, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 133–156 | Cite as

Improving the consistency of usage labelling in dictionaries with TEI Lex-0

  • Ana SalgadoEmail author
  • Rute Costa
  • Toma Tasovac
Original Paper


This paper analyzes the application of usage labels in three representative lexicographic works, namely the Portuguese, Spanish, and French Academy Dictionaries as a starting point for creating a consistent classification of usage labels and their encoding in accordance with TEI Lex-0. The use of labels is not always entirely consistent within individual dictionaries and even less so across different lexicographic projects. This makes the tasks of accurately classifying and encoding them quite difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the differences and partial incompatibilities found in the lexicographic literature on the treatment of diasystemic information. We address the existing literature and the initial classification of TEI Lex-0, and argue for the need to introduce some changes to TEI Lex-0, most notably in terms of diatextual labels. Finally, we argue that the existing classifications based on examples rather than on clear and explicit definitions of classification categories will always lack in precision and lead to mutually incompatible encodings of different dictionaries. We propose a set of definitions for usage label categories that can be adopted by TEI Lex-0 and used in other similar attempts to create interoperable lexical resources. An agreement on usage label categories is a first and necessary step before proceeding in the direction of harmonizing and standardizing the actual values of usage labels across various dictionaries and across different languages.


Lexicography Usage labels Diasystemic information TEI 



Research financed by Portuguese National Funding through the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia as part of the project Centro de Linguística da Universidade NOVA de Lisboa—UID/LIN/03213/2019, and by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 731015 (ELEXIS).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.



  1. Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa Contemporânea. 2001. João Malaca Casteleiro (coord.), 2 vols. Lisboa: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa & Editorial Verbo. New digital edition under revision.Google Scholar
  2. Diccionario de la Lengua Española (24.ª ed.). Real Academia Española, 2001–2018,
  3. Dictionnaire de l´Académie Française (9.ª ed.). Académie Française, 2019,

Other literature

  1. Ahumada, I. (ed.). 2002. Diccionarios y lenguas de especialidad. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.Google Scholar
  2. Atkins, B. T. S., and M. Rundell. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergenholtz, H., and S. Tarp. 1995. Manual of Specialised Lexicography. The Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Considine, J. 2014. Academy dictionaries 1600–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fedorova, I. V. 2004. Style and Usage Labels in Learner’s Dictionaries: Ways of Optimization. In Proceedings of the 11th Euralex International Congress, ed. Geoffrey Williams and Sandra Vessier, pp. 265–272. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud, Faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines.Google Scholar
  6. Hausmann, F. J. 1989. Die Markierung in eineim allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch: eine Übersicht. In Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie, ed. F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand and L. Zgusta, pp. 649–657. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, H. 2002. Lexicography: An Introduction. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Landau, S. 1989. Dictionaries. The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Milroy, J., and L. Milroy. 1990. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Monson, S. C. 1973. "Discussion Paper: Restrictive Labels – Descriptive or Prescriptive?". In Lexicography in English. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 211, ed. McDavid Jr., R. I., Duckert. A. R., pp. 208–212.Google Scholar
  11. Rey, A. 2008. De l´artisanat des dictionnaires à une science du mot. Images et modèles. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  12. Romary, L., and T. Tasovac. 2018. TEI Lex-0: A Target Format for TEI-Encoded Dictionaries and Lexical Resources. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Japanese Association for Digital Humanities, pp. 274–275.
  13. Sakwa, L. N. 2011. Problems of Usage Labelling in English Lexicography. Lexicos 21, pp. 305–315. Scholar
  14. Salgado, A., R. Costa, T. Tasovac, and A. Simões. 2019. TEI Lex-0 In Action: Improving the Encoding of the Dictionary of the Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. In Proceedings of the eLex 2019 conference, 1–3 October 2019, Sintra, Portugal, pp. 417–433. Brno: Lexical Computing CZ, s.r.o.Google Scholar
  15. Svensén, B. 2009. A Handbook of Lexicography: The Theory and Practice of Dictionary Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. TEI Consortium, eds. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. [Version 3.5.0]. [Last updated on 29th January 2019, revision 3c0c64ec4]. TEI Consortium. ([13.07.2019]).
  1. Yong, H., and J. Peng. 2007. Bilingual Lexicography from a Communicative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOVA CLUNL Universidade NOVA de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Belgrade Center for Digital HumanitiesBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations