Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Central Kazakhstan Academy

Faculty of «Language and Translation»
Department of «Theory and Practice of the English Language»

COURSE WORK
on theme «Types of dictionaries. Compilation and use problems»
in the discipline "Theory of Translation"
in the specialty 5В020700 - «Иностранный язык – 2 иностранных
языка»????

Done by the student of

group IN SS 19-01
Zagi Mamakhova

Head of research
Ph.D.
N.S.Issabayeva
Grade__________________

______________________
(signature of head of research)
 Karagandy 2020
Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………..………..3
1 The place of lexicography among linguistic disciplines………..……………….4
1.1 Lexicography as one of the language sciences ..……………………………....5
1.2 Types of dictionaries……………………....……..…………………………….7
1.3 Compilation of dictionaries…………………………………………………...12
2 Muller's Russian-English Dictionary……………………………………….…...15
2.1 The preface to the first edition……………………………………….………..15
2.2 Dictionary
features…………………………………………………………….15
2.3 Benefits of electronic
dictionaries……………………………………………..16
3 Electronic dictionaries
…………………………………………………………..20
3.1 Electronic dictionaries «Lingvo»
……………………………………………..20
3.2 Electronic dictionaries "MultiLex"……………………………………………
21
3.3 Using dictionaries when editing a translation…………………………………
21
Conclusion……………………………………………………………..…………28
References………………………………………………………………………..30
 Introduction

Nowadays computers occupy an increasingly important place not only among

programmers and engineers, but also among a wide variety of users, including
linguists, translators and specialists in need of prompt translation of foreign language
information. In this regard, computer dictionaries are a very convenient handy tool in
order to save time and optimize the process of understanding foreign language
information. In addition, now there are translation programs that can produce more or
less adequate translation of foreign language texts and can be of assistance in the
work of specialists of various profiles. This work is devoted to the study of these
problems, as well as the analysis of some linguistic software products aimed at
automating the translation process.
This research topic can be considered quite modern, since the history of the
development and implementation of personal computers in everyday life (and even
more so that it would be "within the power" to implement more or less modern
machine translation programs) is hardly more than fifteen years old. This topic
acquires particular relevance if we take into account the fact that it is at the present
time that Kazakhstan is increasingly integrating into the international community and
that, along with economic and political barriers, this is largely hindered by language
barriers. At the same time, there are not so many professional translators who are
capable and willing to carry out such a process of communication between
communities in all spheres of science and culture, which results in the fact that their
services are not cheap. Therefore, it is now especially relevant to find ways to
automate the process of translation carried out by a person as much as possible, in
order, on the one hand, to maximally facilitate the hard work of a human translator,
and on the other, to make this work as effective as possible. This can be done only by
integrating the efforts of specialists in the fields of cybernetics, programming,
psychology, and, most importantly, linguistics.
The purpose of this work is to determine how modern software can be used for
translation, as well as to identify the most promising, in our opinion, areas of research
in the field of its automation.
In accordance with the set goal, the objectives of the study are:
- understanding the location of computer lexicography among the linguistic
sciences;
- clarification of the differences between electronic and traditional paper
dictionaries;
 - determination of the most efficient way to organize electronic dictionaries;
- understanding the differences between the various MT systems and the
classification of the latter;
- analysis of the operation of machine translation systems on the example of
translation produced by the PROMT XT program, and comparison of translation
samples with translation made by a person Analysis of the reasons for the
discrepancy.

I PLACE OF LEXICOGRAPHY AMONG LINGUISTIC DISCIPLINES

The word "lexicography" is of Greek origin, lexikos - referring to the word,

vocabulary and grapho - I write. Therefore, lexicography means: "writing words" or
"writing dictionaries." In the modern sense, lexicography is the theory and practice of
compiling dictionaries, mainly linguistic, linguistic, as opposed to non-linguistic,
encyclopedic ones.
Lexicography as a scientific term appeared in wide use relatively recently. For
example, in the encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (1896) there is no
article on the word "lexicography", but there is an article on the word "lexicology".
For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that in the article "dictionary" of the same
reference book there is the word "lexicography", where it is synonymous with the
phrase "dictionary technique".
In the encyclopedic dictionary of brothers A. and I. Granat (1916) there is
already an article on the word "lexicography", which is defined as "scientific methods
of processing the verbal material of the language to compose a lexicon." Note in this
definition the emphasis on "scientific methods of processing".
In the first edition of the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" (1938), an article on the
word "lexicography" is given: "Lexicography (Greek), work on compiling
dictionaries." And only in the second (1953) and third (1973) editions this term is
interpreted quite modernly: "Lexicography is a branch of linguistics that deals with
the practice and theory of compiling dictionaries." (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd
ed. 1973, vol. 14).
On the other hand, there is no entry for the word "lexicography" in either the
Encyclopedia On the other hand, there is no entry for the word "lexicography" in
either the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana, although both
have entries for the word "dictionary." The absence of the term "lexicography" in
such solid modern reference books as the British and American encyclopedias is by
no means accidental. This is explained, firstly, by the youthfulness of lexicography as
a science and, secondly, by the fact that even among linguists themselves there is still
a dispute whether lexicography is a science, more precisely, a part of the science of
language, or is it just a technique for compiling dictionaries , at best, the art of
composing them., although both have entries for the word "dictionary." The absence
of the term "lexicography" in such solid modern reference books as the British and
American encyclopedias is by no means accidental. This is explained, firstly, by the
youthfulness of lexicography as a science and, secondly, by the fact that even among
linguists themselves there is still a dispute whether lexicography is a science, more
precisely, a part of the science of language, or is it just a technique for compiling
dictionaries , at best, the art of composing them.
The prominent Spanish lexicographer H. Casares in his widely known book
"Introduction to Modern Lexicography" (which has been translated into Russian)
claims that lexicography is a technique and art of compiling dictionaries. (Recall the
definition of "lexicography" in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:
"work on compiling dictionaries.")
The famous English lexicographer, author of the famous reference books on
English and American slang, Eric Patridge, who has devoted his entire life to
compiling dictionaries, it is not by chance that he called his latest book, the fruit of
many years of research in the field of vocabulary, as follows: “The noble art of
lexicography as an object of study and the experience of his passionate adherent".
Even F. Gove, editor-in-chief of the third edition of Webster's Dictionaries
(1461), the largest lexicographic enterprise of our time, writes in the programmatic
article "Achievements in Linguistics and Lexicography": "Lexicography is not yet a
science. Apparently, they will never be a science. However, this is a complex, muddy
and sometimes all-consuming art that requires subjective analysis, arbitrary decisions
and intuitive evidence."

