Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc The article discusses the possible uses of innovations in the treatment of various types of zero equivalence in an online bilingual English-Slovene dictionary, whose primary target audience is native speakers of Slovene who use the bilingual dictionary mostly for decoding. The use of special symbols that indicate either the absence of equivalents (slashed zero, hash) or an approximate equivalent (double tilde) is commented on, and suggestions are made for including these in an online dictionary in a more user-friendly way, since online dictionaries can offer much more than printed dictionaries not only in terms of the nature and extent of linguistic data but also in terms of new access options. Since not all information is shown on screen, additional information found in a number of locations can be retrieved - if needed or wanted - by clicking on data-identifying buttons. These buttons can be regarded as search routes leading the user to the required information category. They accommodate various types of clearly demarcated information, which contributes to the more personalized approach adopted by an online dictionary. Sample dictionary entries are used to show what kinds of buttons (notes on the usage of the lemma; more illustrative examples; expansion of truncated examples; notes on cultural specificity of culture-bound lemmata) can be included in an online bilingual English- Slovene dictionary. The suggestions presented in the article do not apply only to an English-Slovene online dictionary but can also be applied to other bilingual online dictionaries with modifications and adaptations resulting from the particular language pair treated in a given dictionary. 1. Introduction Research into dictionary use and users’ reference needs has shown that finding the meanings of lexical items occupies the first place among the reasons for consulting a dictionary. In monolingual dictionaries, the semantic part of the dictionary entry is represented by a definition, while in AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 45 (2020) · Heft 1 Gunther Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ AAA-2020-0013 Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 46 bilingual dictionaries, the dictionary equivalent is provided. Monolingual dictionaries, especially learner’s dictionaries, are considered to be “superior to bilingual dictionaries in terms of their usefulness as language learning tools” (Nesi 2014: 38); nevertheless, quite a few language learners still prefer to use bilingual dictionaries. This is why special attention should be given to equivalence in bilingual dictionaries to make the semantic component as useful as possible for the dictionary user, i.e., the learner of one of the languages of the dictionary. Lexicographers working on a bilingual dictionary should strive to find the most suitable equivalents in the target language (TL) for all senses of the lemmata in the source language (SL) and to present these in the dictionary as clearly as possible. Since not all lemmata in a monolingual dictionary have the same degree of definability (Hausmann 1997: 172), they also lack the same degree of translatability in a bilingual dictionary, where dictionary users expect to find equivalents of the SL items that are real lexical units of the TL and which produce a smooth translation when inserted into the context (Zgusta 1984: 147). In other words, the equivalents should be as near as possible to the SL items with regard to meaning and usage. However, as Gouws (2002: 195) rightly establishes, dictionary users should be aware that a specific equivalent offered by a dictionary might only arbitrarily be regarded as the meaning of the lemma, since an equivalent is a TL item which can substitute for the SL item in a specific occurrence, depending on specific contextual and cotextual restrictions 1 . It should, however, be stressed that the perfect translation of an SL word is rare in general language and, as Atkins and Rundell (2008: 467-468) state, the equivalence relationship between an SL word and a TL word varies from exact to very approximate or from perfect to barely adequate. The reason for partial or relative rather than full or exact equivalence can be sought in three properties of natural languages: i.e., vagueness of meaning, polysemy and anisomorphism (Adamska-Sałaciak 2013: 222). In his discussion of cross-linguistic lexical anisomorphism, Šipka (2015: 51) makes a distinction between multiple equivalence (the part of the semantic scope in one language is covered by an additional equivalent), zero equivalence (the word is a culture-bound word and the additional equivalent does not exist, cf. Svensén 2009: 261), and partial equivalence (there is some other difference in the features of the two contrasted words). Zero or surrogate equivalence is the equivalence relationship that poses the greatest challenge to any bilingual lexicographer. There are various cases of zero equivalence, which can be illustrated by Baker’s (2011: 18- 23) detailed classification of non-equivalence at word level: culture-specific concepts; the SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL; the SL word is 1 Bilingual dictionaries also offer their users contextual equivalents that fill translation gaps and are used in a restricted set of contexts (Héja 2017). Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 47 semantically complex; the SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning; the TL lacks a superordinate; the TL lacks a specific term (hyponym); differences in physical or interpersonal perspective; differences in expressive meaning; differences in form; differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms; or the use of loan words in the source text. Gouws (2002: 200) expresses an opinion similar to that of Baker, saying that “[s]urrogate equivalents belong to different categories and their choice is determined by the nature of the lexical gap”. Well-established, printed bilingual dictionaries use acknowledged methods for overcoming the problem of zero equivalence, such as new coinage, loan translation, direct borrowing, encyclopaedic explanations and explanatory glosses combined with adoption of an SL word (Šipka 2015: 52-53; Svensén 2009: 261, 274- 275). Although loan words are a good solution to the absence of equivalents, lexicographers usually provide brief paraphrases of their meaning if a loan word is not well established (cf. Zgusta 1971: 319; Gouws 2002: 200). The question can be posed whether online bilingual dictionaries, which are consulted by an increasing number of users, could take a different new approach to the treatment of zero equivalence. Without a shadow of a doubt, the emergence of online lexicography has heralded a new culture in dictionary use, and lexicographers need to take cognisance of this new culture (Gouws 2018a: 233). Lexicographers have always used all the technology available; however, there are only a few existing online dictionaries that use the technical capacity of the electronic medium to full potential, whether in the conception and preparation of dictionaries, or in access to and presentation of the data therein (Fuertes-Olivera and Bergenholtz 2011: 1). This can be attributed to the fact that most lexicographers simply continue the tradition of planning and compiling polyfunctional online dictionaries, which are taken directly