In their advertisements, dictionary publishers often praise their dictionaries for taking into account the exact needs of the users. Until the beginning of the 1980s, however, no theoretical contributions on dictionary use were available, neither in the form of purely theoretical considerations nor in the form of empirical research. Since then, the situation has changed completely. Such a large number of user surveys have been carried out that it is no longer possible to give a complete overview. Nevertheless, this has led to no signifi cant improvement of the situation as the majority of these surveys are not related to concrete examples of dictionary use. The surveys, which have always been concerned with printed dictionaries, have therefore not contributed to substantial improvements of dictionary conception.In the case of internet dictionaries, on the other hand, technical possibilities enable lexicographers to monitor user behaviour in a different and much more precise way. Analyses of log fi les reveal exactly which lemmas and which types of information have been requested, and, perhaps more signifi cantly, which lemmas and which types of information have been requested but were not found in the dictionary. Furthermore, log fi les allow lexicographers to see the types of information which have not, or not yet, been searched for. All in all, log fi les may thus be used as a tool for improving internet dictionaries -and perhaps also printed dictionaries -quite considerably.

Abstract:User surveys of printed dictionaries may be characterised as non-representative and non-realistic laboratory tests, often with retrospective questions based on memory. Log file analyses concerning the use of Internet dictionaries, on the other hand, are based on large numbers of users and look-ups. However, log file analyses have also been characterised by a juggling of numbers based on data calculations of limited direct relevance to practical and theoretical lexicography.This article proposes the development of lexicographically relevant log files for the use in log file analyses in order to give a true picture of how and why different dictionaries are employed for different purposes.

Surprisingly, no attempts have yet been made to relate language policy and communica tion policy. This is the case in theoretical contributions on language policy and theoretical contributions on communication policy alike, none of which mentions the other concept. It is also the case in existing language policies where the term communication policy is not referred to at all. Likewise, the term language policy is not found in communication policies, even when a particular company or organisation has a language policy as well as a communication policy. This contribution aims to defi ne both terms and subsequently to establish the relation between them. There are at least two signifi cant differencesThe second half of the 20 th century saw the formation of a number of new composites derived from the term policy, e.g. educational policy, children's policy, women's policy, environmental policy and immigration policy. These new derivations were related to key areas in the political decision-making processes of international, national or local authorities. From the late 1980s, the scope of such derivations was broadened to include aspects such as planning and decision-making in companies, organisations, schools and other non-political groups. Examples include senior policy, smoking policy, alcohol policy and stress policy. Along with this development, the scope of older, purely political terms has also been broadened to include planning and decision-making in companies etc. This development is social as well as linguistic, and it does not just apply to the Danish language, nor has it only occurred in Denmark. The group of new derivations also comprises the terms language policy and communication policy.