Diasystematic Information in Learner’s Dictionaries: The Usability of Multiple Labels

Labels in dictionaries provide information about restrictions and constraints on the use of certain words or senses in the contexts in which they occur or in relation to other words described in a dictionary. These restrictions are referred to as diasystematic information. This contribution deals with diasystematic information in four British monolingual learner‟s dictionaries (OALD8, LDOCE5, CALD3, and MED2) with the emphasis on multiple labels. A detailed classification of labels is presented and an in-depth overview of labels used in combination with one another in the dictionaries under investigation is given. Then follows a discussion of labels which are often used in combination, the aim being to establish whether labels belonging to one and the same category combine with one another or whether multiple labelling consists of labels from different categories of labels. The findings of this study show that labels belonging to different groups are mostly combined, and apart from that, labels expressing diaevaluative information and those expressing diastratic information can be combined within the group. Possible reasons for this are discussed in the contribution. The inclusion of diasystematic information largely depends on the type of dictionary and especially on its intended users. Therefore, lexicographers‟ decisions about whether to use a label and how to use it appropriately should be based on the user profile. This is especially true of monolingual learner‟s dictionaries, where one of the main functions is to promote the active use of a foreign language where every single piece of information included in the dictionary counts.


INTRODUCTION
The tradition of using labels in dictionaries has existed for a long time, but lexicographers as well as dictionary users are still faced with many problems related to the system of labelling (Ptaszynski, 2010, pp. 411-412), one of the main reasons being that "many labels are umbrella terms that conceal a good deal of variation" (Atkins & Rundell, 2008, p. 496). Labels in dictionaries are aimed at providing information about restrictions and constraints on the use of certain words or senses in the contexts in which they occur or in relation to other words described in a dictionary. These restrictions and constraints are referred to in lexicographic theory as diasystematic information or diasystematic marking (Hausmann, 1977(Hausmann, , 1989Svensén, 2009, pp. 315-332), a term that is defined by Svensén (ibid,p. 315) as information implying that "a certain lexical item deviates in a certain respect from the main bulk of items described in a dictionary and that its use is subject to some kind of restriction". Diasystematic information is, no doubt, the type of information that changes over time. That Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN:  is why labels used in individual dictionaries change from edition to edition. In order to reflect language change, labels need to be updated, which is in line with Norri (2000, p. 93) as well as Bauer (1994), who carried out research into changes in the labelling of abusive nouns in five different editions of The Concise Oxford Dictionary from the period between 1911 and 1990.
The way dictionaries employ labelling depends largely on the policy of each individual dictionary and is usually explained in the front or back matter. In practice, dictionaries use different methods for providing information on deviations of any kind; two of these methods should be foregrounded: definitions and labels. If information usually expressed by a label is incorporated within the definition, it can be found either in the introductory part of the definition (e.g., exec is defined as "an informal word for executive" in LDOCE5; CAT scan as "a medical examination that uses a computer to produce an image of the inside of sb"s body from x-ray or ultrasound pictures" in OALD8; underlined by the authors) or in any other part of the definition (e.g., catapult is defined as "a weapon used in the past to throw heavy stones" in OALD8; princely as "a princely amount of money is very largeoften used humorously to mean a very small amount of money" in LDOCE5; underlined by the authors). As this research focuses on labels only, diasystematic information within definitions falls beyond the scope of this contribution.
