Folk defining in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries

Part II. The Pre-Modern World 
This part covers the long period which spans from c. 500 to 1700 and—in some cases even—
well into the 1800s. This period is notably useful when it comes to explaining the ‘missing link’ 
between ancient and modern lexicographical practices. Many of the structural and content-
related concepts are retaken from Part I, which makes Part II an easy read in which the potential 
readership may no longer be seeking to understand how lexicography developed (cf. Part I), but 
rather the modifications applied thereto in the interest of new sociohistorical underpinnings 
(relevantly enough, said underpinnings are more broadly known to us, based on enhanced 

---

5 
degrees of documentary preservation). Most chapters demonstrate logical continuity from Part 
I, since they build on previously reviewed concepts. Overall, chapters in Part II demonstrate 
how lexicography eventually becomes better established within philological scholarship. 
Nathan Vedal’s ‘China, c. 600–c. 1700’ leads the new part as it focuses on those 
dictionaries that constituted the three main types of lexicographic activity at the time—namely, 
rhyme dictionaries, dictionaries of script form, and glossing dictionaries. Overall, Chinese pre-
modern lexicography became more inclusive and precision-seeking, as it embraced regional 
varieties of the language (pp. 126–127), as well as the field of Buddhism and Sanskrit studies 
(pp. 127–128). Even though so-called ‘dictionaries of script’ could adopt multiple forms, most 
of these works ‘were characterized by an organizational system based in some way on the shape 
of written characters’ (p. 118). On the other hand, 
Ěryă
-style works were ‘glossing’ in nature, 
since they conveyed ‘the meaning of a term, rather than information about its pronunciation or 
written form’ (p. 124). Vedal underscores that, at the time, political factors seem to be playing 
a role in lexicographic production, with lexicography becoming paramount in entrance 
examinations aimed at governmental service candidates. In ‘The Chinese Periphery to c. 1800,’ 
Mårten Söderblom Saarela approaches the lexicographical production of ‘eastern Inner Asia, 
Japan, and Korea that were directly influenced by the Chinese tradition’ (p. 202). Although, 
from a thematic standpoint, this chapter might have benefitted from being located after the 
aforementioned one, a chronological criterion seems to have prevailed. Languages and cultures 
in the so-called ‘Chinese periphery’ greatly differ from each other; still, Chinese written culture 
was easily exported to these territories due to its influence and, partly, through Buddhism.
In the chapter ‘India and Tibet, c. 500–c.1750,’ Lata Mahesh Deokar builds on the 
previous chapter written for Part I, which makes this chapter highly effective in establishing 
cross-connections. However, the potential reader is also enabled to read this chapter in isolation, 
since Deokar makes sure to touch on and expand on the heritage of foundational concepts and 
works that had previously appeared in Part I (e.g. 
Amarakośa
, Prakrit, Pali). The chapter is 
carefully contextualised in terms of historical linguistics. It depicts Sanskrit lexicographers as 
increasingly more concerned about semantic nuances in words. An enlightening section is 
added which shows how the idiosyncrasy of the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist civilisation produces 
lexicographic works during the timeframe covered (pp. 145–148). An addition by Jean-Luc 
Chevillard sheds light on the development of the poetical/classical Tamil lexicographical 
tradition. 
Within the Semitic sphere, two insightful articles are found. On the one hand, in the 
chapter ‘Arabic to c. 1800,’ Ramzi Baalbaki presents a detailed classification of the semantic 
casuistry and phenomena which affect Arabic lexicography since the very beginning of the 
Islamic calendar (AD 622) until the 1800s. In early times, this is largely characterized by the 
influence of the Qur’ān. Baalbaki establishes a twofold classification of lexica, namely the