## Henning Bergenholtz* & Mia Johnsen*

## Log Files as a Tool for Improving Internet Dictionaries

## Abstract

In their advertisements, dictionary publishers often praise their dictionaries for taking into account the exact needs of the users. Until the beginning of the 1980s, however, no theoretical contributions on dictionary use were available, neither in the form of purely  theoretical  considerations  nor  in  the  form  of  empirical  research.  Since  then, the situation has changed completely. Such a large number of user surveys have been carried out that it is no longer possible to give a complete overview. Nevertheless, this has led to no signifi  cant improvement of the situation as the majority of these surveys are not related to concrete examples of dictionary use. The surveys, which have always been concerned with printed dictionaries, have therefore not contributed to substantial improvements of dictionary conception.

In the case of internet dictionaries, on the other hand, technical possibilities enable lexicographers to monitor user behaviour in a different and much more precise way. Analyses  of  log  fi  les  reveal  exactly  which  lemmas  and  which  types  of  information have been requested, and, perhaps more signifi  cantly, which lemmas and which types of information have been requested but were not found in the dictionary. Furthermore, log fi  les allow lexicographers to see the types of information which have not, or not yet, been searched for. All in all, log fi  les may thus be used as a tool for improving internet dictionaries - and perhaps also printed dictionaries - quite considerably.

## 1. Internet Dictionaries only?

As  new  tools  are  invented,  old  tools  become  obsolete.  This  process has been described in relation to electronic dictionaries vs. paper dictio  naries  (Simonsen  2000  with  references  to  other  scholars).  We  are not convinced, however; on the contrary, we are certain that paper dictio  naries will remain a popular tool for at least the next two or three

* Henning Bergenholtz Centre for Lexicography Aarhus School of Business Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK - 8210 Aarhus V hb@asb.dk

* Mia Johnsen Centre for Lexicography Aarhus School of Business Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK - 8210 Aarhus V miajohnsen\_1@hotmail.com

Hermes, Journal of Linguistics no 34-2005

117

centuries (Bergenholtz 1996). Already now, CD-ROM dictionaries and even DVD dictionaries have had their time and will only be known by the next generation as a lexicographical medium that is no longer used. We believe that internet dictionaries, on the other hand, will have a much longer life. We are convinced, too, that the next 20-30 years will see not only internet dictionaries free of charge, most of them of quite  low  quality,  but  also  really  high  quality  dictionaries  for  which the  user  can  pay  monthly,  yearly  or  pay  per  view.  But  we  will  still have printed dictionaries, especially those that comprise only one or two volumes. It is more doubtful whether we will have multi-volume printed  dictionaries  and  encyclopaedias  as  they  are  too  expensive  in relation to the limited number of years in which they will be up to date. Here, the internet dictionaries and encyclopaedias will offer a version that is updated daily, and the user is not compelled to search for answers in several different volumes if he has different questions and a limited amount of time at his disposal. But for the smaller dictionaries, there is  no doubt that there is a demand for paper and internet versions of the same dictionary. We have recently made this experience with the free internet dictionary THE DANISH-ENGLISH DICTIONARY OF ACCOUNTING (http://www.regnskabsordbogen.dk/iasdk).  This  dictionary  has  been avail  able since August 2003, but very soon after the release there were so many requests from the users for a paper version that a publishing com  pany asked for the possibility of publishing such a paper version (DICTIONARY OF ACCOUNTING DANISH-ENGLISH 2004).

In  this  paper,  we  are  dealing  with  the  use  of  internet  dictiona  ries, more specifi  cally with THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY (http://www.netordbog.asb.dk), which has been available on the internet since April 2002.

## 2. User Surveys in Theory and Practice

Dictionaries are utility products. They are tools designed to help a poten  tial dictionary user solve problems with producing, comprehending or translating a text and to provide cultural, encyclopaedic or linguistic knowl  edge. The function of a given dictionary is to provide assistance to a specifi  c user group with specifi  c characteristics in order to meet the complex needs that arise in a specifi  c type of user situation. A con  crete dic  tionary can have one or more functions, i.e. it can be mono or multi- functional. As any other utility product, dictionaries also have a genuine pur  pose. This genuine purpose comprises the totality of functions of a given dictionary and the subject fi  eld(s) that it covers (Bergenholtz/Tarp 2003). References to users and their needs have been made in dictionary prefaces and other lexicographic contributions for centuries. There is nothing new in that. It is therefore rather a paradox that the German lexicographer, Wiegand (1977), was right in his conclusion that the dictionary user is the 'known unknown'. Similarly, 25 years later, the dictionary user was referred to as a yeti (Bergenholtz 2002). This does not mean that no research has been carried out on dictionary use yet - on the contrary. From 1985 until today, so many monographs, editions and papers in journals have been published that it is diffi  cult or even impossible to get a complete overview. When Bergenholtz (2002) insists on the comparison between the dictionary user and a yeti, he does not mean that no one has made fatiguing expeditions. Rather, Bergenholtz (2002) argues that, in reality, the main part of the research on dictionary use has only found unclear tracks of the dictionary user. We can add that the big majority of the investigations have not made clear why they want to fi  nd out how users use a dictionary. Perhaps it is too evident for those scholars that knowledge about user habits leads to better dictionary conceptions, which, in the end, leads to better and more helpful dictionaries. There could be another, but naturally related, goal: It is indeed interesting to know about the dictionary users' habits and experiences with different dictionaries. It is a goal sui generic, and, at the same time, it could be a contribution to dictionary criticism of a single dictionary or a set of dictionaries.

A  distinction  exists  between  two  kinds  of  investigation.  The  fi  rst one is the criticized type - and the most practiced kind - and is undertaken  without  a  direct  relation  to  a  concrete  dictionary  use.  In  such ques  tion  naire  surveys ,  the  same  methods  are  employed  as  in  other forms of  market  analysis:  a  number  of  standard  questions  are  asked of  a  selected  sample  concerning  a  certain  product  or  behaviour,  e.g. Atkins (1998). However, the answers from the informants do not necessa  rily  refl  ect  a  real  genuine  user  situation.  It  cannot  be  ruled  out that  the  problems,  behaviour,  etc.  described  by  the  informants  dif  fer from their real problems. The questions asked have to do with fut  ure activities, as in 'Under which headword would you look for the following collocations?', or with past activities: 'Which types of information do you look for most often?'. There is no guarantee that the answers cor  re  spond to why and how the informants really have used or will use dictionaries. Such surveys are quite problematic because they pre  suppose that the informants remember exactly how they have used dictionaries in the past and that they are able to predict how they will do it in the future. And as far as we can see, none of the surveys meet the normal requirements of representativity, e.g. it is very often students only, and the informants are not selected in accordance with the principles applied in the social sciences.