The existing literature offers various taxonomies of diasystematic information proposed by different researchers. Mostly, these vary in the degree of elaboration, but there is also a great deal of overlap. Jackson (2002, pp. 109-115), for instance, enumerates seven types of usage labels: dialect; formality; status; effect; history; topic or field and disputed usage. Landau (2001, pp. 217-272), however, classifies eight common kinds of usage information: currency or temporality; regional or geographic variation; technical or specialized terminology; restricted or taboo sexual and scatological usage; insult; slang; style, functional variety, or register; status or cultural level. Atkins and Rundell (2008, pp. 182-186) distinguish nine types of linguistic labels: domains; region; dialect; register; style; time; slang and jargon; attitude; offensive terms. The most detailed classification can be found in Hausmann (1989, p. 651), who identifies as many as eleven types of labels. His classification was also adopted by various other scholars, such as Bergenholtz and Tarp (1995, pp. 131-134), and Svensén (2009, pp. 326-332), and is presented below: 1. diachronic information (criterion: time) -a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular period in the history of language. This dimension includes a range of labels that can be arranged chronologically from archaic, via obsolete to contemporary words or senses and neologisms. In practice, lexical items that do not represent old use lack a label, which means that neologisms are usually unmarked. The most common temporal labels found in contemporary dictionaries are old-fashioned, obsolete, archaic, old use or dated i . 2. diatopic information (criterion: place)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular regional dialect or national variety. Every language community has certain conventions as to what is standard, thus unlabelled in a dictionary. Most British dictionaries nowadays include words or senses typically used in different varieties of English, from North America to South Africa, from Australia and New Zealand to the Caribbean. Sometimes regional areas within a country are specified; thus, regional or dialect is used as a label. 3. diaintegrative information (criterion: nationality)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with the dimension of integration into the native stock of words of a language. Monolingual dictionaries usually provide information on the language of origin, mostly with words that have retained their original form (e.g., from Latin, from French, from Italian). Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 4. diamedial information ii (criterion: medium)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular medium of communication. The most common labels are written and spoken. 5. diastratic information (criterion: socio-cultural specificity)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular social group, consequently referring to sociolects, such as slang and different kinds of jargon. The most common labels are slang, vulgar and taboo. 6. diaphasic information (criterion: formality)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular register of a language, the most common labels being formal and informal. 7. diatextual information (criterion: text type)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular discourse type or genre. The most common labels are poetic and literary. 8. diatechnical information (criterion: technicality)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular subject field. In monolingual dictionaries, subject-field labels, field labels or domain labels indicate that a certain word or one of its senses belongs to technical or scientific vocabulary. The large number of sublanguages typical of different subject fields presents a problem even for educated native speakers, since each subject field has its own vocabulary. Consequently, some dictionaries, especially learner"s dictionaries, often use the general label technical or science (cf. also Vrbinc & Vrbinc, 2013, p. 449) instead of giving detailed information on specific subject fields. 9. diafrequent information (criterion: frequency)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular frequency of occurrence. Labels used to indicate frequency are less frequent, rare. 10. diaevaluative information (criterion: attitude)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a particular attitude or evaluation or the speaker"s mood. Labels used to denote diaevaluative information are appreciative, derogatory, offensive, humorous, ironic, euphemistic. 11. dianormative information (criterion: normativity)a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with a certain degree of deviation from a cultural standard. Labels expressing dianormative information are non-standard, substandard, disputed. In other words, the acceptability of items marked with one of these labels is questionable as regards linguistic correctness.
The label figurative is used as a label in many dictionaries, but it does not fit in any of the above-mentioned categories of labels, since it refers to the meaning extension of a lexical item rather than expressing any restriction on usage. In the process of figurative extension, it is possible that a word acquires semantic features that might not be present in the original meaning (Atkins & Rundell, 2008, p. 289). This detailed typology shows that it is essential to define and classify restrictions and constraints in order to be able to incorporate diasystematic information in dictionaries; as Ptaszynski (2010, p. 415) claims, "identifying particular types of restrictions and discussing their nature are important to the understanding of the notion of diasystematic information".
The scope of a label is a convention which lexicographers should follow to the greatest possible extent, and the position of the label determines its scope: a label preceding sense division in a polysemous entry refers to all senses, whereas a label following the number indicating the sense division applies to that particular sense only. Thus, it can be said that, if the label precedes the sense number, it is located at a higher level in the hierarchy of the dictionary entry than the label within the same dictionary entry that follows the sense Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 number. The relation between the superordinate and subordinate labels can be regarded as cumulative (Svensén, 2009, p. 321).
The aim of this contribution is to give an overview of labels used in British monolingual learner"s dictionaries (MLDs) and to discuss which labels are often used in combination. We also wanted to establish whether labels belonging to one and the same category combine with one another, or whether multiple labelling consists of labels from different categories of labels. Multiple labelling was studied because one single label represents one piece of information which a user may find easier to process than a sequence of two or even three pieces of information in the form of multiple labels. It has to be stressed that not all the labels listed in the dictionaries were taken into consideration (a more detailed treatment of the labels studied and those omitted is provided in the Methodology section). Labelling was studied having the intended user in mind, since it is the user who should benefit from diasystematic information. The theoretical considerations presented in this article are aimed at improving usage labelling in MLDs, since we cannot but agree with Atkins & Rundell (2008, p. 496), who claim that "labelling is an area of lexicography where there is more work to be done".

