Research into dictionary use does not have a long history. Although publishers recognised in the 1960s that ‘dictionaries should be designed with a special set of users in mind’ (Householder Reference Householder, Householder and Saporta1967: 279) there were extremely few empirical user studies before the 1980s – Welker's most recent survey (Reference Welker2010) lists only six. The subsequent surge of interest in this field was fuelled by big changes to dictionary content and design in the 1980s and 1990s, changes that were particularly evident in dictionaries for learners of English as a foreign language, conventionally known as ‘learners’ dictionaries’. In the space of a few years the Oxford advanced learner's dictionary, generally considered to be the earliest advanced learners’ dictionary (first published under a different title in 1942, with subsequent editions in 1948, 1963, 1974 and 1989) was joined by two new competitors: the Longman dictionary of contemporary English (first edition 1978, second edition 1987) and the COBUILD English dictionary (1987). In 1995 all three of these advanced learners’ dictionaries brought out new editions, and a fourth, the Cambridge international dictionary of English, was launched. These dictionaries, sometimes referred to as ‘the big four’ (Bogaards Reference Bogaards1996, De Schryver Reference De Schryver2012 and others), drew on Eastern European traditions of lexical description, the illustrative practices of American children's dictionaries, and insights from English language teaching pedagogies. Each had its own distinctive layout and defining style, prompting a spate of comparative studies intended to help users make appropriate purchasing choices, and to help publishers improve their design still further, for example by changes to the entry microstructure. A fifth such dictionary, the Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners, appeared in 2002.

Although it is commonly believed that monolingual dictionaries are superior to bilingual dictionaries in terms of their usefulness as language learning tools, attitude and ownership surveys have found that learners generally prefer to use bilingual dictionaries, and some key studies have pointed to the advantages of bilingualised dictionaries which combine translations with monolingual entries. A further comparative dimension was added in the mid-1990s, when the growing popularity of electronic dictionaries led to studies of print versus on-screen dictionary use.

Although comparative studies continue, recent dictionary user research has tended to be less concerned with the dictionary as a product, and more with the processes of dictionary consultation. This is partly a reflection of developments in pedagogic theory, and partly a result of the blurring of distinctions between dictionary categories in an age when diverse types of lexicographical information are often packaged together. The sales of learners’ dictionaries have fallen dramatically with the rise of free internet-based dictionaries, and now a variety of providers such as software developers and not-for-profit collaborative groups compete for the attention of dictionary users alongside the traditional publishing houses. In this environment it is becoming difficult for educators to control their students’ dictionary choices, and it is no longer very meaningful to conduct surveys of dictionary ‘ownership’.

The history of research into dictionary use tends to be characterised by small-scale studies undertaken in a variety of different contexts, rather than larger-scale, longer-term funded projects. The research conducted by dictionary publishers is not generally made public, because of its commercial sensitivity, yet because dictionary production is largely a commercial venture, academic research in this area has rarely attracted public funding. Findings from multiple small studies are often difficult to compare because of variations in the types of user, dictionary material and experimental method. Research into dictionary use has gradually become more subtle and more complex, however. Researchers have tried to control for lexicographical variables by using specially created ‘mini-dictionaries’, rather than original dictionaries produced by different publishers, and new computer-based research tools and the synthesis of findings from different types of data set are helping to resolve the apparent contradictions noted in earlier studies.

Following Hulstijn & Atkins (Reference Hulstijn, Atkins and Atkins1998: 10) this timeline concerns research which aims at ‘bringing the dictionary to the user (how can the dictionary best serve its users’ needs?)’ and ‘bringing the user to the dictionary (how can people be made better dictionary users?)’. Only empirical research and overviews of empirical research are included. When constructing the timeline I found it useful to refer to Herbert Andreas Welker's surveys of empirical studies of dictionary use, the overview studies of research into dictionary use by Paul Bogaards and Hulstijn & Atkins, and the EURALEX bibliography of lexicography (dictionary use).

My selection represents five recurring themes:

A English language learners’ preferences and attitudes regarding dictionary use

B The influence of dictionaries on English language learners’ text comprehension

C The influence of dictionaries on English language learners’ text production

D The role of dictionaries as an aid to English language learning

E English language learners’ dictionary consultation behaviour.