More realistic are the so-called dictionary protocols written by select  ed dictionary users directly after each dictionary use. They are more realistic  because  they  refer  to  authentic  user  situations. The  prob  lem leading to the dictionary use is still clearly remembered by the informants, they can describe the result of the looking up and the way they used the dictionary items, also how they found the wanted pieces of infor  mation  or  that  they  did  not  fi  nd  an  item  which  enabled  them  to solve the problem. In practice, however, such protocols are insuffi  cient; com  pare the results from some of the investigations of this kind:

- Wiegand (1985) asked foreign students (in Germany) with another native language than German to translate a text from their mother tongue into German. They were allowed to use any bilingual dictionary. He did not ask the informants to write a protocol from this part of  the  translation.  He  asked  the  students  to  improve  the  German trans  lation  by  using  a  monolingual  German  dictionary.  Each  time they encountered a problematic word or text part, the students were to describe the problem in the protocol, use a dictionary, correct the text and write down in the protocol what they had found or not found in the dictionary, and how they had used it. The results were quite interest  ing, but in the end not typical because the really interesting aspect of dictionary use, the translation phase, was ignored. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether a small number of language students is representative of other students or all other kinds of users.
- Another attempt was undertaken by Danish libraries. Next to the shelves with dictionaries, the dictionary user would fi  nd a question  naire to be fi  lled out after each use of a dictionary. The investigation was part of a ministerial report on the need for additional or different dic  tionaries in Denmark (Vilkår 1982). After a year, however, the mi  ni  stry

had received only some fi  fty replies, most of them very impre  cise.

All those investigations concern printed dictionaries, but in principle, questionnaire surveys are also valid for internet dictionaries or other electronic  dictionaries.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  any  dictionary protocols  regarding  internet  dictionaries.  Other  possibilities  exist  for internet dictionaries, however. With a log fi  le, you can track every single use of the dictionary, depending, of course, on the search possibilities. If  it  is  only  possible  to  search  for  the  lemma,  only  data  for  the  fi  rst access  step  in  the  dictionary  will  be  available.  Which  lemmas  have been  looked  up  how  often?  Which  lemmas  have  never  been  looked up at all? And which words have been used in the search fi  eld without result, i.e. how many and which lemma lacunas does the dictionary use indicate? It is this kind of user investigation that we will describe in the following section. It is possible, however - if there is direct access to every dictionary item class (or fi  eld) - to get exact data for the use of the semantic item, the grammar item, the collocation item, etc. As far as we know, the use of such exact log fi  les has not yet been described. Obviously,  such  log  fi  les  do  not  reveal  exactly  the  kind  of  problem which the user had; they do not reveal whether the user did indeed fi  nd the information to fulfi  l his needs. This could only be done by using a kind of dictionary protocol, e.g. if some of the users were asked to or made to fi  ll out a questionnaire after every use of the dictionary (this could function technically if the user is not allowed to use the dictionary for free unless he fi  lls out such a questionnaire). This possibility has not yet been practiced either, at least not as far as we know.

Several other interesting investigations may be carried out, too: In which  way  does  the  use  of  internet  dictionaries  differ  from  the  use of paper dictionaries? Do we have user groups who never used paper dictionaries  but  now  use  internet  dictionaries?  To  which  extent  do internet  dictionaries  function  as  lexicotainment  dictionaries,  i.e.  only for entertainment? Does the use of paper dictionaries decrease? Or - as we believe - does the total use of dictionaries as a helping aid in connection with communicative and knowledge-related questions increase? All this will not be discussed in this paper, but it is certainly a relevant topic for further contributions. In this paper, we will analyse log fi  les from THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY. It is a Danish monolingual dictionary  with  108,000  dictionary  entries  and  a  total  of  126,000

different  'records',  i.e.  the  dictionary  contains  18,000  subentries  for polysemy. The genuine purpose of the dictionary is to help users with Danish as their mother tongue or with a good knowledge of Danish when encountering problems in a text production process and looking for help in the dictionary. The results will be used for decisions in the ongoing (and never-ending) work of improving dictionaries - not only this single internet dictionary but also other monolingual and even bilingual dic  tionaries and printed dictionaries, too, at least to some extent.

There are only a few published scholarly descriptions of internet dictionary log fi  les. The most interesting contribution from de Schryver/ Joffe (2004) describes the log fi  le for a South-African bi  lin  gual dictionary, a Sesotho sa Leboa-English dictionary. The number of visitors and the number of lookups is not very high: 21,337 lookups made by 2,530 different visitors. De Schryver/Joffe write that the dictionary is partly used as a lexicotainment dictionary with no less than 17 sexually related words in the top 100 list. The most frequently requested words in both languages are greeting routine formulas like hello, good morn  ing, goodbye , resp. dumêla, thôbêla and sepela . The users also look for nonexisting words, especially for misspellings, but not as often as would be expected, e.g. there is only one misspelling in the top 100 list. Furthermore, they describe emails from the users, most of them thanking the dictionary makers for the free dictionary. De Schryver/Joffe (2004) fail to mention one very interesting point: With 28,000 English lemmas and 25,000 Sesotho sa Leboa lemmas, the users cannot have looked up all lem  mas  (with  only  21,337  lookups).  It  would  be  most  interesting  to know which types of words are not looked up: Is about 90% or 80% of the dictionary never used at all? The very limited number of lookups indicates that no more than 40-50% of the dictionary is actually being used. Will all lemmas in the dictionary be looked up in time when the dictionary has had many more users? Or are there some lemmas that will never be looked up? If future dictionary makers knew the answers to those ques  tions, they would not have to waste time describing words of no interest to the users.

## 3. How Frequently Are Internet Dictionaries Used?

To determine how frequently internet dictionaries are used in practice, it may be useful to look at a number of specifi  c internet dictionaries that carry statistics of the search frequency. Unfortunately, only a limited num  ber of internet dictionaries make such information available on the web site, and it has therefore not been possible to carry out a systematic analysis of e.g. the 10 most commonly used online dictionaries according to the Danish telecommunications provider, TDC (see below).