METHODOLOGY
This study examines multiple labelling in four British MLDs, i.e., Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, 8 th edition (OALD8), Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5 th edition (LDOCE5), Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 3 rd edition (CALD3) and Macmillan English Dictionary, 2 nd edition (MED2). Among the "big five", only Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary of English (COBUILD) was left out, the reason being that the CD-ROM of this dictionary does not allow for a label search, since it does not offer the Advanced Search option. Not all the labels included in the lists of labels were taken into consideration; therefore, some criteria had to be defined as to which labels are excluded from our research. Four groups of labels expressing diasystematic information were disregarded: diatopic, diaintegrative, diatechnical and diafrequent for the following reasons:  The diatopic information refers to regional or dialectal variation, but our intention was not to focus on inter-or intravarietal peculiarities of English.  Labels giving diaintegrative information provide only information on the language of origin of a certain lexical item rather than on restrictions and constraints on the use of certain words or senses, which is typical of diasystematic information in general.  Diafrequent information is actually not indicated by means of labels in MLDs. For instance, LDOCE5 marks the most frequent lexical items in spoken and written language by alpha-numerical codes such as S3 (one of the 3,000 most frequent words in spoken English), W2 (one of the 2,000 most frequent words in written English); CALD3 marks frequency by E = essential, I = improver, A = advanced; MED2 uses the star symbols (three stars mark the 2,500 most common and basic English words; two stars mark very common words, whereas one star marks fairly common words). OALD8 uses the key symbol to mark the items used most frequently, but at the same time it is the only dictionary under scrutiny that has two labels expressing diafrequent information, i.e., less frequent and rare, which are included in the list of labels on the CD-ROM, but are not given in the print edition.  Diatechnical information refers to a specialist field in which a lexical item is used; consequently, the subject-field or domain labels represent a special group of labels indicating terminology, but our intention was not to focus on terms belonging to different specialist fields or even subfields. All the other labels (i.e., diachronic, diamedial, diastratic, diaphasic, diatextual, diaevaluative, dianormative) were taken into consideration and form the database used for the analysis of multiple labelling in MLDs. The database was compiled using CD-ROMs of the above-mentioned dictionaries. The letter S was chosen as being sufficiently representative, since it is one of the "big" letters, or more precisely, it is the letter with the greatest number of entries in English dictionaries. The database was created using the Advanced Search option (in OALD8, LDOCE5 and CALD3) and the Super Search option (in MED2). In OALD8, the dropdown menu in Advanced Search offers 19 labels under "Register", from which 14 were selected as appropriate for our research. The dropdown menu in Advanced Search of LDOCE5 lists 15 labels under "Register", 10 of which were included in our database, while in CALD3, 13 out of 21 labels listed under "Usage" were analysed. In the Super Search option of MED2, the Advanced Search offers 17 labels under "Style", and all of these were taken into consideration in our research.
Each label was selected separately, and each search yielded a list of words marked with this particular label. All these words in the stretch beginning with the letter S were manually checked to see whether multiple labels were used. If a lemma, one of its senses or a phraseological unit was marked with one label only, the item was not entered into our database. If, on the other hand, two or more labels were used, the lemma, one of its senses or a phraseological unit was included in the database. In some cases, labels are separated by the disjunctive conjunction "or", implying that either one or the other label marks the connotative features of the lemma, one of its senses or a phraseological unit. Labels joined by the conjunction "or" were also included in the database, thus classifying them as multiple labels, since a user must decipher both of them. Such a search yielded 187 lemmata or senses in OALD8, 35 lemmata in LDOCE5, 202 lemmata, senses or phraseological units in CALD3 and 58 lemmata, senses or phraseological units in MED2. Altogether, 482 lemmata, senses or phraseological units with multiple labels were studied. The database is assessed as being sufficiently representative for us to be able to extract multiple labels used in each particular dictionary under investigation. The aim of our research is to find combinations of labels rather than to perform a statistical analysis of the frequency of combinations as opposed to the use of a single label only.