1.1 Lexicography as one of the sciences of language

There is, however, a different point of view on lexicography. Its supporters

believe that lexicography is not just a technique, not just a practical activity in
compiling dictionaries, and not even an art, but an independent scientific discipline,
which has its own subject of study (dictionaries of various types), its own scientific
and methodological principles, its own theoretical problems. its place among other
sciences of language.
For the first time this point of view on lexicography was expressed with all
certainty by the well-known Soviet linguist Academician L.V. Shcherba. In the
preface to the Russian-French dictionary (1936), he wrote: “I consider it extremely
wrong that our qualified linguists disdain for vocabulary work, thanks to which
almost none of them ever did it (in the old days, casual amateurs did it for a pittance ,
who had absolutely no special training) and thanks to which she received such an
absurd name "compilation" of dictionaries. Indeed, our linguists, and even more so
our "compilers" of dictionaries overlooked that this work should be of a scientific
nature and in no way consist in a mechanical comparison of some ready-made
elements. "
Developing the provisions put forward in 1936, L.V. Shcherba in 1940,
published an article (which later became widely known abroad), in which he began to
develop the basic theoretical questions of lexicography using a large amount of
factual material. L.V. Shcherba thought to write several articles (etudes, as he called
them) on the general theory of lexicography, in which he intended to discuss such
important problems as the main types of dictionaries, the nature of a word, the
meaning and use of a word, the construction of a dictionary entry in connection with
semantic, grammatical and stylistic analysis of the word, etc. However, premature
death prevented the implementation of this plan. L.V. Shcherba wrote only the first
etude "Basic types of dictionaries", which began with the following well-known now
statement: "One of the first questions of lexicography is, of course, the question of
different types of dictionaries. It is based on a number of theoretical contradictions,
which must be revealed. " Since then, the thesis that lexicography is not only the
practice of compiling dictionaries, but also a theoretical scientific discipline, has
become firmly established in a number of the starting points of the Soviet
lexicographic school.
Here, however, the question can be asked: does the antinomy "science or art"
for lexicography have such a great turn? After all, it is clear that in both cases the
compilation of dictionaries should be done, because they are needed; you need a lot
of good and different dictionaries. To this, it should be answered with all certainty
that this issue is of fundamental importance, and here is why.
What is science in general? What are its most important features? The main
and most important features of science, any scientific discipline are the following: the
presence of a system of knowledge and the need for their objective research. These
two essential features are interconnected, closely intertwined, because only then can
we build a system of knowledge adequate to reality, when this reality is objectively
studied. As applied to lexicography, it looks like this.
If we accept the thesis that lexicography is an art, then the doors open to a
subjective understanding of the tasks and subject of lexicography, techniques and
methods of its research, and a subjective solution of its problems. It is unlikely that
such an approach will be fruitful and certainly not scientifically objective. If we
accept the thesis that lexicography is simply a technique for compiling dictionaries, a
kind of purely practical activity, then it will be necessary to transfer to other sciences
(lexicology, semantics, stylistics, etymology, etc.) the solution of all theoretical
issues, and lexicography will have to use only ready-made solutions of these
sciences. It is unlikely that this will be fruitful, because other sciences of language are
not well enough familiar with the state of affairs in lexicography. They, therefore,
will solve the issues of lexicography from their positions, from their points of view,
and therefore it is detrimental to lexicography. Thus, the thesis that lexicography is a
science is the only correct and most fruitful one. From this it follows that
lexicography as a science has its own subject of research, its own special research
methods, its structure, its place among other linguistic disciplines.
Like any science, lexicography has two sides: scientific-theoretical and
practical-applied. The first (theoretical lexicography) poses general theoretical
problems and works to solve them. The second (practical lexicography) deals directly
with the compilation of dictionaries of various types based on theoretical solutions to
basic problems. Of course, the division of lexicography into two parts is highly
arbitrary. These two sides of lexicography always go together, they are interrelated: a
theoretical lexicographer cannot engage in naked theorizing without working on
concrete material, without participating in some kind of practical lexicographic work;
and, conversely, no practicing lexicographer can plunge into his purely empirical
work without knowing the latest problems of lexicography as a science. Nevertheless,
the fundamental distinction between the two sides of lexicography is extremely
important.
From the above, we can conclude that the term "lexicography" currently has
three meanings: 1) science, more precisely, a special area of linguistics that studies
the principles of compiling dictionaries of different types; 2) the very practice of
vocabulary, i.e. compilation of dictionaries; 3) a set of dictionaries of a given
language.
As part of the science of language, lexicography is closely related to such
linguistic disciplines as lexicology, semantics, stylistics, etymology, phonology, etc.
With these disciplines, lexicography has common problems. Sometimes she uses the
results of their research, and often ahead of them in solving some problems.
Thus, gradually, step by step, lexicography is taking shape as an independent
linguistic discipline, becoming equal among other linguistic sciences.