An example of a dictionary that does allow the user to access informa  tion on the search frequency is the German-French dictionary, ALLGEMEINES WÖRTERBUCH DEUTSCH-FRANZÖSISCH (http://site.ifrance.com/ allinfor/dico/index.htm).  According to the counter on the web site, 262,768 searches have been performed since 20 October 2002, which results in an average of approximately 380 searches per day. A French-Swedish online dic  tio  nary (FRANSK-SVENSKT LEXIKON; http://www.azoria.com/lexikon/ indexsw.shtml) contains statistics of the number of searches per month for  the  last  year,  a  total  of  1,199,122  searches.  Thus,  approximately 3,406 searches are performed daily. Interestingly, however, the number of  searches  is  lower  at  the  end  of  the  period  in  question  than  at  the begin  ning. This may be contrasted with the search frequency of two other  internet  dictionaries,  the  German-English-German  dictionary QUICKDIC (http://quickdic.org/index\_d.html) and the above-mentioned SESOTHO  SA  LEBOA  (NORTHERN  SOTHO)  -  ENGLISH  DICTIONARY (http:// african  languages.com/sdp/). The latter does not provide a counter on the web site, but an article on the dictionary in which statistics on the search frequency are included appeared in the EURALEX Proceedings 2004 (de Schryver/Joffe 2004). The statistics of QUICKDIC show an increase in the number of searches from less than 20,000 in 1997 to almost 100,000 in 2001, and the same trend appears from the Sesotho sa Leboa-English dictionary, which was launched in 2003. This dictionary had a frequency of 1,308 searches in the fi  rst month, and 6 months after the release, this number had grown to 3,673 with numbers varying from just over 2,000 to al  most 6,000 in the months in between.

As the following sections of this article will focus on the most common  ly used Danish online dictionary 1 , THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY (http://www.netordbog.asb.dk), it may be interesting to examine whether this dictionary also shows an increase in search frequency. According to the statistics, an average of 1,631 searches were performed daily in the fi  rst period of 2003, whereas the following period of 2004 showed an increase to 2,520 searches per day. The follow  ing section will elaborate further on these fi  gures, but it is clear that this dictionary, too, is used more frequently now than 6 months ago.

1  According to statistics made by the Danish telecommunications company, TDC (http://links.tdconline.dk/top.php?cid=2502&linktype=2)

Although it is diffi  cult to make any fi  nal conclusions on the basis of statistics from randomly selected dictionaries, the trend seems to be that internet dictionaries in general are used ever more frequently. As mentioned above, the Danish telecommunications provider, TDC, carries  daily  statistics  of  the  10  most  used  internet  dictionaries  on  their web site. Previously, TDC also carried a list of the 50 most used internet dic  tion  aries, but this list is no longer available. From the top 10 list, it appears that THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY is number one in the vast ma  jor  ity of cases, e.g. on the very recent list from 29 September 2004 where  it  is  followed  by  ON-LINE  DICTIONARIES,  RETSKRIVNINGSORDBOG, CAMBRIDGE, EURODICAUTOM, BRITANNICA.COM, IT-LEKSIKON, SVENSKA AKADEMIENS ORDBOK, ORDBØGER - GYLDENDAL and WORTSCHATZ DEUTSCH. Unfortunately, the only one of these dictionaries for which sta  tistical information  is  available  is  THE  DANISH  INTERNET  DICTIONARY,  and  we therefore  contacted  TDC  in  order  to  determine  what  they  base  this top 10 list on and how many users are involved as regards the other dictionaries appearing on the list. However, no one at TDC knew anything about this top 10 list, and we have therefore not been able to determine how it is compiled. Nevertheless, it is still of interest to this article that THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY appears so frequently at the top of the list as it indicates the wide use of this dictionary.

Specifi  cally, THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY had the following contents on 3 August 2004 2 :

| total records:         |   126,416 |
|------------------------|-----------|
| dictionary articles :  |   108,016 |
| records with polysemy: |    18,395 |

We did not install a log fi  le system when THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY was first made available to the public in 2002. During the time in which a log fi  le system was in operation from 1 January 2003 to 3 August 2004, there was a period from June to September 2003 in which the log fi  le system was switched off for technical reasons. In total, we had  1,021,139  single  searches  on  456  logging  days.  Thus,  someone looks something up in the dictionary 2,239 times on average each day. We can see an increase in the number of searches over time: In 2003, the average number of searches was 1,631; in 2004 it increased to an average of 2,520. On the fi  rst four days of the week, between 4,000 and 4,500 searches are normally performed, and on Fridays, the number is about 3,500 searches. During school holidays and in weekends, between 1,000 and 1,500 searches are carried out. By a single search we mean every new article searched for, either by looking for a new lemma or by linking from one article to another (all items that are identical with lemmas in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY are also functioning links). The log fi  les also allow us to see if the user looked for a word and did not fi  nd it, a so-called lemma lacuna. In total, there are Some of the searches may be termed 'empty' because the user did not write anything in the search fi  eld before hitting the search button. They are not included in the statistics:

2    We wish to thank Richard Almind, who is responsible for the database used for THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY, for his help in preparing this paper. He prepared all the statistical data relating to the log fi  les. Without his help, we would not have been able to begin this research.

| searches: records 'found':   |   1,016,960 818,613 | (80.5%)   |
|------------------------------|---------------------|-----------|
| records 'not found':         |             198,347 | (19.5%)   |

```
'empty' records: 4,179
```

In this article, we do not include the number of unique users as it is not possible to distinguish between a single user and a unique user. In most cases, the unique user will be a single dictionary user, but this is not always the case, e.g. if a whole school uses the same identity number for all computers connected in a network.

The search string can be used to look for the lemma or for an infl  ected form with the lexeme represented by the lemma, or for only a part of the lemma. Most users try the 'traditional' way, i.e. looking directly for a lemma, but the other possibilities are used too:

| the lemma is:          |   859,682 |
|------------------------|-----------|
| the lemma begins with: |    78,126 |
| the lemma ends with:   |    17,119 |
| the lemma contains:    |    66,212 |

In total, the users have searched for 104,097 different orthographical forms found in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY. This fi  gure comprises about  35,000  different  lexemes  represented  by  a  lemma  (a  detailed discussion and explanation of this appears in section 4). In comparison to this, the number of searches for different orthographical forms not found  in  the  dictionary  is  higher;  more  specifi  cally,  116,066,  a  difference  of  12,000.  This  result  is  quite  thought-provoking  and  gives the dictionary makers behind the dictionary cause to a renewed lem  ma selec  tion, especially in the case of real lemma lacunas and of unsuccessful searches due to misspellings (more about that in section 4). It is obvious that misspellings account for almost all words in the top 100 list of searched, but not found, search strings. In the top 100 list of found words, a mixture of words from all word classes appears, com  pare the 10 words that have been looked up most frequently, e.g. gå (walk) 956 times, hest (horse) 703 times:

| gå (walk)    | ad (to)                 | hus (house)   | bil (car)   |
|--------------|-------------------------|---------------|-------------|
| hest (horse) | arbejde (work)          | finke (finch) |             |
| for (for)    | kompetence (competence) | tage (take)   |             |