Here, some weaknesses of the CD-ROMs should be mentioned. In OALD8, for instance, the Advanced Search option is far from being ideal for linguistic research, since a label search yields only (one-or multi-word) lemmata, which means that phraseological units are disregarded. The Advanced Search option in LDOCE5 searches lemmata marked with a certain label. This means that, if the entire lemma (in the case of polysemous lemmata) is marked with a label, such a lemma is found, but, if a certain sense is labelled, the Advanced Search does not include it in the Search results list, and the same holds true for all phraseological units included as separate senses of the lemma in frequency order. The CD-ROM of CALD3 gives the most comprehensive picture of labels, since certain senses or even illustrative examples that are labelled are also included in the Results list. Apart from that, the list also includes multi-word lexical items treated as lemmata as well as phraseological units. Multi-word lexical items with labels are also not found by using the Super Search option in MED2, a problem that has already been mentioned in OALD8 and LDOCE5. The CD-ROM of MED2, however, searches among phraseological units.

RESULTS
Before taking a closer look at multiple labelling by dictionaries, we should start by making a survey of the labels included in our research in relation to whether they can be found in all Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 four dictionaries under investigation or whether they appear in one or two dictionaries but are not used by the lexicographers in other dictionaries. It seems logical to start with labels that can be found in all four dictionaries. According to our database, there are five such labels: formal, humorous, informal, literary and old-fashioned. These labels belong to four different groups of labels expressing different types of diasystematic information: diaphasic (formal, informal), diaevaluative (humorous), diatextual (literary) and diachronic (old-fashioned). Four labels appear in three dictionaries: approving, disapproving, offensive (OALD8, CALD3, MED2; in MED2, approving and disapproving are expressed as showing approval and showing disapproval) and old use (OALD8, LDOCE5, CALD3); they belong to the groups of labels providing diaevaluative (approving, disapproving) and diachronic (old use) information. Six labels are used in two dictionaries: figurative, slang, non-standard (OALD8, CALD3; in CALD3, not standard is used instead of non-standard), spoken, impolite (LDOCE5, MED2; in LDOCE5, not polite is used instead of impolite) and taboo (OALD8, LDOCE5). The latter labels are classified as giving dianormative (non-standard), diastratic (slang, taboo), diamedial (spoken) and diaevaluative (impolite) information. As has already been mentioned in the Introduction, the label figurative cannot be grouped into any of the label categories. That is why it must be treated separately as a label expressing certain shades of semantic meaning as well as a certain degree of stylistic level. If we disregard the labels typical of MED2 which only express intensification or frequency of one and the same label (very formal, very informal, often humorous, mainly journalism, mainly literary, mainly spoken), only four labels included in our research are used in one dictionary: ironic (OALD8), journalism (MED2), written (LDOCE5) and child's word (CALD3). These labels belong to the labels expressing diaevaluative (ironic), diatextual (journalism), diamedial (written) and diaphasic (child's word) information.
Below, combinations of labels in each individual dictionary are presented to see whether different groups of labels combine or whether combinations of labels belonging to one and the same group are also used to mark a lemma, sense or phraseological unit.

MULTIPLE LABELS IN OALD8
Our database shows that a combination of a maximum of three labels can be found in OALD8, although the two-label combination is the most frequent. The labels that are found in a triple combination are the following:  taboo, slang, disapproving (shit, nounsense 4);  old-fashioned, slang, disapproving (spiv);  old-fashioned, informal, disapproving (swank).
An example of an entire dictionary entry: The next most common label is formal, but in comparison with informal, it appears much less frequently, since 36 out of 187 items in our database are marked formal (19.3%). The label formal combines with the following labels:  literary: 11 items: scion (noun);  old-fashioned: 11 items: slacks;  figurative: 6 items: salivate;  disapproving: 5 items: supine;  old use: 2 items: save (preposition);  humorous: 1 item: superannuated.
The labels taboo and slang are used in an almost identical number of items, 27 and 29, respectively. In the great majority of cases (26 in all), they are used in combination with one another; there is only one case where slang combines with offensive (scumbag), one case where it combines with old-fashioned (strewth) and one case where it combines with humorous (shrink (noun)). The same holds true for taboo, which combines with oldfashioned only in the lemma savage (adjective).