from or made similar to printed dictionaries, but ignore the development of the computer and information sciences, which have created a completely new technological environment in which lexicography is now developing (Tarp 2011: 56). Similarly, Gouws (2014: 156-157) points out that the main problem is that many lexicographic e-products were developed without taking account of innovative theoretical suggestions, since all the prevailing models, proposals and discussions in lexicographic theory have been primarily directed at printed dictionaries. In comparison with printed dictionaries, online dictionaries offer significant advantages, e.g., limitations of space are less pressing 2 , which means 2 Lew (2011) makes a distinction between storage space, i.e., the capacity to hold the total content of the dictionary, which is relatively unrestricted in electronic dictionaries, and presentation space (called screen space restraints by Gouws and Tarp 2017: 409), i.e., the display of lexicographic information at a given time to the dictionary user, which is restricted because of the size of the screen of a computer or Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 48 that additional content can be provided, and multimedia content can be included, such as audio and video clips or audio pronunciation. Another feature of online dictionaries involves what is called customizability and personalizability by Atkins and Rundell (2008: 239); examples can be found in offline monolingual learner’s dictionaries (CD-ROMs/ DVD- ROMs): recording your own speech and comparing your pronunciation with the dictionary pronunciation, creating your own dictionary by typing in a new entry together with a definition and examples of use, or adding your own note or translation(s) to each dictionary entry (cf. Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2016a). However, offline dictionaries have already been left behind, and lexicography has moved to the Internet, which is now the most important platform for dictionaries (Gouws and Tarp 2017: 391). In online dictionaries, the default presentation of data can be supplemented by outer texts or outer features 3 whose aim is to accommodate additional information. If these data are located outside the dictionary entries, users may need additional assistance for two reasons: to make them aware of these locations and to determine a search route to these locations (Gouws 2018b: 47). Nowadays, when online dictionaries, whether mono-, bior multilingual, are increasingly used, innovations are necessary to be competitive (Fuertes-Olivera et al. 2018: 174). Apart from that, it is important to develop theoretical models that can be used in the compilation of online dictionaries to enhance accessibility and ensure faster consultation procedures. Special attention should be paid to the following (Gouws 2014: 157): the data included; the structures to present and accommodate the data; the functions of online dictionaries; and the way they meet the needs of the target users. Technological innovations are necessary in the production, presentation, usage and financing of lexicographic products; however, adaptation to the new technological environment is not always easy (Fuertes-Olivera et al. 2018: 155). Similar to printed dictionaries, it is of great importance prior to the compilation of online dictionaries to clearly identify the data distribution structure and to devise a default entry structure (i.e., an entry structure accommodating an obligatory microstructure), as well as to consider the need for an extended obligatory microstructure (Klosa and Gouws 2015: 146-147). Finally, it should be taken into consideration that today’s users, especially the members of Generation Z, who have grown up with the Internet and who access dictionaries mostly on their smartphones, have a totally different attitude and approach to reference works than the previous generations of users (Gouws 2018a: 233; Gouws and Tarp 2017: 393). any other device; the amount of data presented to the user during a look-up operation depends on the presentation space. 3 When talking about online dictionaries, the term ‘outer features’ is preferred to ‘outer texts’, since the elements presented in the outer domain of online dictionaries are not part of the broad category of texts (Klosa and Gouws 2015: 148). Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 49 For the user of any dictionary, quick and easy access to looked-up information is of the utmost importance, which calls for careful arrangement of the various components in a dictionary entry. The ordering of components is a feature typical of the access structure as one of the core dictionary structures; dictionary as well as access structures were investigated in great detail by Wiegand (1984, 1989, 1996, 2005). The access structure is closely connected with the entry structure, the latter being crucial in the accessibility of lexicographic data (Gouws 2014: 158; Gouws 2018b: 52). Given the importance of the entry structure, we should briefly describe the constituent elements of entries as identified by Wiegand (1989: 427-428). Entries contain text segments that are divided into items and structural indicators. Items belong to the microstructure and are data-carrying entry components presented in various search zones within the dictionary entry as a search area (Wiegand, Beer and Gouws 2013: 63). Structural indicators, both typographical and non-typographical, are elements of the entry structure; these identify certain items and are not data-carrying entry components (Gouws 2014: 160-161; Gouws 2018b: 52-53). Printed dictionaries have a long tradition and consequently a clearly identified access structure: a linear order starting from the lemma and proceeding to a specific information category in the dictionary entry, which enables the user to employ a combination of the outer and inner access structures 4 to follow the search route (Gouws 2018b: 44). In online dictionaries, the access structure may be regarded as the most important structure (Svensén 2009: 441). In fact, many features characteristic of printed dictionaries are also retained in online dictionaries, even though the presentation of information categories may differ. Thus, it can be claimed that a certain arrangement of various components can determine the access route a user can follow to arrive at the required information category in the online dictionary. However, the users of online dictionaries should and could be given a choice to use all components of the dictionary entries, some of them, or only a minimum number of components (Gouws 2018b: 45). A variety of innovations can be found in online dictionaries, such as improved access routes; less compact entry formats (items representing different information categories are placed in separate lines); metatexts used to introduce sections with specific information categories; hidden data that are not on display but can be called up if needed; pop-up windows and hypermedia, which are used to present additional data (Gouws and Tarp 2017: 391). In this article, the focus is on the innovations in the treatment of zero equivalence in an online bilingual English-Slovene dictionary, 4 According to Hausmann and Wiegand (1989: 329), the inner access structure is used in reference to the access structure of the microstructure (e.g., numbered senses, distinct typography, boxes), whereas other access structures, especially those of the A-Z section, are referred to as outer access structures (e.g., running heads, thumb index). Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 50 whose primary target audience is native speakers of Slovene who are learning English as a second or foreign language and use the bilingual dictionary mostly, but not exclusively, for decoding. A comparative perspective is provided by drawing parallels with lemmata lacking equivalents in three online English-German dictionaries: Cambridge dictionary English-German, Collins dictionary English-German and Langenscheidt dictionary English-German. Since online dictionaries can offer much more than printed dictionaries in terms of the nature and extent of linguistic data (Gouws 2018a: 234), and since there are new access options in online dictionaries, the emphasis is on the retrieval of various information categories that could help the users to better comprehend the lemmata without any equivalents in the TL. In order to avoid the inclusion of too much data or the inclusion of data the user may consider superfluous in the concrete look-up operation, not all information is shown on screen when the user opens a dictionary entry. In online dictionaries, providing as much lexicographic data as possible (i.e., data overload) may cause problems because the users get more data than needed and can become confused and consequently fail to retrieve the necessary information from the dictionary entry (Gouws and Tarp 2017: 397). One solution to the problem of data overload, which will be discussed in more detail in the article, is to access additional information by clicking on buttons that function as data-identifying entry components. These buttons accommodate various types of clearly demarcated information, which contributes to the more personalized approach adopted by an online dictionary. The users can get additional information on request only and can thus avoid reading a huge amount of lexicographic data that might not be relevant to each and every look-up operation. 2. Special Symbols Indicating Different Types of Absence of Equivalents Symbols are used in dictionaries as non-typographical indicators. If lexicographers decide to use a symbol, they should bear in mind that the use of a symbol may not be completely obvious and clear to dictionary users. Most importantly, users need to be familiar with the value of a range of symbols that appears in a given dictionary (Gouws 2014: 171) to be able to interpret a symbol rightly. The use of special symbols, such as 0 or slashed zero Ø (Wiegand 2002: 248-249; Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2017), can be considered a very easy, direct and quick way of making the user aware of the fact that no TL equivalents exist for the SL item. In this contribution, the sample dictionary entries are taken from an online English-Slovene dictionary that is still being compiled. This dictionary will contain approximately 53,000 lemmata and around 16,000 secondary lemmata (i.e., phraseological units included in the idioms section and multi-word verbs included in the phrasal verbs section). As such, it is Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 51 considered to be a more comprehensive bilingual English-Slovene dictionary. What is more important is that it is the only bilingual dictionary compiled so far in Slovenia with a strong pedagogical and didactic orientation. Its publication is planned for the second half of 2020. In this dictionary, a slashed zero Ø is used to mark the complete absence of any equivalent, whereas the hash symbol # indicates cases of no equivalence at word level. In the latter case, the untranslatable SL lexical item used in an example illustrating its use can be rendered into the TL, which means that equivalence is reached at the level of the entire message (Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2017). Another symbol employed in the sample dictionary entries for culture-bound lemmata with no true equivalent in the TL is the double tilde (≈) indicating an approximate equivalent (see 3.3 below). One reason that the use of the symbols Ø and # may be especially confusing for users is that they follow the sense number and precede the section with illustrative examples; in other words, they occupy the place where the user expects to find equivalents. The user may even think that dictionary equivalents are missing by accident rather than by design. If the use of an agreed symbol is a consistent practice adopted by the lexicographers of a certain bilingual dictionary, then the user should have access to information about its meaning. There are several options for including the explanation of the symbol:  the user can hold the cursor over the symbol and read the explication of the symbol;  the user can click on the symbol and open a window with the explication of the symbol;  some type of guiding material can be included to the left or right of the main column; in it, the use of the special symbol could be explained. Below, we discuss some data-identifying buttons that could be employed in an English-Slovene online dictionary in cases of zero equivalence to provide additional information. However, the use of the buttons described is not limited only to this language pair, but could also be used in other bilingual online dictionaries with modifications and adaptations resulting from the specific language pair treated in a given dictionary. 3. Data-Identifying Buttons The most significant differences between printed and online dictionaries can be found in the dictionary structure rather than in lexicographic functions (e.g., text reception, text production and translation) and linguistic content (Gouws 2018a: 235). As opposed to printed dictionaries which are characterized by a static structure for dictionary entries, online dictionaries Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 52 have a more dynamic, multi-layered structure (Gouws 2014: 165), enabling quick access to various types of information. In printed dictionaries, where structural indicators are used, dictionary users do not have to read the whole entry, since the indicators help them to skip certain sections and to quickly reach the desired search zone (Gouws 2018b: 53). With some medium-specific adaptations, structural indicators can also be employed in online dictionaries to facilitate and expedite the look-up process. In online dictionaries, (rapid) access to different information categories in the entry is possible by means of data-identifying entry components which have the same function as structural indicators in printed dictionaries (Gouws 2014: 171). There is no need to provide a view of the full entry in an online dictionary, since there is no traditional search area in which all the different search zones can be seen (Gouws 2018a: 241). However, the users of online dictionaries have the option of moving from one layer to another by simply clicking on various data-identifying buttons leading to specific search zones, such as collocations, related words or grammatical constructions (Gouws 2014: 170). It should be stressed that not all users are interested in a particular type of information, no matter how useful it may seem to the lexicographers. Therefore, in order to move from a printed dictionary to an online dictionary that better meets the user’s needs, the inclusion of specific information should follow the principle of having