As was the case in the log fi  les described by de Schryver/Joffe (2004), the number of searches for sexually related expressions on the top 100 list is quite high, e.g. pik (cock) is number 25, fi sse (cunt) is number 29. Such words are mainly looked for in the evening and during the night. Furthermore, the log fi  le enables us to follow individual users linking from one word to another, probably using the synonyms as links. Such use of a dictionary will hardly be due to communicative problems; the user knows the words and how to use them and is thus only in  terested in seeing how they are explained and what kind of exciting collocations they have. More closely related to the intended genuine purpose  of  THE  DANISH  INTERNET  DICTIONARY,  i.e.  helping  Danish  users solve text production problems, is the search for synonymous or almost synonymous expressions, e.g.

```
præliminær Æ indledende Æ indledningsvis (preliminary Æ initial Æ by way of introduction)
```

## 4. Concrete Searches

A  study  of  the  log  fi  le  from  THE  DANISH  INTERNET  DICTIONARY  also re  veals a number of specifi  c problems encountered by the users of the dic  tionary. These problems fall into different categories which will be dis  cussed in turn below.

## The Passive

At present, it is not possible to search for the passive form of verbs in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY. However, the log fi  le reveals that quite a large number of users actually attempt to do this: a search in the entire log fi  le (1,021,139 searches) for the error string es , i.e. notfounds that end in the letters es (one of the two most common passive end  ings in Danish, the other being -s ), returns a total of 4,141 hits. The vast majority of these are passive forms, probably between 3,000 and 3,500 of these searches. The top 100 list of not-founds also contains 5 passive forms, i.e. fås (is available) , nås (is reached) , fåes (is available) , nåes (is reached) and gennemgåes (is examined). In addition to this, the top 500 of not-founds contains a further 7 searches for passive forms, i.e. opnås (is achieved) , gåes (is walked) , foreslås (is suggested) , anses (is con  sider  ed) , forståes (is understood) and opnåes (is achieved).

In practically all of the above cases, the users have subsequently conducted a search for the infi  nitive of the word, but the examples none  theless show that many users are unsure of how to form the passive of certain words (with or without e , i.e. s or es ). Thus, it may be considered whe  ther it would be relevant to add the passive form in the dictionary to en  able the users to search for it in cases of doubt.

The majority of searches for passive forms concerns the present tense of the passive, but there are also examples of the past tense, e.g.

| hjælpedes (was helped) gaves (was given) agtedes (was intended) afbilledes (was depicted) tryggedes (was pushed, the correct spelling is trykkedes) prøvedes (was tried) standsedes (was stopped) fundes (was found) øgedes (was increased) passeredes (was passed) overdragedes (was handed over) konstateredes (was ascertained) anbefaledes (was recommended) påstodes (was claimed) nægtedes (was refused)   | rekrutteredes (was recruited) erindredes (was remembered) udrensedes (was cleansed) tegnedes (was drawn) koncentreredes (was concentrated) stakkedes (was stacked) gennemluftedes (was ventilated) dannedes (was formed) samledes (was gathered) noteredes (was noted) akkompagneredes (was accompanied) svaredes (was answered) udkrystalliseredes (was crystallized) forværredes (was made worse) implementeredes (was implemented)   | nåedes (was reached) udelukkedes (was excluded) ytredes (was said) domesticeredes (was domesticated) ynkedes (was pitied) frasagdes (was renounced) lykkedes (was successful) udfærdigedes (was issued) skingredes (was shrilled) normaliseredes (was normalized) fokuseredes (was focussed) planlagdes (was planned)   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Most  of  these  examples  are  grammatically  correct,  although  some are used less frequently than others (eg gaves, påstodes ), whereas yet others do not exist at all, e.g. hjælpedes and fundes . This illustrates that users may also be unsure of how to form the past tense of the passive as the correct form is not always evident. Consequently, this is another argu  ment for including the passive form in the dictionary.

## The Imperative

As is the case with the passive, it is presently not possible to search for imperative forms in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY. Among the 100 most  frequent  not-founds,  no  searches  for  imperative  forms  appear, whereas 15 searches are registered among the 500 most frequent notfounds, ie In some of these cases, however, it is impossible to determine for certain whether the user actually searched for the imperative, e.g. in the case of registrer (may also be a misspelling of the plural form of register (register), or registre (registers) and ærger (may also be a misspelling of ærgre (to annoy) or ærgrer (annoys).

| fortsæt (continue) søg (search) åbn (open) annuller (cancel)   | registrer (register) send (send) mob (bully) ærger (annoy)   | skrid (go away) husk (remember) gem (hide) beslut (decide)   | niv (pinch) scan (scan) order (order)   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

If  these two terms are viewed in the context of the entire log fi  le, however,  it  seems  most  likely  that  the  user  did  not  search  for  the infi  nitive  form  as  he  subsequently  searched  for register,  registre and ærgre, ærgrer . Even so, the examples mentioned indicate that there is a need among the users for being able to search for the imperative as the formation of it is not always as simple as it may seem.

A search  for  specifi  c  imperatives  in  the  log  fi  le  (other  than  those mentioned above) reveals that users have searched for vent (wait)  at 17 occasions, 11 times for fi nd (fi  nd) and lyt (listen),  respectively,  9 times for installer (install), 7 times for luk (close) and returner (return), respectively, and 6 times for afl  ever (hand over), angiv (state) and skriv (write),  respectively.  This  supports  the  assumption  that  it  would  be relevant to include the imperative form in the dictionary to enable users to search for it.

Some imperative forms, such as spis (eat), hør (hear) , drik (drink), sig (say), sabl (bill) ,  saboter (sabotage), sagtn (slacken), saliggør (save), saluter (salute), samkør (co-ordinate), køb (buy) ,  skub (push), træk (pull), kast (throw) and kør (drive), do not appear from the log fi  le at all, i.e. no searches have been performed for these words.