Most of the labels that combine with informal and formal also appear in combination with other labels. Approving, for instance, combines with literary in one case only (steadfast), and the same holds true for the combination with figurative (slimsense 1). Disapproving, on the other hand, is used in combination with humorous in three items in our database (scribbler), with old-fashioned in two cases (spinster) and in one case with offensive (slut), Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 old-use (strumpet) and literary (sullen). The label literary combines with figurative in three cases (sentinel), twice with old use (smite) and once with old-fashioned (slaysense 1). Humorous is combined with old-fashioned in 8 cases (skulduggery), with literary in two cases (steed), and in one case it is used in combination with slang (shrink) and old use (stripling). With the label humorous, one peculiarity captures our attention, i.e., the frequent use of the conjunction "or", implying that the items marked can be interpreted either as informal/old-fashioned, etc., or as humorous.
The label non-standard does not appear in combination with any other label in the letter S, which means that it is the only label studied that appears in isolation rather than in combination, at least in the stretch studied.

MULTIPLE LABELS IN LDOCE5
The database consisting of labels found in LDOCE5 is much smaller than the database with labels in OALD8; nevertheless, a number of multiple labels were detected. There is only one case of triple labelling: the noun scumbag is labelled spoken, informal, not polite.
Two labels stand out in frequency: not polite (19 out of 35 items, i.e., 54.3%) and spoken (17 items, i.e., 48.6%). Both of these labels appear in the triple combination mentioned above, but besides that, they also combine with other labels. Not polite, for instance, appears in combination with the following labels:  spoken: 12 items: shit (noun);  informal: 6 items: sissy;  old-fashioned: 1 item: savage (noun).
An example of an entire dictionary entry: Spoken, as the second most frequent label in LDOCE5, is used in combination with the following labels:  not polite: see above at not polite;  informal: 4 items: sorted;  old-fashioned: 1 item: sonny.
Another label whose frequency is comparable to that of not polite and spoken is informal, which is used to label 15 items in our database (i.e., 42.9%). It combines with spoken and not polite (mentioned above) as well as with old-fashioned, which is used to label four items (swinger), and with taboo in one case (slut). The label formal appears in combination with other labels in three cases in our database, namely in combination with literary (sully), written (sic (adverb)) and old-fashioned (seafarer). In our database, literary combines in one case with biblical (spake), formal (sully) and with old-fashioned (sainted). The last label that needs to be mentioned is taboo, which combines with informal mentioned above and with slang (Sambo). Interestingly, the label slang is to be found neither in the list of labels in the print edition of LDOCE5 nor in the Register list of the Advanced Search option on the CD-ROM, but it is obviously used to mark slang expressions.

MULTIPLE LABELS IN CALD3
In CALD3, three items in the range studied are marked with three labels: spanking is labelled approving, informal, old-fashioned, spiv is marked disapproving, informal, old-fashioned, while sense 3 in seizure is marked old use, and the example illustrating the use of this sense is additionally labelled figurative, humorous.
An example of an entire dictionary entry: FIGURE 3. An example of a dictionary entry for spanking (adverb) from CALD3.
The second most frequent label is disapproving, which is used in combination with the following labels:  informal: see above at informal;  slang: 13 items: sluttish; Another label that is fairly frequent in CALD3 is old-fashioned, which combines with these other labels:  informal: see above at informal;  humorous: 5 items: scoundrel;  slang: 4 items: slewed;  literary: 3 items: stouthearted;  disapproving: see above at disapproving;  formal: 2 items: sovereign remedy;  offensive: 1 item: spadesense 4.
Apart from the combinations presented above, CALD3 includes only very few other combinations. Three additional combinations were found with the label humorous, which combines with old use in five items in our database (spake,) and with slang in two items (shekelsense 2) and figurative (speciesillustrative example) and literary in only one item (sage (noun)sense 2). The label approving combines with literary in two cases (seraphic) and figurative in one case only (slim). One more combination should be mentioned that appears four times in our database, namely the combination literary, old use (silvan). It is interesting to note that literary and old uses are separated by the disjunctive "or" in all four cases. Last but not least, the label child's word appears in combination with informal in two cases only (swotnoun, verb) and in both cases, the two labels are separated by the disjunctive "or".