1.2 Types of dictionaries

The existing types of dictionaries are diverse. This diversity is explained, first
of all, by the complexity and multidimensionality of the very object of lexicographic
description, that is, the language. In addition, the numerous needs of society for
obtaining a wide variety of information about the language also complicate and
expand the repertoire of dictionaries. There is practically no way to give in one
dictionary all the more or less comprehensive information about the language, which
would equally satisfy the entire society as a whole and its individual layers and
particulars. That is why in any national lexicography we find dozens, if not hundreds,
of dictionaries of various types.
The division of dictionaries into types occurs, as the classifiers say, on various
grounds: depending on the purpose of the dictionary, its volume, the order of the
words in it, the object of description, etc. Many of these points are superimposed on
each other, uniting in the dictionary of one and of the same type, others stand alone,
serving as the basis for dictionaries of a completely different type. There are
translations, explanatory, dialectal and regional dictionaries, slang dictionaries,
historical dictionaries, neologisms, etymological, catchwords and many others. It
should be noted that in the science of language there is still no generally accepted
typology of dictionaries, although attempts to create one have been undertaken by
many linguists, in particular L.V. Shcherba, P.N.Denissov, B. Kemada, Ja. Malkil, L.
Zgustoy and others.
First of all, one has to distinguish between linguistic and non-linguistic
dictionaries. The first ones collect and describe lexical units of the language (words
and phraseological units) from one point of view or another. A special subtype of
linguistic dictionaries is made up of the so-called ideographic dictionaries, which go
from a concept (idea) to the expression of this concept in a word or phrase. In non-
linguistic dictionaries, lexical units (in particular, terms, single-word and compound,
and proper names) serve only as a starting point for communicating certain
information about objects and phenomena of extra-linguistic reality. There are also
intermediate types of dictionaries. In addition, any vocabulary can be classified either
as "general" or "special."
Examples of common linguistic dictionaries are ordinary explanatory and
translation dictionaries, covering, with varying degrees of completeness, all the
vocabulary in common use. A special linguistic dictionary develops one area of
vocabulary, sometimes quite wide (for example, a phraseological dictionary, a
dictionary of foreign words), sometimes quite narrow (for example, a dictionary of
personal names given to newborns). A general non-linguistic dictionary is a general
encyclopedia (for example, GSE — Great Soviet Encyclopedia). A special non-
linguistic dictionary is a special (industry) encyclopedia (medical, legal, etc.) or a
short dictionary of a particular (usually a narrower) field of knowledge, or a
biographical dictionary of figures in a particular industry (writers, artists, etc.), or one
or another country (dictionary-reference type "Who is who").
Explanatory dictionaries. An explanatory dictionary is called such a dictionary,
the main task of which is to interpret the meanings of words (and phraseological
units) of a language by means of this language itself. Interpretation is given using a
logical definition of a conceptual meaning (for example, glowing - heating up to a
very high temperature; record holder - an athlete who set a record), through the
selection of synonyms (intrusive - annoying, intrusive) or in the form of indicating
the grammatical attitude to another word (covering up - action on the meaning of the
verbs cover and cover). In some explanatory dictionaries, the meanings of words are
revealed in the necessary cases with the help of pictures. Emotional, expressive and
stylistic connotations are indicated by means of special labels (“disapproved”,
“contempt”, “joke”, “ironic”, “bookish” and etc.). Individual meanings as needed and
possible (depending on the size of the vocabulary) are illustrated by examples -
typical combinations in which the given word is involved (for example, the iron is
heated, the atmosphere is heated - where the verb appears already in a figurative
meaning: “became tense”), or (especially in larger dictionaries) with quotations from
authoritative writers. As a rule, explanatory dictionaries also give a grammatical
characterization of the word, indicating with the help of special marks the part of
speech, the grammatical gender of the noun, the type of the verb, etc. grammatical
forms of the given word. To one degree or another, the pronunciation of the word is
also indicated (for example, in Russian explanatory dictionaries - stress), sometimes
various other, additional information is also reported.
Usually explanatory dictionaries are dictionaries of the modern literary
language. Some of them are strictly normative in nature, that is, they select only facts
that fully correspond to the literary norm, recommend these facts as the only "correct"
ones and cut off everything that deviates at least a little towards the vernacular. A
typical example is the academic dictionary of the French language (Dictionnaire de
I'Academie Française). Many other dictionaries are characterized by a broader
understanding of the literary language and, accordingly, the inclusion of colloquial
and even colloquial vocabulary in the dictionary (except for only narrow-regional,
dialectal, narrowly professional and purely argotic elements). This type includes
academic dictionaries of the Russian language - the 17-volume Dictionary of the
Modern Russian Literary Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1950-1965)
and the 4-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language (1957-1961), as well as the
one-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language SI Ozhegov (9th revision and
additional edition edited by N. Yu. Shvedova 1972), which is very useful for practical
purposes, and the earlier "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" by a
group of authors, ed. D. N. Ushakova (4 volumes, 1935-1940). Of particular
importance for Russian lexicography is, of course, the 17-volume academic
Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language. It includes over 120 thousand
words and in 1970 it was awarded the Lenin Prize.
The famous, more than once republished "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living
Great Russian Language" by V. I. Dahl (4 volumes, first edition 1863-1866), which
in abundance includes regional and dialect vocabulary of the mid-19th century
vocabulary and abundance of folk expressions are still unrivaled. It includes about
200 thousand words of the literary language and dialects. Since 1965, the "Dictionary
of Russian folk dialects" began to be published, edited by F.P. Filin, in which dialect
vocabulary and phraseology of all Russian dialects of the 19-20 centuries are
presented.
The main task of the explanatory dictionary is to interpret the meaning of
words and their application in speech, to distinguish the right from the wrong, to
show the connection of words with the styles of the language, to give the reader
information about the features of case, generic, collateral, specific and other
grammatical forms of the word; along the way, it is indicated how words are written
and pronounced.
Explanatory dictionaries, as a rule (but not always), also turn out to be
normative, i.e. explaining words in accordance with the requirements of literary and
linguistic norms (the norm in relation to a language is a rule developed with the
participation of literature and accepted by society as a mandatory rule that regulates
the use of a word in speech, its spelling, pronunciation and stress). So, all of the
above explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language are normative, with the
exception of the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by
V.I. Dahl.
Translation dictionaries. Explanatory dictionaries are opposed by translation
dictionaries, most often bilingual (for example, Russian-English and English-
Russian), and sometimes multilingual. In translation dictionaries, instead of
interpreting meanings in the same language, translations of these meanings into
another language are given, for example, накалиться - become heated, назойливый -
importunate, troublesome. Depending on whether the dictionary is intended as a
guide for reading (listening) a text in a foreign language, or as a guide for translation
from a native language into a foreign language, it is desirable to build it in different
ways. Thus, the Russian-English dictionary for the English can give less information
in the "right" (ie, English) part than the Russian-English dictionary intended for
Russians gives them. For example, when translating a Russian appeal, a dictionary
for the English can simply list all possible English equivalents (address, appeal;
conversion; treatment, circulation, etc.), since the Englishman knows the semantic
differences between these English words; in the dictionary for Russians it will be
necessary to indicate that address and appeal are ‘обращение к ...’, moreover, an
appeal is ‘обращение’in the sense of ’призыв’; that conversion is ‘обращение в
веру’, etc., that treatment is ‘обращение с...’, ‘обхождение с кем-либо’, and
circulation ‘обращение товаров, денег and etc.’; in addition, it will be necessary to
indicate with what prepositions these English nouns are used, even to indicate the
place of stress, that is, to provide the English equivalents with many explanations that
will help to use them correctly, translating the text with the word address from the
native Russian into foreign English. It is clear that the picture will change
accordingly in the English-Russian dictionary. In a dictionary designed for Russians,
the Russian part will be less detailed, but in a dictionary intended for Englishmen,
you will have to specify in detail the differences in the meanings and use of Russian
equivalents, provide them with grammatical marks, indicate stress, etc. A good
translation dictionary should contain See also stylistic markings and highlight cases
where the translating equivalent is stylistically imprecise. Translating words is always
difficult because the volume of the meaning of a word in different languages often
does not coincide, figurative meanings in each language develop in its own way. So,
in Russian, sleep means both "sleep" (a state of sleep) and "dreaming", and in Czech
the first corresponds to spanek, and the second to sen, similarly in English sleep and
dream, slumber are distinguished; in German Schlaf and Traum. On the contrary, the
difference between the verbs go and go, which is important for the Russian language,
will not be reflected in the translation into Bulgarian, where there will be a common
verb ida, idvam, and French, where arriver is to go, and so on.
Translation dictionaries can be bilingual (Russian-French, English-Russian,
etc.) and multilingual. The latter include the "Dictionary in seven languages (French-
German-English-Italian-Spanish-Portuguese-Dutch-Russian)" compiled by A. and V.
Popov, published in 1902. The theoretical and practical significance of such
dictionaries is very small. Much more important are multilingual special dictionaries
that provide a translation of any industry terminology into a number of languages, for
example, the Pocket Russian-English-French-Italian-Danish and Norwegian-Latvian
Marine Dictionary, published in Russia in 1881. Recently, short multilingual
dictionaries with a selection of the most common words and expressions have
become quite widespread. An example would be the "Slavic Phrasebook", published
in Sofia in 1961. It contains greetings ("Hello!"), warnings ("Beware!"), words for
conversation in everyday topics at a party, in a store, at the post office, etc. in
Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Polish and Czech. Multilingual dictionaries can
have different targets. Thus, in the 18th and early 19th centuries, “language catalogs”
were distributed, where all known translations into any languages were selected for a
given word; later this type became narrower and more practical, combining
translations either into a group of related languages, or into a group of languages of
the same geographic area to aid tourism and travel.
 To general dictionaries, we also include dictionaries that consider (in principle)
all vocabulary, but from some specific angle of view. Such, in particular, are
derivational (derivational) dictionaries, indicating the division of words into their
constituent elements, i.e. give information about the morphological composition of
the word. An example is the "School word-formation dictionary" by Z.A. Calm down
(1964). Further, etymological dictionaries (of one language or a group of related
languages), containing information about the origin and initial motivation of words.
Brief etymological dictionaries are usually limited to listing for each word one
etymology that seems most likely to the author of the dictionary. In larger and more
solid dictionaries, as a rule, correspondences in related languages are given and
"controversies" are stated, that is, scholarly disputes concerning the etymology of
certain words, brief summaries of the proposed hypotheses and their critical
assessment are given. It is customary to include words in etymological dictionaries,
the etymology of which remains unclear (in these cases, it is indicated that
“unclear”). Derivatives and compound words, the motivation of which is obvious, are
either not included in the etymological dictionary at all, or the main ones are listed to
illustrate the derivational activity of the producing word, or in cases where the
derivatives reflect connections with some older meanings lost by the producing
word ... An example of etymological dictionaries is A. Preobrazhensky's
Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language, M. Vasmer's Russisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, which in 1966 began to be published in Russian
translation. For practical purposes, the Brief Etymological Dictionary of the Russian
Language by N.М. Shansky, V.V. Ivanova and T.V. Shanskaya.
Historical dictionaries should be distinguished from etymological dictionaries,
which, in turn, are presented in two varieties. In some of them, the goal is set - to
trace the evolution of each word and its individual meanings throughout the written
history of the corresponding language, usually up to the present (or some segment of
this history, also up to the present). Examples of dictionaries of this type are the
"Great Oxford Dictionary" of the English language, German dictionaries - begun by
the brothers Grimm and the dictionary of G. Paul, the Great Dictionary of the
Swedish Academy and some others. The second type of historical dictionaries should
include dictionaries of ancient periods in the history of the corresponding language,
for example, "Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language" (in three
volumes) by the philologist and ethnographer Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky,
published in 1893-1903, and additions to it in 1912, as well as dictionaries of
individual writers of the past (including the recent past) or even individual
monuments.
The predecessors of historical dictionaries were alphabet books, lexicons, and
the so-called pretext dictionaries: they were placed right next to the texts and only
words of a particular given text were explained in them. L.V. Shcherba characterized
the essence of the historical dictionary as follows: “Historical in the full sense of this
term would be such a dictionary that would give the history of all words for a certain
time, and not only the emergence of new words and new meanings would be
indicated, but also their withering away, as well as their modification."
 Acquaintance with historical (as well as with etymological) dictionaries allows
you to find out the history of words and expressions of the modern language, to look
into their "biography". So, for example, having opened the dictionary of I.I.
Sreznovsky Now the former connection with the word slave of these and other single-
root words is not directly realized by anyone, for example: работа - рабство,
неволя... (vol. 3, p. 2 of the specified dictionary); работать, работаю- to be in
slavery, in captivity ... (vol. 3, p. 4); работник - раб, невольник... (v. 3, p. 5);
работница - servant, slave ...; работный - related to slavery ...; раб – a servant, a
slave ... (vol. 3, p. 5), etc. These and other words with the same root are supplied with
examples from ancient written records.
Another kind of historical dictionary is the writer's dictionary. The dictionary
of a writer or a separate monument must be exhaustive, that is, it must a) include
absolutely all words used in the writings (also in surviving letters, etc.) of the given
writer and b) indicate all the forms of these words that have occurred. Usually, such a
dictionary not only illustrates with quotations from the text all the highlighted
meanings and shades of meanings, but also gives the "addresses" of all uses of the
word (for example, volume, page, line for each use). If a dictionary of not one writer
is constructed in this way, but of a whole period in the history of the language, such a
dictionary turns out to be exhaustive for this period, or the so-called "thesaurus". A
good example of a writer's dictionary is the Dictionary of Pushkin's Language (vols.
1-4, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 1956-1961); dictionaries of
Shakespeare, Goethe and other great writers have been created abroad. Such
dictionaries are needed by science in order to be able to more fully and more
correctly understand how the so-called language of fiction develops, i.e. that style of
the common literary language that serves artistic creation, verbal art. First of all,
dictionaries are compiled based on the works of the greatest writers and poets of
national importance in the development of culture.
A special place is occupied by dialectological, or dialectal dictionaries. A
dialect dictionary can be differential, that is, it contains only dialectal vocabulary that
differs from the national one, or complete, covering in principle all the vocabulary
that exists in dialectal speech - both specific to a given dialect and coinciding with the
vocabulary of the national language. In addition, it can be either a dictionary of one
dialect (even a dialect of one village), or a dictionary of a whole group of closely
related dialects, considered as one dialect, or, finally, a comparative dictionary of
many or even all territorial dialects of any language. The dialectological (in the broad
sense) includes slang and argot dictionaries. Examples of dictionaries that include the
vocabulary of one dialect can be some old dialect dictionaries, such as "Materials for
the explanatory regional dictionary of the Vyatka dialect" by N. Vasnetsov (1908),
"Smolensk regional dictionary" by V. Dobrovolsky (1914), and new ones:
"Dictionary of modern Russian folk dialect" ed. I.A. Ossovetsky, in which the lexical
system of one of the dialects (village Deulino) of the Ryazan region is given, "Pskov
regional dictionary with historical data", which began to be published in 1967;
“Dictionary of Russian old-timers' dialects of the middle part of the river basin. Obi
"and the like. Dictionaries, including different dialects of the language, are presented
by the "Experience of the Regional Great Russian Dictionary" of the Academy of
Sciences (1852), "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by
V. Dahl, "Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects" and others.
In conclusion of our review of the most important types of dictionaries, we
note the existence of numerous intermediate, transitional and mixed types. So,
transitional from linguistic to non-linguistic dictionaries are dictionaries of terms of
various sciences and branches of technology. These dictionaries are monolingual,
bilingual and multilingual. Terminological dictionaries are widespread, including
special terms used in any scientific field: chemistry, biology, medicine, hydraulic
engineering, etc. Such dictionaries are also available for linguistics.