The  reference  book  HANDBOOK  OF  CONTEMPORARY  DANISH  lists  a number of imperative forms that may cause the user problems. A search for those words in the log fi  le yields the following results:

- -affjedr (spring): No hits, no hits on affjeder (alternative, though not correct, spelling) either
- -behandl (treat) : 4 hits, 2 hits on behandel (alternative, though not correct, spelling)
- -hamstr (hoard) : No hits
- -krydr (season) : 3 hits, no hits on krydder (alternative, though not correct, spelling)
- -pensl (paint): 2 hits
- -sagtn (slacken): No hits, no hits on sagten (alternative, though not correct, spelling) either

## 130

-  saml (collect): 2  hits,  1  hit  on sammel (alternative,  though  not correct, spelling)
- -smuldr (crumble): 2 hits, no hits on smulder (alternative, though not correct, spelling)
-  åbn (open): 23 hits

Clearly, the problem of not being able to search for imperative forms is not as widespread as the problem of the 'missing' passive forms. However, quite a number of examples do appear from the log fi  les, and it might therefore still be relevant to include this form in the dictionary for the reasons mentioned above.

## Dyslexia

Among the not-founds, a number of misspellings appear in which the problem seems to be reversal of letters.

Neither  the  top  100  of  most  frequent  not-founds,  nor  the  top  500 re  gister  any  examples  of  this  problem.  A  study  of  300  consecutive searches in a random place in the log fi  le  revealed  only  3  examples of the phenomenon, i.e. onanym instead of anonym (anonymous), akapo  lypse instead of apokalypse (apocalypse) and medmnidre instead of med  mindre (unless). Thus, the problem does not seem to be very common. Also, it is impossible to tell whether these misspellings are ac  tually due to dyslexia or whether they are simply typing errors.

## Spelling Mistakes Affected by Pronunciation

An extremely large proportion of the misspellings found in the log fi  le can be ascribed to users spelling the word as it is pronounced. Among the 100 most frequent not-founds, 8 examples appear, and a further 48 examples can be found among the 500 most frequent not-founds:

Top 100:

kompetance instead of kompetence (competence) seperat instead of separat (separate) hieraki instead of hierarki (hierarchy)

reperation instead of reparation (repair) ærgeligt instead of ærgerligt (unfortunate)

udemærket instead of udmærket (excellent) ærgelig instead of ærgerlig (unfortunate) hiraki instead of hierarki (hierarchy

## Top 500:

| statestik instead of statistik (statistics) parantes instead of parentes (paranthesis) osse instead of også (also) senarie instead of scenarie (scenario) irreterende instead of irriterende (annoying) pavilion instead of pavillon (pavilion) ekseptionel instead of exceptionel (exceptional) ærge instead of ærgre (annoy) hovedsaglig instead of hovedsagelig (mainly) kadence instead of kadance (cadence) disiplin instead of disciplin (discipline) intresse instead of interesse (interest) ærgelse instead of ærgrelse (annoyance) brilliant instead of brillant (brilliant) transperant instead of transparent (transparent)   | kotyme instead of kutyme (custom) ancinnitet instead of anciennitet (seniority) desideret instead of decideret (pronounced) ekvivalent instead of ækvivalent (equivalent) sattelit instead of satellit (satellite) bobbel instead of boble (bubble) trals instead of træls (annoying) ærger instead of ærgre (annoy) flematisk instead of flegmatisk (phlegmatic) misære instead of misere (misery) pressening instead of presenning (tarpaulin) præsis instead of præcis (exact) matriale instead of materiale (material) kambolage instead of karambolage (collision) presentere instead of præsentere (present) halvfjers instead of halvfjerds (seventy) revance instead of revanche (revenge)   | synagi instead of synergi (synergy) estetisk instead of æstetisk (aesthetic) rimlig instead of rimelig (reasonable) intresseret instead of interesseret (interested) intressant instead of interessant (interesting) apperat instead of apparat (device) referance instead of reference (reference) resonnement instead of ræsonnement (argument) dimmitend instead of dimittend (graduate) farisær instead of farisæer (Pharisee) gardarobe instead of garderobe (cloak room) ingenør instead of ingeniør (engineer) artikkel instead of artikel (article) singel instead of single (single) distret instead of distræt (absent-minded) pavilion instead of pavillon (pavilion)   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Consequently, these two lists alone show that the problem of mis  spellings  affected  by  pronunciation  is  the  reason  for  a  very  large  part  of the  non-successful  searches. A  study  of  200  consecutive  searches  in a random place in the log fi  le provides the same picture. 19 examples were found:

| fransbrød instead of franskbrød (white bread) senarie instead of scenarie (scenario) reperation instead of reparation (repair) kottelet instead of kotelet (chop) mæling instead of mægling (mediation)   | vanilie and vannilie instead of vanille (vanilla) premisser instead of præmisser (premisses) premisserne instead of præmisserne (the premisses) napolion instead of napoleon (Napoleon)   | parentes instead of parantes (paranthesis) pediatri instead of pædiatri (pediatrics) rensage instead of ransage (search) statestikker (twice) instead of statistikker (statistics) statestik (4 times) instead of statistik (statistics)   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

## One or Two Words?

Another common problem revealed by the log fi  le is whether a particular term should be written in one or two words. The top 100 and top 500 lists of most common not-founds contain the following examples:

## Top 100 (11 words):

| udfra (from) ud fra (from) iøvrigt instead of i øvrigt (besides, by the way) istedet instead of i stedet (instead) imorgen instead of i morgen (tomorrow)   | allesammen instead of alle sammen (everybody) fornylig instead of for nylig (recently) tilgengæld instead of til gengæld (in return) ovenikøbet instead of oven i købet (in addition, even)   | tilgode instead of til gode (owed, due) pånær instead of på nær (except)   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

## Top 500 (another 15 words):

| sålænge instead of så længe (in the meantime) såfald instead of så fald (that case) henimod instead of hen imod (towards) iorden instead of i orden (allright) tildels instead of til dels (partly) forsent instead of for sent (too late)   | istand instead of i stand (in order) ligemeget instead of lige meget (of no consequence) hvadenten instead of hvad enten (whether) så som instead of såsom (such as) foreksempel instead of for eksempel (for example)   | vedlige instead of ved lige (in good order) forøvrigt instead of for øvrigt (apart from this) her fra instead of herfra (from here) ud af (out of)   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The many examples among the 100 most common not-founds show that this issue is highly relevant. However, not quite as many occurrences are found among the 500 most common not-founds, and a study of 200

con  secutive searches in a random place in the log fi  le yields only 10 examples:

| holdspil (team play) (this is actually the correct spelling, but the word is not included in the dictionary - see also the section 'Lemma Lacuna' below) hold-spil   | hold spil lamme koteletter (twice) instead of lammekoteletter (lamb chops) fornylig instead of for nylig (recently) så som instead of såsom (such as)   | somregel instead of som regel (usually) ligemeget instead of lige meget (of no consequence   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The  above-mentioned  reference  book  HANDBOOK  OF  CONTEMPORARY DANISH contains a section that explains the use of one or more words, both  in  regard  to  compounds  and  prepositions.  Based  on  the  search results  from  the  log  fi  le,  it  may  be  relevant  to  include  similar  information on this issue in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY, e.g. under the head  ing 'Sprognormer' (linguistic norms).

