p. 71), with only fragmentary works having survived between the 
Nirukta 
and 
the 
Amarakośa
. The chapter’s final sections are dedicated to the origin of lexicography as 
specifically applied to languages other than Sanskrit—namely, Pali
2
, Prakrit, and Tamil. 
Rolando Ferri tackles lexicography in the Greco-Roman world in the homonymous 
chapter. He emphasises the traditional distinction in the field between lexica (alphabetically 
sorted works) and glossaries (which tend to be sorted according to the order that they occupy 
in the text subject to commentary). Even though most fully preserved lexica date from the 
Byzantine period
3
, this tradition dates back to many centuries earlier (e.g. Alexandrian 
scholarship, from the third century BC onwards), since ‘later lexicographers tended to 
supersede earlier works and caused their disappearance’ (p. 84). According to the author, ‘the 
oldest type of lexicon must have been Homeric, either in the form of a list of select words no 
longer understandable for the student and glossed with a more modern equivalent, or in the 
form or a continuous word-for-word facing «translation» of a passage into more current Greek 
[
scholia minora
]’ (p. 85). Ferri then provides a highly illustrated sampler of Greek lexica, as he 
carefully describes the possible layouts and explains relevant examples of how lemmas from 
different language varieties
4
are approached. In ancient Rome, early lexicography also appears 
associated with educational purposes concerning specific works or authors (‘author glossaries’), 
with Verrius Flaccus’ 
De significatione uerborum
being the earliest extant lexicon in Rome. In 
comparison with previous fragmentary lexica, Flaccus’ work emphasises the role of etymology 
and detailed descriptions, as it establishes explicit criteria for the organisation and structuring 
of entries. It is in the Greco-Roman sphere that bilingual (esp. Latin-Greek) lexica eventually 
become highly prevalent, to the extent of eventually constituting ‘truly comprehensive 
inventories of one language or the other’ (p. 93). 
2.2.