1.3 Compilation of dictionaries

An important issue when compiling a dictionary is the order of the material.

The alphabetical order is most often used, sometimes in one combination or another
with other principles of arrangement. For example, in many cases nesting is used, that
is, combining into one "nest" (within the framework of one dictionary entry) words
connected by a common root, even if this violates the alphabetical sequence. In fact,
in these cases, there is a deviation from the alphabetical order of words towards the
alphabetical order of roots. It turns out to be very convenient for some types of
dictionaries, for example, for derivational and etymological. The consistent
implementation of the nesting principle corresponds to the lexicographic tradition of
many languages. So, for example, it is customary to build Arabic dictionaries exactly
according to the alphabet of the roots, placing all derivatives (including derivatives
with prefixes) under each root. Sometimes in dictionaries of Slavic languages, verbs
with prefixes are included in the article of the corresponding non-prefixed verb. Of
the Russian explanatory dictionaries, the nesting principle is most widely used by the
first editions of Dahl's dictionary (before the dictionary was revised by Baudouin de
Courtenay), but an exception was made for prefixed verbs - they go in their
alphabetical place.
We have a special use of the alphabetical principle in reverse dictionaries. The
words in these dictionaries are arranged in alphabetical order not of the initial, but of
the final letters of the word: а, ба, баба,
жаба, ...амёба, ...служба, ...изба, ...шайба, ...колба, ...дамба etc., until the last
words ending in front -яя:, ...безмужняя. Among the non-alphabetic principles of the
arrangement of material, the most important is the principle of systematics (logical
classification) of concepts expressed by lexical units. It is on this principle that the
aforementioned ideographic dictionaries (also called "ideological" or "thematic") are
built. One or another logical classification of concepts is developed, and everything
that is to be included in the dictionary is located under the headings of this
classification. Ideographic dictionaries can also be bilingual and multilingual. A
special kind of ideographic is "picture dictionaries" (French vocabulaires par l'image,
German Bildwörterbücher), usually bilingual or multilingual. They contain drawings
depicting one or another "piece of reality" (for example, a room with furniture, a
factory shop, a coal mine, a poultry farm, a street, etc.) and are abundantly numbered,
under which the names are given on the same or adjacent page relevant subjects in
one, two or more languages. Аbove mentioned dictionaries, the systematic principle
of arrangement is applied in the dictionaries of the proverbs of Dahl and Chelakovsky
(cf., for example, Chelakovsky's rubrics: I. God. Religion. Sin ... II. Good - evil ... III.
Truth - lie ... etc.). Compiling dictionaries is a very difficult job. In addition to
general linguistic provisions about the word, its meanings and use, grammatical and
phonetic characteristics, you need to know the technique of compiling dictionaries
and understand the composition of the dictionary. The dictionary consists of: 1)
vocabulary, that is, selection with mutual references and references, 2) filiation, that
is, a dismembered presentation of the meanings of a particular vocabulary, 3)
stylistic, grammatical and phonetic remarks or a label to words and their meanings ,
4) illustrative examples, 5) idiomatic and phraseological combinations to a given
word, and 6) translation (in multilingual dictionaries) or interpretation (explanations -
in monolingual dictionaries).
It should be specially stipulated that mutually opposite dictionaries (for
example, Russian-Kazakh and Kazakh-Russian) cannot be thought of simply as
rearranging the “right column” (translations) into the “left” (originals), and vice
versa. Such vocabularies overlap each other only partially, since each vocabulary "in
originals", ie, in vocables, proceeds from the lexical composition of its language, and,
as you know, the lexical composition of different languages (even closely related
ones) does not coincide. Therefore, any translation dictionary (whether there is
already a "reverse dictionary" or not) should have its own idiomatic dictionary for a
given language, for which it is best to rely on a monolingual explanatory dictionary
of a given language.
 II MULLER'S RUSSIAN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY

2.1 The preface to the first edition

Since a novice translator must first of all learn how to use parallel, i.e.
translation dictionaries, I would like to dwell in more detail on one of the most
complete and valuable of them - the English-Russian dictionary of prof. V.K. Müller.
The latest revised and enlarged edition contains over 70,000 words of modern literary
and colloquial English and the most common Americanisms.
Among the features of this dictionary is, first of all, that in it, to a greater extent
than is usually done in such dictionaries, attention is paid to the grammatical aspect
of the word.
In the dictionary, words are interpreted mainly, and not their individual forms.
Therefore, each form of a grammatically changeable word, if it is not singled out
specifically as its given form, is, so to speak, a representative of the whole word as a
whole, of the entire set of its grammatical forms. So, for example, the nominative
singular лошадь represents the whole word as a whole, with all its grammatical
forms: лошадь, лошади, лошадью, лошадей and etc .; likewise, the English horse
(лошадь) usually acts as a representative of the whole complex of grammatical forms
of this word: horse, horse's, horses, horses'. Usually, the translated Russian word and
the English word that is its translation are given, if possible, in forms that correspond
to each other to the extent that some general correspondences can be established
between the forms of the Russian and English languages. More particular, special
relationships between Russian and English forms, of course, cannot be reflected in
the dictionary: they can be determined only on the basis of knowledge of grammar.
Thus, although the dictionary takes into account, if possible, the correspondences
between Russian and English grammatical forms, and when translating known
phraseological combinations, individual particular correspondences are taken into
account, nevertheless, one should not always use only the grammatical design of the
word, which is given in the dictionary, but you need to apply your knowledge of
grammar and, in certain cases, make some grammatical changes in the proposed
translation. This applies, in particular, to translations of whole phrases or phrases,
where the word order given in the translation or the verb tense used in it may often
turn out to be unsuitable for a certain context. The introduction of various additional
grammatical information into the dictionary significantly complicated the work on its
compilation, as a result of which, undoubtedly, it was not possible to avoid a number
of errors in relation to the adopted system. The authors and editors will be very
grateful for all comments and suggestions.

