with the folk taxonomic system through the use of relational semantic models: the basis for the fonner is chiefly meronymy, while that for the latter is mainly modification. Corresponding to these systems two kinds of dictionaries can be distingwshed: the encyclopedic dictionary and the standard dictionary which are based on extensional and stereotypical concepts respectively. In a scientifically based culture the scientific taxonomical concepts influence the folk taxonomical concepts of plants and animals. This fact should be taken into account in definitions in a comprehensive explanatory dictionary which is based on prototypical concepts and takes a position between the encyclopedic dictionary and the standard dictionary. Keywords: LEXICOGRAPHY, SCIENTIFIC TAXONOMY, FOLK TAXONOMY, SEMANTIC RELATIONS, MERONYMY, MODIFICATION, COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATORY DICTIO-NARY, ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY, STANDARD DICTIONARYOpsomming: In hierdie opstel word die wetenskaplike taksonomiese stelsel met die volkstaksonomiese steIseI gekontrasteer deur die gebruik van relasionele semantiese modelle: die basis vir eersgenoemde is hoofsaaklik meronimie, terwyl die vir laasgenoemde veral modifikasie is. Ooreenstemmend met hierdie steIsels kan twee soorte woordeboeke onderskei word: die ensiklopediese woordehoek en die standaardwoordeboek wat gebaseer is op ekstensionele en stereotipiese konsepte onderskeidelik. In 'n wetenskaplik gebaseerde kultuur beiiwloed die wetenskaplike taicsonomiese konsepte die volkswe~enskaplike konsepte van plante en diere. Hierdie feit behoort In aanmerking geneem te word by definisies in 'n omvattende verklarende woordeboek wat op Prototipiese konsepte gebaseer is en 'n plek tussen die ensikiopediese woordeboek en die standaardwoordeboek inneem.

The papers collected in this volume were originally presented at an International Conference on Historical Lexicography and Lexicology organized by Julie Coleman, and meant to fill the gap created by the two International Round Table Conferences in Florence and Leyden in 1971 and 1977 respectively. The purpose of the conference was to bring together scholars and academics working in the field of historical lexicography, whether researching the history of historical dictionaries or whether compiling dictionaries with a historical point of departure. Accordingly the collection, competently edited and introduced by Julie Coleman and Anne McDermott, is arranged in two sections, reflecting the distinction between those researchers tracing the historical development of dictionaries and those practitioners faced with the problems and challenges of the compilation of historical dictionaries. The first part dealing with the history of dictionaries consists of twelve papers (two-thirds of the book), while the second part dealing with the practice of historical dictionaries consists of six papers (one-third of the book). Although the twelve papers in the first section, with the exception of four, all discuss English dictionaries, the characteristics of these dictionaries revealed in the discussions have enough generalizing value also to be applicable and comparable to similar types in languages other than English. These papers are headed by John Considine's contribution: "Du Cange: Lexicography and the Medieval Heritage". After starting off with a rehearsal of the life of Du Cange and the publication histories of his dictionaries, Considine discusses the claim that Du Cange's work with its Latinist and Byzantinist bias was essentially a patriotic, Francocentric enterprise. Considine shows how Du Cange's account of medieval Latin, the Glossarium latinitatis, illuminated not only the history of French institutions, but also the origins of the French language itself. Furthermore, his research on Byzantine Greek, which culminated in the Glossarium graecitatis, forms part of a network of historical scholarship and polemic whose tendency, and even design, was to bring the Byzantine heritage to France. Considine subsequently advances the idea that the case of Du Cange provides support for the argument that historical lexicography may often or even always lie in the reconstruction of a lost cultural heritage or the rebuilding of a lost cultural homeland, which can only be remembered and mapped as well as possible in a dictionary. This argument makes the paper of Considine a fitting introduction to the following eleven articles on the history of dictionaries. The next two papers, that of Reiko Takeda and that of Ian Lancashire, are thematically connected, both dealing with manuscript dictionaries, Takeda with

No abstract