## Non-existing Words

A study of the not-founds also reveals that a number of searches have been performed for words that are non-existing. The top 100 contains 4 such words, ie

bekræftigelse instead of bekræftelse (confi  rmation) omstændig instead of omstændelig (laborious)

forespørgelse instead of forespørgsel (request) bekræftige instead of bekræfte (confi  rm)

The top 500 contains a further 4 words, i.e.

forspørgelse instead of forespørgsel (request) privilegie instead of privilegium (privilege)

implementation instead of implementering (implementation) imidlertidig instead of imidlertid (however) or midlertidig or (temporary)

In some of these cases, however, e.g. privilegie and implementation , it is debatable whether the words exist or not. A search on Google shows that these forms are very widely used, although the correct forms are privilegium and implementering.

## Other  examples  of  non-existing  words  occurring  in  the  log  fi  le include:

| gravbil instead of rustvogn (hearse) beskrivning instead of beskrivelse (description) fåreunge instead of lam (lamb) smukhed instead of skønhed (beauty) (interestingly, a search on Google actually returned 631 hits on smukhed) stavningsfejl instead of stavefejl (spelling mistake) udspørgelse instead of udspørgning (questioning) spørgerier instead of spørgsmål (questions) selvgroet instead of hjemmedyrket (home- grown) forbedrelse instead of forbedring (improvement)   | antiautoritetstro (unorthodox) indlandssø instead of indsø (lake) selvudvalgte instead of selvvalgte (self-elected) grisling instead of gris (piglet) sideeffekt instead of bivirkning (side-effect) hævnbegærlig instead of hævngerrig (vindictive) middelaldrende instead of midaldrende (middle- aged) (Again, a search on Google showed that this is a common mistake - 636 hits were returned on middelaldrende) personlighedssplitning instead of personlighedsspaltning (split personality)   | priviligisere instead of privilegere (privilege) nervøshed instead of nervøsitet (nervousness) kampduelig instead of kampdygtig (effective) ignorantisk instead of ignorant (ignorant) gæstevenlighed instead of gæstfrihed (hospitality) forpligtning instead of forpligtelse (obligation) urelevant instead of irrelevant (irrelevant) brudgift instead of medgift (dowry) hangris instead of orne (boar) handue instead of duerik (male pigeon)   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

## The above examples generally fall into the following categories:

## 1. Incorrect/unusual word formation:

| bekræftigelse            | implementation           | nervøshed (nervøsitet      |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------|
| (bekræftelse -           | (implementering          | - nervousness)             |
| confirmation)            | - implementation)        | ignorantisk (ignorant      |
| forespørgelse            | beskrivning (beskrivelse | - ignorant)                |
| (forespørgsel - request) | - description)           | stavningsfejl (stavefejl   |
| bekræftige (bekræfte     | udspørgelse (udspørgning | - spelling mistake)        |
| - confirm)               | - questioning)           | forpligtning (forpligtelse |
| forspørgelse             | spørgerier (spørgsmål    | - obligation)              |
| (forespørgsel - request) | - questions)             | urelevant (irrelevant      |
| privilegie (privilegium  | forbedrelse (forbedring  | - irrelevant)              |
| - privilege)             | - improvement)           |                            |

## 2. Another word exists:

| imidlertidig (imidlertid - however or midlertidig - temporary) gravbil (rustvogn - hearse) fåreunge (lam - lamb) selvgroet (hjemmedyrket - homegrown) indlandssø (indsø - lake) sideeffekt (bivirkning - side-effect)   | hævnbegærlig (hævngerrig - vindictive) middelaldrende (midaldrende - middle- aged) personlighedssplitning (personlighedsspaltning - split personality)   | gæstevenlighed (gæstfrihed - hospitality) kampduelig (kampdygtig - effective) brudgift (medgift - dowry) hangris (orne - boar) handue (duerik - male pigeon)   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

As mentioned above, it may be debatable whether all of the examples listed in group 1 may be defi  ned as non-existing words. For example, a search on Google returns a number of hits for implementation although the correct form is implementering. This means that such words exist in common usage even though they are not offi  cially authorized. Many of these incorrect word formations, particularly those concerning the endings else/-ing and ing/-ion , are very common, and it may therefore be a good idea to include them in the dictionary with a reference to the cor  rect term. This is particularly relevant for the words occurring in the top 100 and top 500 of the most common not-founds.

It is much more diffi  cult to make allowances for words like those listed in category 2 as very few users have searched for them. Thus, these words are not part of common usage, and none of them occur in the top 100 or top 500 either.

## Linking Morphemes

Neither the top 100 nor the top 500 of most common not-founds contain any examples of problems related to linking morphemes.

A study of 200 consecutive searches in a random place in the list of not-founds from the log fi  le yields only two examples, tidalder instead of tidsalder (age or era) and vidensproget/videnssproget (the language of  knowledge). A search for tidalder reveals that two different users have searched for this word at two different occasions, whereas only the one search has been carried out for vidensprog/videnssprog .

Other words related to the issue of linking morphemes that can be found in the log fi  le include kontraktsforhold (contractual relationship), which has also been searched for at two occasions, and isterningmaskine/ is  ter  ningemaskine/isterningsmaskine (ice  machine). According  to  the DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY, the correct form is isterningsmaskine , and the other two alternatives have references to this term.