2.2 Dictionary features

Now I would like to dwell on the most important features of this dictionary that
you should know to use it in the translation process.
Müller's dictionary is compiled according to the alphabetical nesting system.
Phrases and phraseology are given within the dictionary entry under the pivotal word,
while compound and derivative words, as well as prefix formations, are given as
separate entries in alphabetical order.
Such a system leads in some cases to the so-called "alphabetical interruption",
which must be taken into account when searching for words in the dictionary. For
example, some compound words with the first go element are separated from this
verb entry by a number of "extraneous" words: go - goad - goaf - go-ahead - goal -
goalee - goalkeeper - go-as-you-please - goat ...
A dictionary entry in Mueller's dictionary consists of:
- Headword or vocabulary;
- Phonetic transcription of a word;
- Grammatical labels (part of speech);
- Notes on the origin or field of application of the word (American, Spanish,
Russian, tech., Mor.);
- Stylistic notes (colloquial, book, poet, rude);
- Translation of the word into Russian.
Stylistic marks in the Müller dictionary are very rare, since usually the stylistic
affiliation of a word is reflected in translations.
If the article contains phraseology, then phraseological units are not distributed
according to individual meanings of the word, but are given at the end of the article
after the  (rhombus) sign. For example, in the article, the verb pull, which has 13
meanings: to pull the strings - нажимать тайные пружины; to pull one's weight -
исполнять свою долю работы; to pull anchor - сняться с якоря and etc.
When looking for a suitable translation of a word in a bilingual dictionary, a
translator may encounter the following typical cases:
 - The dictionary gives the only Russian correspondence to the desired word,
i.e. vocabulary equivalent;
- The dictionary gives several variant matches, from which you need to
choose one that is most suitable in a given context;
- The dictionary does not give such a meaning of this English word that
would be acceptable in this context.
Of course, the desired English word may not appear in the dictionary at all.
Most often this is a new word that has not yet been included in this dictionary.
The translator is in the most advantageous position when an equivalent
translation is available. In general, about 30% of all words in Mueller's dictionary are
represented by Russian equivalents, i.e. single matches that do not depend on the
context. However, one should not overestimate the readings of the dictionary and
consider them indisputable in all cases.

2.3 Benefits of electronic dictionaries

In the traditional approach, the minimum unit of access is the token (the name
of the dictionary entry): you need to read the entire article to determine whether it
contains the answer to our request. For dictionaries like Oxford, this presents a
serious problem. For example, the verb 'set' has only 400 basic meanings (and many
of them have sub meanings).
The user would like the dictionary to localize the relevant information as much
as possible. At the same time, we are not talking about the automatic selection of a
translation equivalent (if we are talking about a translation dictionary). The
specificity of the dictionary answer is that it gives a very diverse information about a
word or phrase, and not just a translation match, it assumes an active choice of the
user from several possible well-grounded alternatives.
However, an attempt to solve the problem of an adequate reaction of the
dictionary to a request inevitably encounters resistance from the very vocabulary
material transferred from the paper dictionary.
Electronic dictionaries not only contain transcriptions, but can also pronounce
words. There are also two approaches here. A sound synthesizer is built into
MultiLex and all words are pronounced. However, it is dangerous to completely trust
this approach without controlling it by transcription. The synthesizer can incorrectly
place the stress or even distort the pronunciation of the word. In Abbyy Lingvo, the
main vocabulary is voiced by a speaker with Oxford pronunciation.
But, of course, the most important advantage of good electronic dictionaries is
the simultaneous search not only by the title of a dictionary entry, but also over the
entire huge volume of dictionaries, which is simply unrealistic in a paper version.
Such a search creates a multidimensional portrait of a word, while not only specific
examples of its use and stable expressions in which the word occurs, but also
exposed, the linguistic laws to which the rules of word formation obey are extracted
from the depths of the dictionary entry. Even a mobile electronic dictionary cannot
reflect all the momentary movements of the language, but it can provide a key to
decipher and understand these changes, making the user a co-author of the
lexicographer. This is very important when an accurate semantic translation is
required, because this is not the task of choosing a suitable expression, but in a broad
sense, the display of one culture using the language of another. Therefore, in Lingvo,
you can build your own dictionary under a common shell.
Language is a reflection of real life. And life does not stand still: new branches
of production, science, business, culture appear. New words, terms, and stable
phrases come into ordinary spoken language. Is it possible to imagine such words as
"holding", "tranche" in the speech of our fellow citizens ten years ago? The
expression "end user" would have puzzled them, and no one would have guessed that
the word "soap" would mean e-mail in computer jargon (a free Russian transcription
of the English word "e-mail").
All this vocabulary cannot be adequately reflected in "paper" dictionaries for
the simple reason that they take too long to prepare. Thus, the well-known English-
Russian dictionary by Müller, combining relative ease of use (one volume, albeit
heavy!) And completeness of content, was published in 1960 and since then has
undergone only cosmetic changes in 1978 and 1994.
In fact, many of the dictionaries that emerged in the mid-century linguistic
atmosphere are outdated. They do not indicate the modern meanings of the old words,
and many new words are simply missing. Literal transfer of such dictionaries to
computers is futile. This has become especially evident in connection with the
development of the Internet: most of the Web pages are composed of English texts
written in a lively modern language, abundantly using colloquial vocabulary and
slang. Hardly any of the existing English-Russian dictionaries can answer this
challenge. Only electronic dictionaries can solve this problem.
Most of the "paper" dictionaries are aimed at a person who reads in a foreign
language, that is, a person who finds "reference" words in a text he does not
understand, helping to build a general semantic picture. The person "writing", in
addition to knowing all the words used, must clearly understand how these words are
combined with each other, what prepositions are used in this case, whether there are
stable expressions that convey the necessary meaning.
Alas, if the "paper" dictionary meets the needs of the Reader, then he most
often simply ignores the interests of the Writer in a non-native language! But in our
age of electronic communications, almost every Internet user has become a writer!
And here the electronic dictionary is much more useful than the "paper" one.
Even literal reproduction of a decent "paper" dictionary on a computer makes it
possible to extract from it the information so necessary for the Writer, buried in the
depths of dictionary entries. For example, a user can open several dictionary entries
on the screen at once, characterizing all the meanings of the word "get" (take, receive,
get bored, etc.) both in one language and in another, and thus learn all the nuances of
using the words.
However, the more correct way is to think about the Writer beforehand when
compiling the dictionary. To take into account his interests, one must be able to
describe the ways of forming complex phrases. For example, how to convey in
English the meaning of "rigging or falsifying election results"? This expression does
not apply to idiomatic, therefore it should not be searched in the entire vocabulary.
On the other hand, it cannot be translated correctly in parts. The most logical way to
look for this expression is in the article "election". However, in order for it to appear
there, you need the desire of the developers of the dictionary to put it there.
In order for the Writer to be able to feel the shades of a word, it is necessary to
bring in the dictionary the maximum possible number of synonyms - words that are
close in meaning. For example, the English verb break means, in particular: 1) to
break, destroy, break and 2) to tear, tear, tear off. For the first case, the synonyms will
be the words crush (давить, дробить) and smash (разбиваться вдребезги). The
second meaning is close to the words separate (отделять, разделять- a more delicate
meaning) and tear off (отрывать, срывать). Through the general "map" of
synonyms, it becomes clearer how to translate into a foreign language a word with
one or another semantic connotation. Illustrative examples are very useful, especially
on the use of words with prepositions or in strong phrases. For example: "to leave
here", "to leave somewhere", "to leave for something", "to leave" means "to be
absent".
Information about synonyms, phrases and cases of use is best provided in the
native language of the writer: if the writer is Russian, then in the Russian-English
dictionary, if he is English, then in the English-Russian. It's no secret how much
better English dictionaries help in solving the painful problem of which word to use.
But the strict orientation of the dictionary towards translation, and not towards the
DESCRIPTION of the language, makes its use by the Writer difficult and not
obvious. Thus, the pioneering achievement of Russian lexicography is reflected in
modern electronic dictionaries - a bilingual dictionary is becoming explanatory in
many ways. In addition, an electronic dictionary such as Lingvo builds a paradigm by
pressing the desired key, that is, the collection of all forms of a word.
 III ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES

With the advent of computer technology, software creators have created a new
type of dictionaries - an electronic dictionary. This type of dictionary is an absolutely
new word in the history of lexicography, marking a new qualitative stage in its
development. Right now, electronic dictionaries have emerged from the shadow of
paper dictionaries and are becoming independent players on the language platform,
moreover, players who, it seems, will soon make the rest of the characters exhibits at
the Museum of the Book. After all, electronic dictionaries have a number of obvious
and significant advantages over traditional dictionaries. Their only drawback is their
attachment to a personal computer and, therefore, limited availability. However, this
drawback will soon be eliminated, if not completely, then at least mostly due to the
ever-increasing pace of computerization, including the growing availability of laptop
computers.
A lot of electronic dictionaries have now been released, so we will focus only
on bilingual English-Russian and Russian-English dictionaries. For example, let's
take two of the most famous: Lingvo by Abbyy and MultiLex, developed by
MediaLingua. It is interesting to compare these dictionaries, because the teams that
create them profess different views on the principles of electronic lexicography.