information available a click away but not forcing it on users who do not want it. The text obtained by clicking on the buttons can often be compared to the text provided in special boxes in printed monolingual dictionaries (e.g., usage notes), and this text is a result of the awareness of lexicographers that users may need additional information about the lemmata. In monolingual dictionaries, especially learner’s dictionaries, which generally give advice to language learners as to what is correct or preferred in a foreign language, usage notes are aimed at helping users with various aspects of grammar, semantics, pragmatics, stylistics and collocational patterns (Jackson 2002: 180-181; Cowie 1999: 170). In bilingual dictionaries, additional information is included to guide the user not only by contrasting related words, focusing on crucial differences and avoiding incorrect use (Gouws and Prinsloo 2010: 506, 507), but also by concentrating on a comparison of items in the two languages in terms of meaning, syntax, style, register, collocational patterns, etc. (Atkins 1996: 528). Even though a bilingual dictionary is mostly used only for decoding or encoding, in practice, we do not have a set of four bilingual dictionaries to cover the vocabulary of two languages, while serving for both decoding and encoding for native speakers of either language. Consequently, bilingual dictionaries often combine the features typical of both encoding and decoding dictionaries, which means that they can be referred to as combined encoding and decoding dictionaries (Jacobsen et al. 1991: 2786); this holds true not only for printed but also for online bilingual dictionaries. Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 53 The decisions made by lexicographers working on a bilingual dictionary on what type of additional information to include should be based on a precise contrastive analysis of both languages, which should yield the relevant material that needs to be explained to help the users to a better understanding of the lemma, its function(s) and use. In a bilingual dictionary, many contrastive issues are resolved by appropriate dictionary equivalents or translated illustrative examples, without any further need to additionally explain the differences. If this is not the case, the differences have to be explained and exemplified, and this is where additional information can be provided in online dictionaries by means of data-identifying buttons, whose selection and use should be determined in the process of designing and compiling an online dictionary (Gouws 2014: 161). Additional information would not necessarily be information on contrastive differences between the two languages; it could concentrate on features typical of the SL only, without drawing parallels between the SL and the TL. Data-identifying buttons can be used to provide various very specific pieces of information and should therefore be termed differently. Using ‘Read more’ or ‘Read less’ can be considered far too general, since it does not tell the user anything about the type of information retrieved by clicking on it. The buttons should bear specific names explicitly identifying the type of information accommodated in the relevant search zone and should enable explicit and rapid access to the relevant data (Gouws 2014: 161, 167), since in online dictionaries, the dictionary entries should be structured to take into account various aspects not only of access but also of accessibility to serve the needs of potential users as efficiently as possible and to enable optimal information retrieval. 3.1 Short Descriptions of the Function(s) of the SL Lemma A theoretical explanation is sometimes essential to help the user to more fully understand the SL lemma in question. In a bilingual English-Slovene dictionary, English auxiliary verbs, among other things (cf. also Ilc 2014), prove difficult to render into Slovene, since they perform functions peculiar to English and thus remain untranslated in Slovene. As indicated in Figure 1, no equivalent exists in Slovene for have used as an auxiliary. have aux v ØUSAGE He’s finished his work. Končal je delo. He had left before I got there. Odšel je, preden sem prišla tja. Figure 1: Lack of equivalents in the entry for the auxiliary verb have. Such a treatment may be sufficient for some - or perhaps even the majority of - dictionary users, but more demanding users may want to learn about the reasons for the lack of equivalents. The user of an online dictionary can Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 54 be offered an explanation of the function(s) of the auxiliary verb in the SL, i.e., tense formation in English, which should be available at the click on a data-identifying button called USAGE (see Figure 2). The explanation should be written in the metalanguage of the dictionary, i.e., Slovene in our case 5 . Special attention should be paid to the formulation of such explanations: they should be written in a simple language; they should be brief, concise and clear; technical terms with which average users are likely to be unfamiliar should be avoided. USAGE With the past participle to form either the present perfect or the past perfect Figure 2: Usage note in the entry for the auxiliary verb have. The role of additional explanations of the usage of the lemma in question becomes even more important in polysemous entries, especially if there are several senses with no equivalents in the TL. An example presented in Figure 3 is the entry for the auxiliary verb do, which lacks a Slovene equivalent in eight out of ten senses. do aux v 1. ØUSAGE He did not (= didn’t) manage to visit the Louvre. Ni mu uspelo obiskati Louvra. 2. ØUSAGE What does he want? Kaj želi? 3. ali ne, kajne I know you from somewhere, don’t I? Od nekod vas poznam, ali ne? 4. ØUSAGE “You went to Paris, didn’t you? ” - “Yes, I did.” / “No, I didn’t.” “Šel si v Pariz, ali ne? ” - “Ja, sem.” / “Ne, nisem.” 5. ØUSAGE Do not (= Don’t) be so foolish! Ne bodi tako neumen! 6. infml ØUSAGE Do be quiet, children. Bodite že tiho, otroci. 7. res, resnično Do shut up! Utihni že! 8. ØUSAGE You mustn’t act as he does. Ne smeš ravnati tako kot on. 9. ØUSAGE “I don’t know John.” - “Neither/ Nor do I.” “Johna ne poznam.” - “Jaz tudi ne.” “I knew John.” - “So did I.” “Poznal sem Johna.” - “Jaz tudi.” 10. ØUSAGE Never did I say a thing like that! Nikoli nisem rekel česa takega! Figure 3: Lack of equivalents in the entry for the auxiliary verb do. Users could become totally confused by finding so many senses with a slashed zero if they are not given information on the distinction between 5 The metalanguage of an English-Slovene dictionary intended for native speakers of Slovene is Slovene, but for the purpose of this article, English is used as a metalanguage. Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 55 the senses marked in such a way, since examples illustrating the use of do in various senses may not be sufficiently informative for an average user. As far as the entry for do is concerned, all the senses - including those with equivalents - require an additional piece of information regarding usage (see Figure 4). USAGE (sense 1) In negative sentences USAGE (sense 2) In questions USAGE (sense 3) In question tags USAGE (sense 4) In short answers USAGE (sense 5) In negative imperative sentences USAGE (sense 6) In imperative sentences for emphasis USAGE (sense 7) For emphasis USAGE (sense 8) To replace the verb USAGE (sense 9) With so, neither, nor USAGE (sense 10) In inverted word order Figure 4: Usage notes in the entry for the auxiliary verb do. Were all these data to be displayed on screen, users could be faced with functional data overload 6 . As was established in the Introduction, this English-Slovene dictionary is intended primarily to help the native speakers of Slovene when decoding. In dictionaries for decoding, specific types of lexicographic data are required which differ from lexicographic data needed in dictionaries for encoding. The inclusion of data necessary while performing various activities, e.g., reading, writing and translating, can be considered relevant if included in a dictionary covering both decoding and encoding functions. However, some of this information is superfluous to the user who consults the dictionary only for decoding or only for encoding, since the data are not selected and presented in accordance with the function of the dictionary (Gouws and Tarp 2017: 406, 412). In the case of the English-Slovene dictionary, such data may be of little help when the user looks up a lemma only to find out what it means. However, information 6 A good example of functional data overload is the entry for do in the online Cambridge dictionary English-German ( https: / / dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/ englishgerman/ do ), where the explanations of the functions of the auxiliary verb do are provided in English and translated into German. A much better solution can be found in the Collins dictionary English-German (https: / / www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/ english-german/ do), where the function of the auxiliary verb is briefly described in English only and the equivalent is provided in red if it exists; otherwise, no equivalent but also no other symbol indicating lack of equivalence is given. Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 56 that tells the user something about grammatical features of the lemma is available by a click of the button if needed or wanted by the user. In this particular case, the user learns that the auxiliary verb do lacks an equivalent in Slovene when it functions as operator or first auxiliary. This approach uses - at least to a certain extent - the method adopted by monolingual English learner’s dictionaries, whose primary aim is to help learners of English in encoding activities. Consequently, a bilingual dictionary if compiled in such a way can be used not only for decoding but also for encoding, which is in line with Gouws and Tarp (2017: 412), who claim that multifunctional online dictionaries can be useful reference sources - as long as users have access to the precise data relevant to their needs in a specific look-up operation. 3.2 The Inclusion of Illustrative Examples If there is no equivalent in the TL, no dictionary equivalents can be offered and consequently, the meaning of a lemma can be conveyed only by means of examples illustrating its use. Untranslated examples are often not very helpful to the users of bilingual dictionaries, which is even more so in the case of no equivalence when users are unfamiliar with the meaning of the lemma in question; the translation of examples is therefore a necessity (Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2016b: 308). It should be emphasized that balance in the amount of context in illustrative examples is something to strive for (Atkins and Rundell 2008: 460), and examples should be carefully selected by the lexicographers to enable the users to become familiar with the different coand contexts in which the lemma or one of its senses is used. The examples can be incorporated in the form of a full or partial sentence. The choice of the form of examples depends greatly on the peculiarities of the TL (Slovene in our case). Lexicographers should resort to full sentences if the translation into the TL is heavily context dependent, thus requiring a wider context. Partial sentences can be used if they adequately illustrate how the SL lemma is rendered in a certain TL context. This can be exemplified by means of the examples illustrating the use of the verb bear in the sense with no equivalent at word level (see Figure 5); the translated examples clearly show a semantic connection between the verb used in the Slovene translation of the English examples and the noun used in the English example: Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 57 bear v … # bear a grudge against sbEXPAND zameriti komu bear no ill willEXPAND ne zameriti bear resentment towards sbEXPAND zameriti komu Figure 5: Partial examples illustrating the sense of the verb bear without equivalents at word level. All three examples are of the same type, i.e., bear + noun, and all of them are translated into Slovene by the verb zameriti, whose meaning is related to that of the English noun grudge ‘zamera’. The use of truncated examples can be regarded as an appropriate choice, since the examples clearly show how bear followed by a specific noun is rendered into Slovene. Dictionary users often express a preference for short, concise information, which also applies to the choice of sentence form; in many cases, they may find short examples sufficiently informative and thus more user-friendly than long ones. However, some users may want full-sentence examples even in those cases where lexicographers might deem just a phrase or a brief word combination as perfectly adequate (cf. Farina, Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2019). In an online dictionary, the option of expanding truncated illustrative examples by clicking on a special button (i.e., EXPAND) should be given to users who prefer full-sentence examples or even short paragraphs in which the lemma is used in a wider context. In the three examples illustrating the use of bear, we can observe a certain degree of fixedness, which clearly indicates the (at least partially idiomatic) nature of the verb (cf. Ilc 2016). Therefore, it seems sensible to mark this particular part in the full-sentence example by distinct typography (bold and italics in the examples in Figure 6), which also holds true of its translation into the TL. EXPAND Is that not merely a last act of spite by a Government who still bear a grudge against London? Ali ni to samo zadnje zlobno dejanje vlade, ki še vedno zameri Londonu? EXPAND He seemed to bear no ill will toward the country, which had denied him citizenship. Zdelo se je, da ni zameril državi, ki mu ni odobrila državljanstva. EXPAND They find it very difficult to parent children who are virtual strangers and who often bear resentment towards them for having been abandoned at a young age. Zdelo se jim je zelo težko, da so starši otrokom, ki so jim praktično tujci in ki jim pogosto zamerijo, da so jih v zgodnjem otroštvu zapustili. Figure 6: Expanded examples illustrating the senses of the verb bear without equivalents at word level. Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 58 In selecting examples, it is of the utmost importance to offer the users various types of coand context in which a lemma can be used, so that they can get a clear idea of the variety of possible uses of the lemma and its translations into the TL. If more illustrative examples are included, there is a greater chance for the user to find the example they need to more fully understand and/ or translate the looked-up lexical item in the context. However, it is difficult to answer the question about the “right” number of examples that should be included to best illustrate the use of a lexical item in various coor contexts or to contextualize the (meaning of the) lemma in different (translation) situations, and especially in situations in which no equivalent can be offered in the TL. The number of examples also depends on the user: some users need just one example, while other users prefer quite a few examples, but there are also users who do not even notice the examples and consequently do not make use of them at all. A personalized approach is advisable in such cases, since users nowadays increasingly expect “the provision of the exact amount and types of data required to meet the user’s needs in each concrete consultation, neither more nor less” (Fuertes-Olivera and Tarp 2014: 64). In an online environment, which allows much greater flexibility than printed dictionaries, the mode of delivery can be employed which can already be found in a number of online monolingual English learner’s dictionaries: by clicking on the button MORE EXAMPLES, the user can find additional examples together with their translations into the TL (see Fig. 7). should v 1. morati, moral bi You shouldn’t do it. Tega ne smeš narediti. MORE EXAMPLES 2. naj Should I come back in the afternoon? Ali naj se vrnem popoldne? 3. bi I should be grateful … Bila bi hvaležna … 4. bom, bova, bomoUSAGE 7 I said (that) I should be glad to help her. Rekel sem, da ji bom z veseljem pomagal. 5. ØUSAGE 8 7 Usage note in sense 4: USAGE The past form of shall in the reported speech 8 Usage note in sense 5 (based on OALD9): USAGE should used after that after many adjectives that describe feeling: I find it strange that they should be so rude to me. Zdi se mi čudno, da so do mene tako nevljudni. should used for expressing strong agreement: “She would never break her promise.” “I should hope not.” “Nikoli ne bi prelomila obljube.” “Upam, da ne.” should used with I and we to give opinions that you are not certain about: I should imagine that they are really happy. Predstavljam si, da so res veseli; “Will he be at the party? ” “I should think so.” “Ali bo na zabavi? ” “Mislim, da bo.” should used to refuse something or to show that you are annoyed at a request; should used to express surprise about an event or a situation: Just at that moment who should walk in but John himself. Ravno v tem trenutku je vstopil kdo drug kot John. Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 59 I find it strange that they should be so rude to me. Zdi se mi čudno, da so do mene tako nevljudni. MORE EXAMPLES Figure 7: Examples included in the entry for the verb should. Additional examples retrieved by means of the MORE EXAMPLES button are shown in Figure 8. MORE EXAMPLES (sense 1) We shouldn’t have trusted them. Ne bi jim bili smeli zaupati. MORE EXAMPLES (sense 5) I find it strange that they should be so rude to me. Zdi se mi čudno, da so do mene tako nevljudni. “She would never break her promise.” “I should hope not.” “Nikoli ne bi prelomila obljube.” “Upam, da ne.” I should imagine that they are really happy. Predstavljam si, da so res veseli. “Will he be at the party? ” “I should think so.” “Ali bo na zabavi? ” “Mislim, da bo.” It is essential that we should protect databases. Nujno je, da zaščitimo baze podatkov. Just at that moment who should walk in but John himself. Ravno v tem trenutku je vstopil kdo drug kot John. Figure 8: Additional examples included in the entry for the verb should. The options EXPAND and MORE EXAMPLES exist neither in the Collins dictionary English-German nor in the Cambridge dictionary English-German. What is clearly noticeable is that the Collins dictionary English-German includes many, from the user perspective probably too many, illustrative examples, which offer repetitive content if you compare the English sentences and their translations into German (cf. https: / / www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/ english-german/ do). This could be resolved by using the option MORE EXAMPLES, which could be used only by users really interested in a greater number of illustrative examples. 3.3 Cultural Notes in Culture-Bound Lemmata In English monolingual dictionaries, dictionary entries treating culturebound lemmata often combine linguistic and cultural information, which results in encyclopaedic entries. Originally, encyclopaedic information was typically found in dictionaries intended for native speakers. It has traditionally been part of this type of dictionary because users who did not have many other sources of knowledge to consult needed this type of information (Algeo 1990: 2004). Later, it was included in CD-ROMs/ DVD-ROMs of monolingual learner’s dictionaries to provide additional information to the user (Vrbinc and Vrbinc 2016a). In monolingual dictionaries, cultural or encyclopaedic information can be either integrated into the definition Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 60 of the lemma in question (i.e., integrated encyclopaedic content) or separated from the definition (e.g., appearing in a special section or a special box, i.e., unintegrated encyclopaedic content) (cf. Stark 1999: 78). Culture-bound lemmata are often characterized by the absence of an appropriate equivalent in the TL and as already mentioned, the problem is usually resolved in bilingual dictionaries in the following ways: 1) by providing explanatory glosses or encyclopaedic explanations haggis v ovčji želodec, nadevan z drobovino CULTURE Figure 9: The entry for the noun haggis. 2) by offering the user an approximate equivalent preceded by a double tilde (≈) A level n BrE. ≈ matura CULTURE Figure 10: The entry for the noun A level. 3) by explanatory glosses combined with adopting an SL word John Bull n old-fashioned (vzdevek za Angleže in angleški narod) 9 John BullCULTURE Figure 11: The entry for the noun John Bull. In bilingual dictionaries, only unintegrated encyclopaedic content can be provided in the form of the cultural notes that can be retrieved in online dictionaries by clicking on the CULTURE button. The aim of cultural notes is to familiarize the user (the speaker of the TL) not only with a foreign language but also with the culture of the community speaking this language, which is of great importance, since language and culture are often inextricably intertwined. The cultural information is not essential if someone looks up a certain lemma only to find its meaning(s), nor does it help in encoding activities, but it can definitely contribute to a better understanding of the lemma in question. Cultural notes in an English-Slovene dictionary primarily intended for native speakers of Slovene should be written in Slovene, the metalanguage of the dictionary (in Figures 12-14, English is used for practical reasons). 