In  connection  with  compounds  containing kontrakt-/kontrakts,  a search in the list of not-founds from the log fi  le shows that users are often unsure of whether they should include the linking morpheme -s. A search for kontrakts *, i.e. compounds starting with kontrakts-, reveals not only 2 hits on kontraktsforhold, but also 3 hits on kontraktsmæssig (con  forming to the contract), 2 on kontraktspart (party to a con  tract), kontraktsgrundlaget (the contractual basis), kontraktssum (con  tract  ual amount) and kontraktsret (contract law) as well as 1 hit on kontraktsbe  løb (contractual amount), kontraktsperiode (term of con  tract), kontrakts  indgåelse (formation  of  contract), kontraktsafdeling (con  tract de  part  ment), kontraktsvilkår (terms of a contract), kon  trakts  grund  lag (contract  ual  basis), kontraktslige (contractual)  and kon  trakts  fak  tura (contract  invoice).  Similarly,  a  search  for kontrakt* ,  i.e.  com  pounds starting  with kontrakt,  returns  4  hits  on kontraktmodel (model  contract), 3 on kontraktret (contract law), 2 on kontraktansættelse (employment relationship on a contractual basis) and kontraktgrundlag (contra  c  tual  basis)  and  1  hit  on kontraktgaranti (contractual  guarantee), kon  trakt  indgående (contracting), kontraktpart (party to a contract), kontrakt  gæld (contractual debt), kontraktbinding (binding effect of a contract), kontraktperiode (term of contract), kontraktmodellen (the mo  del con  tract), kontraktafdeling (contract department), kontraktfrihed (freedom of contract), kontraktvilkår (terms of a contract) and kontrakt  faktura (contract invoice).

Thus,  it  seems  that  only  certain  compounds  cause  problems  for users, whereas problems relating to linking morphemes in general do not seem to be very common. In the case of compounds that occur more than once, e.g. tidalder and the compounds containing kontrakt-/kontrakts,  it  may be considered whether it would be relevant to include these words in the dictionary with a reference to the correct form as it has been done with isterningsmaskine .

## Lemma Lacuna

Undoubtedly, the most obvious way that log fi  les can be used to improve internet dictionaries is as a tool to discover lemma lacuna. Particularly the lists of the 100 and 500 most common not-founds are interesting in this connection as a large number of users have searched for the terms included on these lists, i.e. the terms are commonly used. Consequently, it is very relevant to add these words to the dictionary. The top 100 list con  tains 6 examples of words that can be classifi  ed as lemma lacuna, where  as the top 500 contains a further 53 such words:

## Top 100:

| sparring (sparring) site (site)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | adsl (adsl) suboptimering (suboptimization)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | franchise (franchise) volatilitet (volatility)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Top 500:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| reliabilitet (reliability) revitalisering (revitalisation) pluralistisk (pluralistic) revitalisere (revitalise) prævalens (prevalence) eksplorativ (explorative) prospektiv (prospective) invasiv (invasive) appendix (appendix) portfolie (portfolio) synops (synopsis) interdependens (interdependence) inferens (inference) respektiv (respective) debit (debit) mix (mix) per se (per se) præjudicerende (prejudicial) | efficiens (efficiency) pønal (penal) fasi (fasi) tilretning (trimming) vanhjemmel (defective title) intertekstualitet (intertextuality) akkomodation (accomodation) metroseksuel (metrosexual) alzheimer (Alzheimer) integrator (integrator) rucola (rocket) kollegie (student hostel) ankebegæring (notice of appeal) endemisk (endemic) inkremental (incremental) fokal (focal) submissiv (submissive) pizzeria (pizzeria) | resektion (resection) forforståelse (preconception) avatar (avatar) dysfunktionel (dysfunctional) kritikalitet (criticality) replication (replication) e-learning (e-learning) semitisme (semitism) addendum (addendum) programpakke (programme package) kontraherende (contracting) eradikation (eradication) moderator (moderator) metadata (metadata) nomotetisk (nomothetic) emergens (emergence) |

A large proportion of these terms, more specifi  cally 38, are technical terms that may be classifi  ed as follows:

## Computer-related terms:

Top 100: site (site) , adsl

```
(adsl)
```

Top 500: integrator (integrator) ,  avatar (avatar) ,  e-learning (e-learning) , programpakke (programme package)

## Financial terms:

Top 100: volatilitet (volatility) , franchise (franchise)

Top 500: debit (debit) , effi  ciens

(effi  ciency)

## Legal terms:

Top 100: none

Top 500: per se (per se) ,  præjudicerende (prejudicial) ,  pønal (penal) , vanhjemmel (defective title) , ankebegæring (notice of appeal) , kontraherende (contracting)

## Medical terms:

Top 100: none

Top 500: prævalens (prevalence) , invasive (invasive) , alzheimer (Al  zhei  mer) ,  fokal (focal) ,  resektion (resection) ,  replikation (replica  tion) , eradikation (eradication)

## Other:

Top 100: none

Top 500: reliabilitet (reliability) ,  eksplorativ (explorative) ,  prospektiv (pro  spective) ,  interdependens (interdependence) ,  inferens (inference) , inter  tekstualitet (intertextuality) , akkomodation (accomodation) , endemisk (endemic) ,  inkremental (incremental) ,  submissiv (submissive) ,  dysfunk  tionel (dysfunctional) ,  kritikalitet (criticality) ,  moderator (moderator) , nomotetisk (nomothetic) , emergens (emergence).

The  main  question  arising  from  this  analysis  is  whether  such  terms should be included in a dictionary like THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY, or whether this dictionary should merely contain words from the common language. We suggest that at least the most common of the technical terms, e.g. site (site) , franchise (franchise) , e-learning (e-learning) etc., which are part of everyday usage, should be included in THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY, whereas highly technical terms such as nomotetisk (nomothetic) or fokal (focal) might be left to specialised dic  tionaries.

## Lemmas not searched for

Another interesting aspect to consider in connection with dictionary use is whether the dictionary is actually used to its full extent, i.e. whether all dictionary entries have been searched for, and if not, how many of the total number of entries have never been requested by the users.

According to the statistics  for  THE  DANISH  INTERNET  DICTIONARY,  a total of 104,097 orthographical words have been searched for. This fi  gure constitutes approximately one third of all possible searches as it is possible to search for infl  ections of a particular lexeme, i.e. for the head word itself as well as for all grammatical forms listed in the fi  eld of grammatical infl  ections. As mentioned earlier, however, passive and imper  ative forms are not included, and neither is the genitive form of nouns. In other words, if only one third of all entries have been searched for, approximately two thirds of the entire dictionary are not used in practice.  But  this  can  only  be  true  if  the  user  searches  for  infl  ected forms as often as for the non-infl  ected form, the lemma. Normally, or at least more frequently, the user will use the lemma sign as a search string; therefore we assume that the 104,097 search strings represent more than one third of the lemmas.