MULTIPLE LABELS IN MED2
As far as the number of combinations is concerned, MED2 differs greatly from the other three dictionaries. In MED2, two labels stand out as regards frequency, i.e., the labels informal and old-fashioned, but a closer examination reveals that old-fashioned combines only with informal and not with any other label. The same applies to the label disapproving, which is found in combination with informal only. Fifty-one out of 58 items in our database are marked informal (87.9%), while the combination informal, old-fashioned appears in 39 items (67.2%) and the combination with disapproving in 11 items (19.0%). Regarding the data in our database, by far the most usual combination is informal, old-fashioned, which is used to label items such as smasher. The second most frequent combination is informal, disapproving, which appears in items such as showoff. Only one item in our database is labelled with the combination informal, approving, namely stonker.
An example of an entire dictionary entry:  Only four other combinations can be found in our database with a negligible number of appearances:  formal, spoken: 4 items: shall I/we say;  humorous, literary: 1 item: sans;  humorous, mainly spoken: 1 item: make someone sick;  impolite, spoken: 1 item: (the) same to you.
As many as five labels used in MED2 do not appear in combination with other labels: very informal, journalism, mainly journalism, literary and mainly literary. These labels can be used with labels expressing diatopic information, especially American and British, but these combinations are beyond the scope of this contribution.

LABELS USED IN THE MAJORITY OF DICTIONARIES UNDER REVIEW AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
Five labels (formal, informal, literary, humorous and old-fashioned) are used to mark lexical items in all dictionaries under consideration. Among these labels, the labels formal and literary may pose some problems for the intended dictionary users, i.e., advanced learners of English. These two labels are often used together, but interestingly, in OALD8, they are always separated by the disjunctive "or" (e.g., sibilant; sully is an example of a lemma which is marked formal or literary in OALD8 as well as in LDOCE5), which only adds to the complexity of the problem, since the connotation they mark may not be obvious to every user. The reason can also be sought in the users" mother tongue or more precisely, in the method of labelling that is familiar to the user from monolingual dictionaries written in his/her native language. In Slovene lexicography, for example, the label knjižno at least roughly corresponds to the English label formal. The front matter of the Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika (Dictionary of Standard Slovene, 1997, p. xxvi) explains that the label knjižno is assigned to "words, senses or phraseological units used particularly in fiction or in scientific texts; in colloquial speech, they sound unusual". Knjižno can also be used to mark the same connotation as the English label literary, which means that dictionary users familiar with a system of labelling similar to that for the native speakers of Slovene may be faced with the problem of the correct interpretation of the difference between formal and literary. A  15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 comparison of the explications of these two labels in the front matter of MLDs reveals that these are very simple and sometimes even overlap. In CALD3, for instance, the distinction between these two labels is explained as follows: formal -"used in serious or official language or when trying to impress other people" literary -"formal and descriptive language used in literature" It is questionable whether these two explications are clear enough for a foreign learner to distinguish accurately between these two labels, because literary is explained as labelling formal language. The addition of "in literature" in the explication of literary may also puzzle the user who may not know the connotation of this restriction. Does this label mark expressions that the user is not supposed to use without sounding poetic? Do such expressions express metaphorical and metonymic transfer? Another problem that should be mentioned in connection with literary is that in some dictionaries (though not in the MLDs under investigation), there is a seemingly similar label literature, which is a domain rather than a style label. Users familiar with the label literature are likely to confuse these two labels, thus interpreting the label literary as being a domain label indicating terms from the field of literature instead of words found in literary and poetic texts. This confusion is also touched upon by Atkins and Rundell (2008, p. 229), but this only applies to a dictionary user who would use two or more different dictionaries using either literature or literary.
Another problem concerns the interpretation of the labels old-fashioned and old use. Both labels are used in OALD8, LDOCE5 and CALD3. The difference is that old-fashioned marks lexical items that are not often used nowadays but are used by older people or have been used by people in the recent past, while old use implies that the lexical item marked with this label is no longer in current use. This distinction may be recognized by a native speaker of English, but it may not be so obvious to a foreign learner, who is the target user of MLDs. MED2, the most recent newcomer to the field of learner lexicography, is the only dictionary under consideration that does not include old use in the list of labels, and considering the fact that the intended user may not be able to understand the difference between the two labels, this may seem a sensible decision.

