The new edition of A Supplementary Russian-English Dictionary (ASRED 2) follows the same principles outlined in the first edition of 1992 and, likewise, contains important words and expressions not found in either of the two dictionaries most often used: A. Smirnitsky’s Comprehen¬sive Russian-English Dictionary or M. Wheeler’s Russian-English half of the Oxford Russian Dictionary. It is primarily designed as a companion and supplement to these, although it may also be used independently. It is in no way intended to re¬place these dictionaries or compete with them.

In ASRED 2 the net has been cast much wider than in the first edition and the volume of lexical material has been increased substantially.
It is reasonable to ask: “Why a dictionary supplement and not a ‘proper’ dictionary?” To state the obvious: dictionaries need supplements from time to time. Dictionaries are not like yearbooks in that, as a rule, many years pass before a particular edition is updated, notwithstanding reprints “with minor corrections.” Perhaps surprisingly, even supplements have suffered the same fate, if to a lesser degree.

ASRED 2, therefore, builds upon what already exists; the guiding principle throughout has been not to “reinvent the wheel” but rather to fill an alarming — and exasperating — gap between what has been recorded thus far and what it is possible to record. The material cited in the new edition is voluminous enough, even without citing material from Smirnitsky or Wheeler. To have included the old as well as the new would have resulted in either an unwieldy single volume or a cumbersome two-volume dictionary. The approach which was adopted was that of a single volume of manageable size which concentrated exclusively on previously uncited material. Only time will tell what proportion of the entries in ASRED 2 will one day find their way into standard dictionaries.

Any scholarship should be characterized by completeness and balance. In ASRED 2 the two have a special significance. The notion of completeness in a dictionary of a living language is a contradiction in terms: a language is constantly evolving, and the process is only complete when it dies.

Even a meticulously developed and rigorously executed selection process has a certain randomness about it, and the role of serendipity cannot be discounted. By its very nature it will yield results that are weighted. If ASRED 2 has any bias at all, it is towards those areas of linguistic usage which have received the greatest prominence over recent years. The various linguistic forces at work result in a certain unevenness when one examines a synchronic slice of the language: some categories of words are scarcely noticeable, others abound. Here one has in mind terms which are a consequence of recent extraordinary political events, terrorism on a global scale, drug trafficking, technological developments, concerns about the conservation of natural resources, the spread of AIDS, and many other areas which are refashioning the world and thus its languages. For example, the impact the Internet on everyday life has been phenomenal. How could any dictionary of the modern language not record even some examples of its terms in widespread use?

ASRED 2 also pays particular attention to the spoken word. This is amply illustrated by many thousands of words and expressions which bear stylistic labels denoting more relaxed forms of speech: colloquial, vernacular, vulgar, taboo and slang.

ASRED 2, as a supplement, functions in various ways. First, it contains of course neologisms. These are of two types: Russian words, expressions and phrases which have recently come into the language, and new meanings for old words. The correlation between the two types is approximately three to one. It could have seemed preferable to have two different dictionaries, since the two types of neologisms do not sit together easily. But though the logic of a separate-dictionary approach is recognized, it was felt that for the sake of convenience the two books should be combined into one. A system whereby each type of neologism would be separately identified was also considered, but rejected owing to the infliction on the user of an unwieldy critical apparatus. The other major category of entries in ASRED 2 is important and previously unrecorded usages of a non-neologistic nature. Such items make up roughly one-third of the total. The justification for including such material is that their meanings are not always immediately obvious. Consider the Russian treatment of the adverbial expression “at the turn of the century” — na rubezhe nyneshnego stoletie, or v konce XIX - nachale XX veka. Neither of these equivalents is a neologism. Whether through accident or design, neither is found in either Smirnitsky or Wheeler. This example should not suggest that such entries are a feature of bookish language alone, for they are not; indeed, they may be found in any speech register.

ASRED 2 is both derivative and non-derivative. It is derivative in the sense that it continues a tradition in bilingual lexicography which goes back many years. Successive Russian-English dictionaries owe a tremendous debt to their predecessors. The non-derivative nature of this book is at the same time its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. In the euphoria associated with assembling a previously undocumented corpus of information lies the dual risk of including nonce words or of elevating to the status of genuine words lexical entities which have yet to prove themselves. The specter of over-inclusion also looms large. These and other problems have had to be addressed and solved. ASRED 2 offers the user something new and exciting through its presentation in a convincing form of previously undocumented material in a bilingual dictionary.

ASRED 2 can be used profitably by students of Russian, translators, interpreters or indeed by anyone who works on Russian seriously.

PDF Samples

Introduction to the second edition
Introduction to the first edition
Sample entries (pp. 368-87)