In order to establish whether this assumption is true and whether it is possible to discern a pattern in the words that have not been searched for, we examined the fi  rst 100 entry words of THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY starting with the letter b . The result was that 52 of these words had been searched for (eg B-aktie (B share), babysitter (babysitter) and bacon (bacon)),  whereas 48 had not (eg B-dur (B major), B-skål (B cup) and babysprog (baby talk)). Clearly, this corresponds to the above estimate that more than one third of the lemmas in the dictionary are actually used, and we believe that this small test is representative of the entire dictionary. The really interesting question is: By how much will the number of used articles in the dictionary increase when we have got a bigger number of log-fi  led lookups in the dictionary? We do not believe that the dictionary will ever be used to its full extent, but this topic is indeed interesting. We intend to make further investigations into 'lemmas not searched for'.

Obviously, it is not possible to discern a distinct pattern on the ba  sis of the above examination, e.g. that certain types of words, such as seman  tic or orthographical variants, are never requested. However, it is still unclear whether such an investigation would be of practical use to lexi  cographers. It depends on whether a systematic description of the requested words compared with the non-requested words is possible.

## 5. Perspectives

It is beyond the scope of interpreting log fi  les to give a detailed report of the approximately 2,000 emails that the dictionary makers behind THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY have received from users. About half of these users merely express their thanks to the dictionary makers for the dictionary and report that they use it often, whereas less appreciative emails were received during a period of technical problems with the server; the reason being that, in the case of a dictionary free of charge, the  user  expects  to  have  access  to  his  tool  whenever  he  needs  it.  In many other  cases,  the  users  propose  new  lemmas  or  report  spelling mistakes  found  in  the  dictionary. All  this,  however,  is  not  the  topic of this paper. We believe to have shown that log fi  les can be used by dictionary makers for improving their dictionary, in this case for improv  ing the lemma selection. The use of a better search system which includes the possibility of a direct search for synonyms, collocations, antonyms, word formations, grammar items etc. will provide a much more precise way of obtaining knowledge about real dictionary use. On the basis of such data, it will be possible to prepare much better internet dictionaries. However, this is only possible if the necessary funding to do this work is granted by national or private organisations in the future, or if the charging of a pay per view fee or a monthly or yearly payment for using quality internet dictionaries becomes more common.

## 6.   Literature

Atkins, B.T. Sue (ed.) 1998: Using Dictionaries. Studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Allgemeines Wörterbuch Deutsch-Französisch

http://site.ifrance.com/allinfor/dico/index.htm

Bergenholtz, Henning 1996: Håndbogens dage er talte. In HHÅ info 5, No 3, 1996, 2-3.

- Bergenholtz, Henning 2002: Das de Gruyter Wörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache und das neue DUDEN-Wörterbuch in zehn Bänden. Ein Vergleich im Hinblick auf die Gram  matik. In Perspektiven des pädagogischen Lexikographie des Deutschen II. Untersuchungen anhand des de Gruyter Wörterbuches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Hrsg. von Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 36-56.

- Bergenholtz,  Henning/Sven Tarp  2003: Two  opposing  theories:  On  H.E. Wiegand's recent discovery of lexicographic functions. In Hermes 31, 2003, 171-196.
- Büdenbender, Stefan: QuickDic. http://quickdic.org/index\_d.html
- de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice/David Joffe 2004: On How Electronic Dictionaries are Really Used. In Geoffrey Williams/Sandra Vessier (Eds.): Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress, Euralex 2004, Lorient, France. July 6-10, 2004. Volume I. Lorient: Université de Bretagne, 187-196.
- DICTIONARY OF ACCOUNTING DANISH-ENGLISH = Sandro Nielsen/Lise Mourier/Henning Bergenholtz 2004: Regnskabsordbogen dansk-engelsk. København: Thomson.
- Grostabussiat, Pascal: Fransk-Svenskt Lexikon. http://www.azoria.com/lexikon/indexsw.shtml
- HANDBOOK  OF  CONTEMPORARY  DANISH  2002  =  Galberg  Jacobsen,  Henrik/Peter  Stray Jørgensen: Politikens Håndbog i Nudansk. København: Politikens Forlag.
- Simonsen, Henrik Köhler 2000: Papirordbogen er død! Computerordbogen længe leve! In MDTnyt nr. 3, 19-35.
- TDC Online http://links.tdconline.dk/top.php?cid=2502&linktype=2
- THE DANISH INTERNET DICTIONARY = Henning Bergenholtz/Vibeke Vrang in cooperation with Lena Lund, Helle Grønborg, Maria Bruun Jensen, Signe Rixen Larsen, Rikke Refslund,  Jette  Pedersen  2002: Den  Danske  Netordbog. Database  and  layout: Richard Almind. http://www.netordbog.asb.dk 2002-2004.
- THE  DANISH-ENGLISH  DICTIONARY  OF  ACCOUNTING  =  Sandro  Nielsen/Lise  Mourier/ Henning Bergenholtz in cooperation with Mads Melgaard, Trine Middelboe, Brit Sørensen, Helle Grønborg 2003: Den Dansk-Engelske Regnskabsordbog/the Danish-English Dictionary of Accounting. Database and layout: Richard Almind. http://www.regnskabsordbogen.dk/iasdk 2003-2004.
- Vilkår  1982  = Vilkår  for  ordbogsarbejde  i  Danmark.  Betænkning  afgivet  af  det  af Ministeriet for kulturelle anliggender nedsatte ordbogsudvalg. Betænkning nr. 967 København 1982.
- Wiegand, Herbert Ernst 1977: Einige grundlegende semantisch-pragmatische  Aspekte von Wörterbucheinträgen. Ein Beitrag zur praktischen Lexikologie. In Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik 12 , 59-149.
- Wiegand, Herbert Ernst 1985: Fragen zur grammatik in Wörterbuchbenutzungsprotokollen. Ein Beitrag zur empirischen Erforschung der Benutzung einsprachigen Wörterbuch. In Lexikographie und Grammatik. Akten des Essener Kolloquiums 1984, hrsg. von Henning Bergenholtz und Joachim Mugdan. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 20-98.

CSA

ILLUMINA

www.csa.com

142

## When talk is a science…

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

## Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts

Comprehensive, cost-effective, timely coverage of current ideas in linguistics and language research

Abstracts of articles, books, and conference papers from more than 1,100 journals plus citations of relevant dissertations as well as books and other media.

Available in print or electronically through CSA Illumina (www.csa.com).

Contact sales@csa.com for trial Internet access or a sample issue.

<!-- image -->