3.1 Electronic dictionaries "MultiLex"

MediaLingua company adheres to a rather simple strategy when creating

MultiLex dictionaries. She creates a digital copy of well-known book publications.
On the company's website, you can find the formulation of this principle: "Electronic
dictionaries are based on the dictionary bases of books that have already gained
popularity and recognition among translators, teachers of foreign languages, students
and schoolchildren." Some experts believe that such a policy rests on an exclusive
agreement between MediaLingua and the "natural monopolist" of the Russian
dictionaries market, the publishing house "Russian language". From the point of view
of MediaLingua, the task of electronic lexicography is to translate the traditional
dictionary into electronic form as accurately as possible.
The MultiLex dictionary is based on the "New Big English-Russian
Dictionary" edited by A.D. Apresyan. There is also an extended version, where
economic and financial, legal, construction, polytechnic dictionaries and a dictionary
for printing and publishing are added to the main dictionary.
Of course, Apresyan's dictionary is an outstanding achievement of
lexicography, but MediaLingua's approach has its drawbacks. First, traditional
dictionaries are quite seriously behind linguistic reality. This is usually at least ten
years. And electronic dictionaries can be replenished almost daily. Second,
dictionaries containing hundreds of thousands of dictionary entries, no matter how
qualified lexicographers they are, always contain errors and inaccuracies, not to
mention the appearance of additional meanings of words. Rigid binding to a paper
prototype does not make it possible to correct and supplement the electronic one,
especially to change the structure of the dictionary entry.

3.2 Electronic dictionaries "Lingvo"

The company Abbyy took a different and probably more promising path. Of
course, their large electronic dictionary Lingvo7.0 also has licensed paper
dictionaries digitized - these are polytechnic, legal, economic, financial, medical and
- very timely - a dynamically updated computer dictionary. But the basis of Lingvo,
according to the head of the linguistic department of the company, Vladimir Selegey,
is an electronic dictionary of its own design. Each new version of Lingvo is
supplemented with up-to-date vocabulary, and found errors and inaccuracies are
corrected. Thus, thanks to lexicographic research, the Abbyy English-Russian
dictionary is close to language practice.
An invitation to everyone to post self-made dictionaries
http://www.lingvo.ru/dictionaries/index.htm looks like a good find for Abbyy. This
involvement of users in lexicographic work is consistent with the spirit of open
Internet communities. There are already 23 additional dictionaries on the site.
Moreover, anyone can download them from the Internet and attach at least everything
to those already available in the basic version. I must say that the basic version of
Lingvo-7.0 contains one million two hundred thousand entries. Moreover, the main
articles are carefully worked out. For example, not the largest article about the word
'go' contains more than twenty five thousand characters.
The first thing that catches our eye when we talk about electronic dictionaries
is a sharp reduction in volume. A ten-gram CD contains a whole shelf of thick
dictionaries weighing twenty-five kilograms. But, naturally, this is not the main thing.
It is important that an electronic dictionary can fundamentally bypass the key
contradiction of book lexicography: the more information the dictionary offers, the
more developed its scientific apparatus, the more difficult it is to use it. Therefore,
classical dictionaries are divided into two categories. The first is popular, relatively
convenient, but quite simple. The second - detailed academic publications that do not
allow you to quickly get the information you are looking for.
Modern electronic dictionaries not only significantly exceed the volume of
books, but also find the desired word or phrase in a few seconds. Moreover, you can
search in any form. Some, like Lingvo, are built into all major office applications and
a highlighted word can be translated by pressing a few keys.

3.3 Using dictionaries when editing a translation

To better understand the principles of operation of MT systems and their

methods of using dictionaries and grammar analysis, as well as synthesizing
structures in the target language, it is necessary to translate in practice several texts
(preferably different in functional style and subject matter) using one of the above-
described machine translation systems. The most expedient seems to be the use of the
PROMT XT MT system, since it is the latest version of a number of PROMT
products at the moment and objectively the best available.
Take the following logic problem as a first example:
"You are given 12 identical-looking coins, one of which is counterfeit and
weighs slightly more or less (you don't know which) than the others. You are given a
beam balance which lets you put the same number of coins on each side and observe
which side (if either) is heavier. How can you identify the counterfeit and tell whether
it is heavy or light, in 3 weighings?"
Here is her 'free' translation into Russian, which could be done by a human
translator:
"У вас есть 12 одинаковых по виду монет, одна из которых - фальшивая
и весит немного больше или меньше, чем остальные (вы не знаете, какая
именно). Имеются рычажные весы, на чаши которых вы можете класть
равное число монет и смотреть, какая из чаш перевесила (или весы остались в
равновесии). Как за 3 взвешивания определить фальшивую монету и узнать,
легче она или тяжелее остальных?"
When translating, the translator had to change the word order in several
sentences. And here is how the automatic translation system of the PROMT family
translates this text (PROMT XT was used):
"Вам дают 12 идентично-выглядящих монет, одна из которых -
подделка и весит немного более или менее (Вы не знаете который) чем другие.
Вам дают баланс луча, который позволяет Вам помещать то же самое число
{номер} монет на каждой стороне и наблюдать {соблюдать}, какая сторона
(если любой) более тяжел. Как Вы можете идентифицировать подделку и
сказать, тяжело ли это или легко, в 3 взвешиваниях?"
 Let's pay attention to the "beam balance". It is easy to understand that this error
is caused by the absence of the word combination "beam balance" in the dictionary,
which means "beam balance". It is obvious that the translation variants of words
(given in curly braces) are the second meanings of the corresponding words in the
input language. Thus, selecting the most probable meanings of words based on the
context, the PROMT program sometimes finds it difficult to give an unambiguous
version, thus leaving the choice to the editor-translator. However, in fairness, it
should be noted that in both cases of the double interpretation of the word by the
program in this text, the correct meanings were chosen as the most probable ones.
A little confusing phrase "if any", used in the text in brackets. First, it is
obvious that grammatically the text given in brackets is not connected by the program
with the text outside the brackets - hence the difference in gender: noun. side - w.
units h; and places. any - m. units h. Secondly, the phrase "if any" is probably one
single semantic whole - a kind of cliché of the official style. This is evidenced by the
presence of the expression "if any" in the ABBY Lingvo7.0 dictionary as a separate
dictionary entry:
"if any - if this is the case
At the start of every month I have to send him an account of my earnings, if any. — В
начале каждого месяца я должен посылать ему отчет о моих заработках,
если таковые имелись."
Therefore, the omission of the creators of the PROMT system is the word-by-word
translation of this phraseological unit. The next significant drawback is the obvious
'unwillingness' of the system to change the order of words in a sentence - sometimes
it is vital. That is, in the output language, the word order is almost always the same as
in the input language.
It is common knowledge that English nouns have lost the grammatical category of
gender. Therefore, almost all of them agree with the pronoun 3rd person singular. the
numbers "it" are neuter. In Russian, the category of gender in nouns is also present in
the 3rd person singular. in number, they agree with three different pronouns
depending on the grammatical gender. So, the PROMT system, synthesizing the text
in the target language, does not take into account the possibility of agreeing on the
noun and the pronoun replacing it in gender. An example is the last sentence of the
text: "How can you identify the counterfeit and tell whether it is heavy or light, in 3
weighings?". It is translated as follows: "Как Вы можете идентифицировать
подделку и сказать, тяжело ли это или легко, в 3 взвешиваниях?" The
translations of the words "It" and "counterfeit" do not agree in gender: подделка is
feminine, это is neuter; moreover, not seeing the connection between these two
words, the translator substitutes the demonstrative instead of the personal pronoun.
Take the beginning of the US Declaration of Independence as a second
example. Here we will see the translation by the PROMT XT program of a text
written in an official business style at the end of the 18th century. Here is the original
text:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume
among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of
nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
As we can see, this text is far from simple in terms of perception: the sentences
are long, there are many subordinate clauses and homogeneous members. On the
other hand, despite the fact that the text is over 225 years old, there are no words or
grammatical constructions in it that would be incomprehensible to a person who
knows English at least at the level of a native speaker. The test does not use words
whose meanings would be outdated and therefore the only difficulty is the large
volume of sentences and the relative complexity of their construction. The following
is the translation of this text by a human translator:
"Когда в ходе человеческой истории для одного народа становится
необходимым порвать политические узы, связывающие его с другим, и занять
среди наций мира самостоятельное и равное положение, присвоенное ему в
силу естественного права и законов Божественной Природы, — уважение к
мнениям человечества требует декларации причин, вынуждающих его к
отделению. Мы считаем самоочевидными следующие истины: что все люди
созданы равными, что они наделены Создателем определенными
неотъемлемыми правами, среди которых имеется право на жизнь, свободу и
на стремление к счастью; что для обеспечения этих прав существуют среди
людей правительства, осуществляющие свою власть с согласия тех, кем они
управляют…"
But the translation of this text is carried out by the PROMT XT system:
"Когда в ходе человеческих событий, это становится необходимым для одного
людей расторгнуть {распустить} политические полосы{оркестры}, которые
соединили их с другим, и принимать среди полномочий земли, отдельная и
равная станция, на которую законы характера{природы} и Бога
характера{природы} дают право им, приличное уважение{отношение} к
мнениям относительно человечества требует, чтобы они объявили причины,
которые побуждают их к разделению. Мы считаем эти истины быть
самоочевидными, что все мужчины созданы равными, что они обеспечены их
создателем с некоторыми неотъемлемыми правами, которые среди них
являются жизнью, свободой и преследованием счастья, что, чтобы
обеспечить эти права, правительства назначены{установлены} среди
мужчин, получая их справедливые полномочия от согласия управляемых..."
As we can see, the machine translation system has more problems with such
text. Here you can not even mention the choice of the wrong meanings of words, such
as People, bands, station. Based on this sample of text translation, one can personally,
so to speak, see all the imperfection of the mechanisms of grammatical analysis and
synthesis.
 With regard to grammatical synthesis, on the other hand, not much can be said.
Well, for example, the output option "empower them" does not match the language
norm in terms of word order. Thus, when synthesizing grammatical structures in the
target language, we again see a rigid binding to the word order in the text in the target
language. Then, such a phrase as "we consider these truths to be self-evident ..."
strongly resembles the speech of a foreigner who 'learned' Russian through a
phrasebook. But the program was written by Russian specialists! However, in this
case, the linguists who participated in the creation of PROMT systems cannot be
accused of not knowing the grammar of their native language. After all, the problem
here is not in the synthesis of the grammatical structure, but in the same
misunderstanding of the structure of the input language - that is, in grammatical
analysis.
Grammatical analysis, as we can see, is at the most primitive level. Yes, the
system translates simple sentences (and, as we have seen, not all) almost without
errors. Complicated and classical examples of complex sentences are also given to
the system with relative ease. However, as soon as a non-standard situation arises (for
example, one subordinate clause is complicated by another (or even an elementary
introductory or explanatory construction) and, as a result, is broken) and the program
does not find a suitable grammatical analysis algorithm, it immediately forgets about
the syntax and starts an elementary word-by-word translation. formally (through
inflections) trying to connect at least adjacent words. This attempt to connect
grammatically adjacent words together with the wrong choice of meanings of some
words further confuses the output variant.
“Who will call the child by the correct name,” says Shakespeare. The torment
of translation and the torment of the editor is largely associated with the choice of the
"correct name" for a word, phrase, idiom, foreign reality and much, much more. And
the correct choice of the correct word, the "correct name" for a word of the source
language is largely determined by the ability - and art - to work with a dictionary,
more precisely, with dictionaries.
A distinctive feature of all modern lexicography is the synthesis of philology
and culture in the broad sense of the word. A significant part of the culture of any
nation is realized through its language, and the language in all its wealth is fixed, first
of all, in the dictionary.
Awareness of the special role of the dictionary as a vehicle of culture and the
key to it led to an unprecedented surge of lexicographic activity in post-war Europe
and America.
With regard to translation and traditional practice, we will mainly focus on
linguistic dictionaries, although encyclopedic dictionaries (primarily terminological
dictionaries) also play a significant role in the translation and editorial preparation of
many materials of a special nature. Since the main object of the description of a
linguistic dictionary is a word - a unit of language that can be characterized from a
wide variety of aspects (from the side of semantic structure, stylistic attribution,
origin, etc.), there are, as mentioned earlier, various types and types of dictionaries ...
They are mainly determined by two factors: the composition and the number of
explained words, i.e. vocabulary dictionary; the nature of the explanation of the
meaning of the word.
When translating a work of fiction, scientific, educational and reference
literature and editorial preparation of it for publication, the dictionary is inevitably the
main tool of the translator and editor.
It goes without saying that a bilingual translation dictionary is the most
important assistant, tool of a translator and editor. Russian lexicography has
accumulated extensive experience in compiling such dictionaries.
However, it should be noted that not all specialists - translators and editors -
who prepare texts for publication are in the same position. Translators from French
and Italian, for example, do not have such a comprehensive and detailed reference
book at their disposal. In addition, bilingual translation dictionaries do not always
contain all the contextual meanings required by the translator. Hence the need to refer
to monolingual explanatory dictionaries of the source language.
In some cases, it is recommended to resort to the help of a thesaurus - a
dictionary that most fully reflects layers of vocabulary that relate to certain areas of
human knowledge. Such a dictionary is, for example, "Roget's Thesaurus of English
Words and Phrases", which includes six sections: abstract relations; space; matter;
intelligence; will; the senses.
The need to resort to the use of explanatory dictionaries of the source language,
the target language and dictionaries-thesauri in the process of translation and editing
is also dictated by the fact that a bilingual translation dictionary does not always give
a specific contextual meaning of a word, and this meaning can be determined through
the meanings of the closest synonyms offered by explanatory dictionaries ... But even
the meanings of the closest synonyms cannot exhaust all the potential possible
meanings of the word. However, the greater the number of normative meanings of a
word the translator and editor could determine, the easier it becomes the process of
finding a specific contextual meaning.
Dictionaries of synonyms - in the source language and in the target language -
become a huge help in the work of a translator and editor. If it is difficult to find the
normative or contextual meaning of a word of the source language in the dictionary
of synonyms of the source language, synonyms of this word are found, and then their
meanings are searched for in a bilingual translation dictionary, trying to determine
which of these meanings will be closest to the specific required contextual meaning.
Or, having determined the meaning of a word from the original text, using a bilingual
translation dictionary, then they resort to the dictionary of synonyms of the target
language and look for a synonym in it, the meaning of which is closest to the sought
contextual meaning. When translating into Russian, it will be useful to use the
"Dictionary of Russian synonyms" ed. A.P. Evgenieva - the first experience of a
complete collection of synonyms of the Russian language, in which the explanation
of the use of each of the above words is confirmed by a large number of illustrations,
as well as the "Dictionary of Russian Synonyms" by Z.E. Alexandrova.
Less commonly, they practice referring to dictionaries of antonyms - as a rule,
either when performing an antonymic translation, or in cases where the specific
contextual meaning of a word can be determined through the meaning of the antonym
word.
Sometimes the use of dictionaries of synonyms of the target language should
be combined with the use of dictionaries of homonyms of the target language -
especially in those difficult cases when a word in the target language is a homonym
that arose as a result of the collapse of polysemy. It will also be useful to refer to the
dictionary of homonyms of the source language in parallel with the use of a bilingual
translation dictionary.
Separately, one should dwell on phraseological units - combinations of words
with a fully or partially rethought meaning - in bilingual translation dictionaries. No
dictionary can provide for all uses of phraseological units in a context, but the more
complete and representative it is, the more phraseological units can be given, the
more complex phraseological units in structural and semantic terms will be subjected
to semantization. However, when translating structurally and semantically complex
phraseological units, especially when changing the context, it is the creative intuition
of the translator and editor that will play an important role.
In the work of a translator and editor, the importance of special terminological
dictionaries cannot be overemphasized. Being a kind of encyclopedic dictionary, a
terminological dictionary explains the terms of any specialty. The most valuable,
expensive, and least widespread are bilingual terminological dictionaries, where the
terms of one language are explained by the terms of another language (let us name, as
examples, the Great English-Russian Polytechnic Dictionary and the English-Russian
Dictionary of Printing and Publishing). The tasks of the terminological dictionary (in
particular, multilingual) do not include grammatical, stylistic or other linguistic
characteristics of words and phrases that make up the vocabulary of the dictionary.
The vocabulary of a terminological dictionary (as a kind of encyclopedic dictionary)
is fundamentally different from the vocabulary of a linguistic dictionary: it includes,
as a rule, only nouns or word combinations with nouns.
The principle of the location of vocables is also fundamentally different: in the
terminological dictionary, an alphabetic-nested system is adopted. Leading terms are
listed alphabetically. Compound terms, consisting of a definable and a defining
component, should be searched for by the word being defined. When translating and
editorial correction of texts saturated with the terminology of any branch of
knowledge, the following should be remembered. Not a single, especially
polytechnic, dictionary, even with its large volume, can serve as the only manual. It is
advisable, together with the polytechnic dictionary, to use a bilingual translation
dictionary of the largest possible volume, as well as a branch dictionary - in some
cases also a narrow branch dictionary.
A language is a living structure that does not lend itself to complete algorithms
and, therefore, the problem of machine translation cannot be solved by means of
algorithms alone. The machine does not understand the text, it only transforms it by
means of various algorithms and rules. And no matter how many of these rules there
are, without at least a general understanding of the input text there can be no coherent
and stable translation process. At the level of simple sentences and within the
framework of a strictly defined topic, machine translation is in principle possible, but
no more.