OPPOSING LABELS
Besides the labels old-fashioned and old use, which should be used in dictionaries with care, the labels formal and informal, polite and impolite, spoken and written are also pairs worth considering. The labels formal and informal are used in all dictionaries, whereas polite and impolite, spoken and written are not. Impolite (or not polite as used in MED2) is a label found in LDOCE5 and MED2, but interestingly, neither of these dictionaries has the opposing label polite. Polite, on the other hand, is used in CALD3, which, however, does not have the label impolite. This means that the entire pair polite/impolite is not used in any of the dictionaries included in our study. It is true that it seems unlikely that foreign learners will need a warning that a given usage is polite, as politeness is generally the unmarked register but from the point of view of dictionary users, this may indicate inconsistency or lack of marking the opposing value of a lexical item in question. It seems sensible to label lexical items that imply politeness as well as those that imply impoliteness. This is especially true of dictionaries for foreign learners, who need precise guidance on lexical items expressing a certain degree of politeness/impoliteness, since labelling such words is aimed at warning those unfamiliar with them that they may be either polite or impolite. Doubtlessly, pragmatic information supplied by labels is as vital as the semantic information supplied by the definition (cf. also Norri, 2000, p. 93). Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021

LABELS UNIQUE TO ONE DICTIONARY ONLY AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
If we address the issue concerning the labels used in one dictionary only, we can see that MED2 stands out in that as many as six labels (often humorous, very informal, journalism, mainly journalism, mainly literary and mainly spoken) can be found that occur in no other dictionary. It should, however, be emphasized that the majority of these labels appear in pairs: humorous vs. often humorous, informal vs. very informal, literary vs. mainly literary and spoken vs. mainly spoken and journalism vs. mainly journalism (the labels journalism and mainly journalism are used in MED2 only). Mainly, which precedes journalism, literary and spoken, implies that the lexical item thus marked is chiefly used in journalistic language, in literary works or in spoken language. Very, modifying informal, expresses intensification and is close to the label slang, which is not used in this dictionary. Often, however, restricts the meaning of humorous, implying that the lexical item with this label is not necessarily used with humorous connotation in all contexts. Such labels, therefore, provide more detailed information on the connotative value of the lexical item in question, but do not really contribute to clearer labelling and easier interpretation by the intended dictionary user.
Another label used in only one dictionary, i.e., LDOCE5, is written. The explanation provided in the print edition of this dictionary says that it refers to "a word or phrase that is used only, or nearly always, in written English" (authors" italics). If we compare this with the explanation given for the label formal, which states that it refers to "a word that is suitable for formal speech or writing, but would not normally be used in ordinary conversation" (authors" italics), we can see that they are both explained in a similar way. Therefore, the question can be posed whether a learner of English would really spot the difference between these two labels. Apart from the difference between written and formal, another pair is used in LDOCE5 as well as in MED2, which presents the same difficulty in interpretation as written and formal, namely, informal and spoken. A comparison of the description of these two labels offers no solution to this problem, since in MED2, the explications provided are extremely close: informal -"more common in speech than in writing and not used on a formal occasion" spoken -"used in speech rather than writing" Slightly more precise, but still not clear enough are the explications in LDOCE5: informal -"a word or phrase that is used in normal conversation, but may not be suitable for use in more formal contexts, for example in writing essays or business letters" spoken -"a word or phrase used only, or nearly always, in conversation" Although the explications of labels found in the front matter of the print editions of MLDs may not always be sufficiently precise and clear, the user has at least a reference to consult when in doubt about the exact meaning of a particular label. The problem is that nowadays, an increasing number of dictionary users do not use a print edition of a dictionary, since users prefer to consult the online dictionaries that are freely available to users with an internet connection or the CD-ROM versions accompanying the MLDs. These electronic dictionaries, however, do not necessarily offer the user the explanation of labels (the explanation of labels can be found in the online version of OALD and the CD-ROM of MED2).

