In 2004 Pam Peters published arguably the first usage guide to systematically use corpus methods. Peters tackled three main challenges: using corpora to find relative frequencies of prescribed and proscribed forms; presenting corpus findings clearly and concisely in a general reference book; translating that information into practical usage advice. For the first challenge, Peters mostly used corpus evidence for issues that could be evaluated with string searches, like curriculums vs. curricula, as well as a more nuanced approach to evaluating matters like the evolving meaning of reticent. For the second challenge, Peters used both numbers and relationship terms to compare frequencies of prescribed and proscribed forms. For the third challenge Peters seldom gave categorical advice or treated variation as error. Instead she presented the data and let it speak for itself; her approach emphasised understanding the factors behind variation rather than condemning it. This chapter argues that Peters is a pioneer in showing ways to use corpus data on a large scale in a general usage guide, setting a model for future usage guides and inviting further exploration of unresolved challenges.

The complications of usage in general dictionaries and the complications of dictionaries in specialized dictionaries of usage. Superficially, usage refers to “good usage” or correctness judgments about language variation, like lie vs. lay, and general dictionaries have tried to signal such judgments for some words. Yet usage also refers to “actual usage,” “contextual usage,” and “traditional usage,” which are all bound up with the simpler notion of “good usage.” The first part of this chapter elaborates these types of usage, the relationships among them, and the ways general dictionaries have incorporated all four types. The second part focuses on specialized dictionaries that focus exclusively on usage issues in all four senses. Such dictionaries vary widely in their macro-structures and micro-structures, and the chapter provides a framework for discerning elements within the entries. Dictionaries of usage are usually better than general dictionaries in giving detailed explanations and treating more issues and more kinds of issues. They do not seem to have improved on general dictionaries for identifying the most important usage issues to be aware of.