9 a nickname for the English and the English nation Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 61 CULTURE (haggis) It is a large sausage made from the inner organs of a sheep, minced with suet and oatmeal, seasoned, and boiled inside a skin made from the sheep’s stomach. It is typical Scottish food. Figure 12: The cultural note in the entry for haggis. CULTURE (A level) In England and Wales, students take this exam, which requires advanced knowledge in a subject, at the age of 18 when they are in their final year at school or college. They must pass at least two A levels to go to a university, and usually they need to pass three. Figure 13: The cultural note in the entry for A level. CULTURE (John Bull) John Bull is shown as a stout red-faced man wearing a top hat, high leather boots and a waistcoat with the pattern of the national flag of the UK on it, and there is often a bulldog beside him. He is thought of as being very proud of England, and as disliking foreigners. Figure 14: The cultural note in the entry for John Bull. To draw some parallels with the treatment of the above-mentioned cultural entries in the English-German dictionaries, the most important conclusion is that the only cultural note (written in German) can be found in the Collins dictionary English-German in the entry for A level (https: / / www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/ english-german/ a-level). The cultural note is preceded by an equivalent and several translated examples and there is a double tilde (≈) between the example in English and its translation in German indicating an approximate translation. In the Cambridge dictionary English-German, a brief explanation is provided in English and followed by an equivalent (das Abitur). The treatment in the Langenscheidt dictionary English-German is comparable to that in the Collins dictionary English-German, the only difference being that it lacks a cultural note. The entry for haggis is not included in the Cambridge dictionary English-German, whereas in the Collins dictionary English-German, the explanation is in German and includes important information that it is a dish from Scotland. The explanation is followed by an image of haggis, which produces a visual representation of what haggis actually is and what it looks like. In the Langenscheidt dictionary English-German, the lemma is followed by a very misleading label SCHOTT, which is a label implying a dialectal expression rather than a culture-specific entry. The explanation is in German and does not include any piece of information on where the dish is typically prepared and served. The lemma John Bull is not included in the Cambridge dictionary English-German, but is treated in a similar way in the Collins dictionary English-German and in the Langenscheidt dictionary English- German. Both dictionaries simply provide an equivalent in German. Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 62 4. Conclusion Dictionaries are not static but are prone to constant innovation as a consequence of research and development in the field of (meta)lexicography, the innovations often being the result of changes observed in needs, reference skills and expectations of the users, as well as technological progress. The distribution and presentation of various types of information in printed dictionaries differ from those in online dictionaries. In online dictionaries, various types of information can be retrieved from separate search zones forming part of a multi-layered entry structure, allowing a more flexible and dynamic display of information (Gouws 2014: 164, 175). The focus is thus on ease and speed of access to individual items within a dictionary entry (Gouws 2018b: 55). Since the reason for consulting a dictionary is first and foremost to find the meaning(s) of a given lemma (in monolingual dictionaries) or the dictionary equivalent(s) (in bilingual dictionaries), some users of online dictionaries may be perfectly satisfied with a rudimentary dictionary entry in which the lemma is followed by definitions or equivalents and should therefore not be forced to read the comprehensive version of the dictionary entry. Despite the availability of all dictionary entry components, they should be given the choice to look up only the type of information they need or are interested in. Other users may want more information and should therefore have the means to go deeper into the dictionary information. In online dictionaries, whose advantage is freedom from the space constraints of the printed book and where there is a variety of access possibilities, lexicographers can provide more information and discuss any aspect they deem necessary. Data-identifying buttons, which are not to be found in any of the online English-German dictionaries we investigated, are undoubtedly a useful component that enables the inclusion of information that fits no other information category or that should be regarded as value added by the users. This information is not found in a single location - a number of locations are needed to accommodate all the information that users may find useful (Klosa and Gouws 2015: 148). At the same time, these buttons can be regarded as convenient search routes with the help of which users are guided to the required information category, thus retrieving the information needed and finding answers to the questions that prompted the look-up operation. References Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta (2013). “Issues in Compiling Bilingual Dictionaries.” In: Howard Jackson (Ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Lexicography. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury. 213-231. Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 63 Algeo, John (1990). “American Lexicography.” In: Hausmann, Franz Joseph et al. (Eds.). Dictionaries: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1987-2009. Atkins, Beryl T. Sue (1996). “Bilingual Dictionaries: Past, Present and Future.” In: Gellerstam, Martin, Jerker Järborg, Sven-Göran Malmgren, Kerstin Norén, Lena Rogström and Catalina Röjder Papmehl (Eds.). Proceedings of the 7 th EURALEX International Congress. Göteborg, Sweden: Novum Grafiska AB. 515-546. Atkins, B. T. Sue and Michael Rundell (2008). The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mona (2011). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 2 nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Cambridge dictionary English-German [online] https: / / dictionary.cambridge.org/ (Accessed 27 January 2020). Collins dictionary English-German [online] https: / / www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionarygerman-english/ (Accessed 28 January 2020). Cowie, Anthony Paul (1999). English Dictionary for Foreign Learners: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deuter, Margaret, Jennifer Bradbery and Joanna Turnbull (Eds.) (2015). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 9 th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (OALD9) Farina, Donna M. T. Cr., Marjeta Vrbinc and Alenka Vrbinc (2019). “Problems in Online Dictionary Use for Advanced Slovenian Learners of English”. International Journal of Lexicography 32 (4). 458-479. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. and Henning Bergenholtz (2011). “Introduction: The Construction of Internet Dictionaries.” In: Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. and Henning Bergenholtz (Eds.). e-Lexicography: The Internet, Digital Initiatives and Lexicography. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 1-16. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. and Sven Tarp (2014). Theory and Practice of Specialised Online Dictionaries: Lexicography versus Terminography. Berlin, Boston: DeGruyter. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Sven Tarp and Peter Sepstrup (2018). “New Insights in the Design and Compilation of Digital Bilingual Lexicographic Products: The Case of the Diccionarios Valladolid-UVa”. Lexikos 28. 152-176. Gouws, Rufus H. (2002). “Equivalent Relations, Context and Cotext in Bilingual Dictionaries”. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 28. 195-209. Gouws, Rufus (2014). “Article Structures: Moving from Printed to e-Dictionaries”. Lexikos 24. 155-177. Gouws, Rufus (2018a). “A Dynamic Lexicographic Practice for Diverse Users and Changing Technologies.” In: Mesthrie, Rajend and David Bradley (Eds.). The Dynamics of Language. Plenary and Focus Lectures from the 20 th International Congress of Linguists. Cape Town, July 2018. Claremont: UCT Press. 231-244. Gouws, Rufus (2018b). “Dictionaries and Access.” In: Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. [online] https: / / www.routledgehandbooks.com/ doi/ 10.4324/ 978131510494 2.ch3 (Accessed 1 February 2019). 43-58. Gouws, Rufus H. and Danie J. Prinsloo (2010). “Thinking out of the Box - Perspectives on the Use of Lexicographic Text Boxes.” In: Dykstra, Anne and Tanneke Schoonheim (Eds.). Proceedings of the XIV EURALEX International Congress. Leeuwarden, Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy - Afûk. 501-511. Gouws, Rufus H. And Sven Tarp (2017). “Information Overload and Data Overload in Lexicography”. International Journal of Lexicography 30 (4). 389-415. Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc 64 Hausmann, Franz Josef (1997). “Semiotaxis und Wörterbuch.” In: Konerding, Klaus-Peter and Andrea Lehr (Eds.). Linguistische Theorie und lexikographische Praxis. Lexicographica. Series Maior 82. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 171-179. Hausmann, Franz Josef and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (1989). “Component Parts and Structures of General Monolingual Dictionaries: A Survey.” In: Hausmann, Franz Josef, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert Ernst Wiegand and Ladislav Zgusta (Eds.). Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 328-360. Héja, Enikő (2017). “Revisiting Translational Equivalence: Contributions from Data-Driven Bilingual Lexicography”. International Journal of Lexicography 30 (4). 483-503. Ilc, Gašper (2014). “Gramatikalizacija prostorskih členic v angleščini in slovenščini.” In: Vidovič-Muha, Ada and Andreja Žele (Eds.). Prostor v jeziku in jezik v prostoru. Slavistična revija 62 (3). Ljubljana: Slavistično društvo Slovenije. 309- 319. Ilc, Gašper (2016). “The Lexicographic Treatment of English Negation-related Phraseological Units”. AAA-Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanstik 41 (2). 73-91. Jackson, Howard (2002). Lexicography. An Introduction. London, New York: Routledge. Jacobsen, Jane Rosenkilde, James Manley and Viggo Hjørnager Pedersen (1991). “Examples in the Bilingual Dictionary.” In: Hausmann, Franz Josef, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert Ernst Wiegand and Ladislav Zgusta (Eds.). Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography, Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2782-2789. Klosa, Annette and Rufus H. Gouws (2015). “Outer Features in e-Dictionaries”. Lexicographica 31. 142-172. Langenscheidt dictionary English-German [online] https: / / en.langenscheidt.com/ english-german/ (Accessed 24 January 2020). Lew, Robert (2011). “Space Restrictions in Paper and Electronic Dictionaries and Their Implications for the Design of Production Dictionaries.” In: Bański, Piotr and Beata Wójtowicz (Eds.). Issues in Modern Lexicography. München: Lincom Europa. [online] https: / / repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/ bitstream/ 10593/ 799/ 1/ Le w_space_restrictions_in_paper_and_electronic_dictionaries.pdf (Accessed 11 February 2019). Nesi, Hilary (2014). “Dictionary Use by English Language Learners”. Language Teaching 47 (1). 38-55. Stark, Martin (1999). Encyclopedic Learners’ Dictionaries: A Study of their Design Features from the User Perspective. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Svensén, Bo (2009). A Handbook of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Šipka, Danko (2015). Lexical Conflict: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarp, Sven (2011). “Lexicographical and Other e-Tools for Consultation Purposes: Towards the Individualization of Needs Satisfaction.” In: Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. and Henning Bergenholtz (Eds.). e-Lexicography: The Internet, Digital Initiatives and Lexicography. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 54-70. Vrbinc, Alenka and Marjeta Vrbinc (2016a). “British Monolingual Learner’s Dictionaries on CD-ROMs/ DVD-ROMs: Extra Material and Its Benefits for Language Learning”. Journal of Language and Literature 7 (4). 320-333. Data-Identifying Entry Components in an Online Bilingual Dictionary 65 Vrbinc, Alenka and Marjeta Vrbinc (2016b). “Illustrative Examples in a Bilingual Decoding Dictionary: An (Un)necessary Component? ”. Lexikos 26. 296-310. Vrbinc, Marjeta and Alenka Vrbinc (2017). “Approaches to the Treatment of Zero Equivalence in a Bilingual Dictionary”. Lexikos 27. 522-539. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1984). “On the Structure and Contents of a General Theory of Lexicography.” In: Hartmann, Reinhard Rudolf Karl (Ed.). LEXeter ’83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter, 9-12 September 1983. Lexicographica. Series Maior 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 13- 30. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1989). “Der Begriff der Mikrostruktur: Geschichte, Probleme, Perspektiven.” In: Hausmann, Franz Josef, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert Ernst Wiegand and Ladislav Zgusta (Eds.). Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 409-462. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1996). “Das Konzept der semiintegrierten Mikrostrukturen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie zweisprachiger Printwörterbücher.” Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (Ed.). Wörterbücher in der Diskussion II. Vorträge aus dem Heidelberger lexikographischen Kolloquium. Lexicographica. Series Maior 70. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 1-82. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (2002). “Equivalence in Bilingual Lexicography: Criticism and Suggestions”. Lexikos 12. 239-255. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (2005). “Angaben, funktionale Angabezusätze, Angabetexte, Angabestrukturen, Strukturanzeiger, Kommentare und mehr. Ein Betrag zur Theorie der Wörterbuchform”. Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 21. 202-379. Wiegand, Herbert Ernst, Sandra Beer and Rufus H. Gouws (2013). “Textual Structures in Printed Dictionaries: An Overview.” In: Gouws, Rufus H., Ulrich Heid, Wolfgang Schweickard and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (Eds.). Dictionaries: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Supplementary Volume: Recent Developments with Focus on Electronic and Computational Lexicography. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 31-73. Zgusta, Ladislav (1971). Manual of Lexicography. Prague: Academia; The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Zgusta, Ladislav (1984). “Translational Equivalence in the Bilingual Dictionary.” In: Hartmann, Reinhard Rudolf Karl (Ed.). LEXeter '83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter, 9-12 September 1983. Lexicographica. Series Maior 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 147-154. Alenka Vrbinc and Marjeta Vrbinc Faculty of Economics University of Ljubljana