Conclusion

The end of the 1990s and the beginning of the XXI century were marked by an
extraordinary rise in lexicographic activity and the release of a large number of
dictionaries. This was the result of a strong change in the socio-political, economic,
cultural concepts of society, the expansion of international relations, the introduction
of computer technology, which led to significant changes in the vocabulary of the
Russian language, the emergence of a mass of neologisms, and a change in the
meanings of existing words. Linguistic transformations had to be recorded in new
linguistic dictionaries. The changing economic structure of the country, the
emergence of a large number of commercial publishing houses and the need for
linguistic dictionaries in the practical and educational fields have led to the
publication of many "mass", commercially profitable and publicly available
dictionaries. However, their preparation is not given the attention that was possible
with the centralized release of dictionaries, when each vocabulary project was
subjected to comprehensive scientific analysis and became an event in the linguistic
world. The same can be said about the editorial preparation of dictionary editions.
Humanity has not yet reached the level of complete automation of translation,
and it probably will not come soon. The reason for this is probably the insufficient
level of development of the sciences involved in the creation of such systems. It is
too difficult to tell how a person translates - and even more difficult to simulate this
process using a computer program. It is all the more difficult to do this, considering
that a person thinks in images, and teaching this to a computer is impossible in
principle (at least, at the present level of computer development).
 Take the indefinite article "a" for example. If a person with a certain baggage
of linguistic knowledge is told the phrase "indefinite article" a, "several images
immediately appear in his mind - starting from the sound form of this article and
ending with the image of uncertainty, whatever the person has this image. However,
even for the most modern In a computer system, the phrase "indefinite article" a
"means only a sequence of two hundred to eight ones and zeros that make up the
binary equivalent of the literal value" indefinite article "a. Therefore, teaching a
computer to independently translate texts is basically impossible at this stage of
development. The language is imaginative and does not lend itself to complete
algorithmicization, and therefore the problem of complete automation of translation is
reduced to the following problem: to teach a machine to think and operate with
images - and this problem is already from the field of problems of artificial
intelligence, the creation of which is still something from the realm of fantasy.
Another thing is that already now we can use the achievements of science and
technology to facilitate the work of a person in all spheres of his activity. Of course,
the applicability of a computer may be somewhere more relevant, and somewhere
less. Nevertheless, computers are applicable everywhere, moreover, the level of their
applicability is constantly growing. This is also true for the automation of the
translation process. If machines cannot yet carry out adequate translation on their
own, then they are quite capable of serving as a serious help for the translator. If they
are used correctly, the efficiency of translation can increase several times, and the
quality of translation will not decrease, but, on the contrary, will increase (take, for
example, the same Translation Memory systems).
Thus, speaking about the most promising ways of developing translation
automation systems, one should probably focus on what is feasible at the moment,
that is, on creating more efficient electronic dictionaries with the most efficient
search and indexing mechanism, with the most integrated system of dictionary
entries. If we take into account the development of Machine Translation systems,
then the most promising direction here will be the improvement of the subsystems of
grammatical analysis and synthesis, as well as an increase in the volume of
contextual coverage of the text and the improvement of semantic chains in order to
more accurately select the meanings of words.
 References

1. Müller V.K. English-Russian dictionary. 53,000 words. Ed. 17th, rev. and
add. M., "Russian language", 1978. 888 p.
2. Müller V.K. New English-Russian Dictionary: Ok. 20,000 words and
phrases / V.K. Mueller. - 12th ed., Stereotype. - M .: Rus.yaz.-Media, 2005.- XIV,
945, [1] p.
3. The English-Russian dictionary. / Comp. VC. Müller, S.K. Boyanus,
Moscow: Lokid-PRESS, 2003, 687 p.
4. Dubrovin M.I. School English-Russian Dictionary: A Handbook for
Students. OK. 8,000 words, 303 p.
5. Romanov A.S. English-Russian and Russian-English dictionary. З5,000
words, 510 p.
6. Arakin V.D., Vygodskaya Z.S., Ilyina N.N. English-Russian dictionary: Ok.
35 000 words. - Publishing house stereotype. - M .: Russian language, Sunday,
Profizdat, 1993. - 608 p.
7. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners International Student
Edition, Oxford, 2002.
8. Comprehensive English-English Dictionary: In 2 volumes. Ok. 150,000
words. / Comp. N. N. Amosova, Yu.D. Apresyan, I.R. Halperin and others; Under.
total hands. I.R. Galperin. - 3rd ed., Stereotype. - M .: Rus. yaz., 1979.
9. Hornby A.S., Gatenby E.V., Wakefield H., The Advanced Learner's
Dictionary of Current English, in 3 volumes. Stavropol, 1992.
10. Compiled. Zolotareva L.S.
 Universal thematic English and Russian dictionary with illustrations. - 175 h.b.
ill. - 8 color ill.- M.: YUNVES.-1996.- 692 p.
11. Marder S. Supplementary Russian-English dictionary.- M .: Veche,
Perseus, 1995.- 544 p.
12. The Oxford-Russian Dictionary English-Russian Dictionary. Oxford-
Moscow, 1999.
13. Concise Oxford Russian Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1998.
Russian-English English-Russian Dictionary.
14. Hawkins, J.M., The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. Oxford
Explanatory Dictionary of the English Language / J. M. Hawkins - M .: OOO "AST
Publishing House": OOO "Astrel Publishing House", 2004.-828 p.
15. COLLINS DICTIONARY, Glasgow, 2000.
16. English-Russian dictionary Collins Gem COBUILD = Collins Gem
COBUILD English Dictionary.-M .: Astrel Publishing House: AST Publishing
House, 20004.-639, [1] p.
17.O'Brier M.A. English-English. Russian-English dictionary. = Russian-
English English-English Dictionary / М.А. O'Brien.- M .: Astrel: AST, 2005-703 [1]
p.
18. Chernykh A.A. English-Russian thematic dictionary.-D .: Stalker, 1997. -
512 p.