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF LABELS
As far as the combination of different labels is concerned, it has already been mentioned in the Results section that the maximum number of labels found in this study is three, but often the diatopic information, mostly British English, American English, can also accompany Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 other labels, which means that the number of labels used to mark one lexical item or one sense can amount to as many as four (in OALD8, for example, the noun spiv is labelled oldfashioned, BrE, slang, disapproving; the verb swank is labelled old-fashioned, BrE, informal, disapproving). Each combination of labels is unique, since a comparison of the triple combinations shows no repetitions, which may be due either to the database not being sufficiently large to indicate such repetitions or to the lack of any template concerning the triple labelling in the dictionaries under investigation. In OALD8, the only label that appears in all three triple combinations is disapproving, while old-fashioned and slang appear in two combinations. The labels taboo and informal are used once in the triple combinations found. In LDOCE5, only one triple combination was found, which does not allow a comparison with other similar labels, while in CALD3, no label is used in all three triple combinations. The labels old-fashioned and informal are used twice, while all other labels (approving, disapproving, old use, figurative and humorous) are used once only. This implies that even the inter-dictionary comparison yields no result. All that can be said in reference to a triple combination of labels is that it is quite demanding for the dictionary user to comprehend and process this information if we take into consideration that it is probably not only labels and their comprehension that present a problem area for the userthe user probably does not consult the dictionary only to check the labels but also to seek other information (e.g., meaning, grammatical information, collocations or context; cf. also Hua & Woods, 2008;Namvar, 2012). This means that the user may regard labels as secondary (possibly inessential) information.
Another observation worthy of comment is the label figurative, which also appears in multiple labels. In all cases in our database, this label is used to mark examples illustrating the use of the lemma or one of its senses. This feature typical of the label figurative may also be why this label does not fit into any of the categories of labels enumerated in the Introduction. The label figurative can thus be said to denote secondary senses that have the status of conventional metaphors (cf. Hanks, 2006, 28).
As far as the combinations go, it is to be expected that labels belonging to different groups be combined, since it seems logical to provide the user with different types of information. This assumption is proved by studying the combinations of labels found in all four dictionaries under investigation. Diaphasic information (formal, informal) is combined with diaevaluative information (approving, disapproving, humorous), diachronic information (old-fashioned, old use) and diatextual information (literary), as well as with the label figurative. Diastratic information (slang, taboo) combines with diaevaluative (offensive, humorous) and diachronic information (old-fashioned). Diaevaluative information is found in combination with diachronic (old-fashioned, old use), diatextual (literary) and diastratic information (slang) as well as with the label figurative. Interestingly, labels expressing diaevaluative information and therefore belonging to the same group of labels can also be combined; thus, disapproving is combined with humorous and offensive, and approving with humorous. Similarly, labels expressing diastratic information, i.e., slang and taboo, can also be combined. These two groups of labels are the only groups of labels whose members combine with one another (at least in our database). This is, however, not surprising, especially if we consider the labels expressing diaevalutive information, since this group is comprised of various labels, or more precisely, it is the most heterogeneous group, with labels expressing different types of evaluation. If we take the labels expressing diaphasic information, we can see that they are represented by the labels formal and informal and the diamedial information is marked by spoken and written. These labels are beyond doubt labels expressing opposing stylistic levels, thus being incompatible with each other. The same observation can be made in connection with the labels approving and disapproving, expressing diaevaluative information, which are also mutually exclusive, but can freely Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 combine with other labels belonging to this group and still provide different types of information about the use of one particular lexical item labelled in this way. On the other hand, the labels old-fashioned and old use, which belong to the group of labels expressing diachronic information, also do not combine, since they both mark diachronic lemmata or senses.

OTHER METHODS OF PROVIDING DIASYSTEMATIC INFORMATION
When studying multiple labelling in MLDs, it can be seen that different pieces of information are not always given in the form of labels themselves. In many cases, the use of navigational devices replaces the label proper. In OALD8, for instance, the shortcut preceding senses 8 and 9 of the lemma safe (adjective) says APPROVING, which is identical with the label approving also used in this dictionary. Additionally, both senses are labelled BrE, informal, which means that the shortcut in combination with the label is an example of an indirect use of multiple labelling. Sense 8 of the above-mentioned adjective is defined as "used by young people to show that they approve of sb/sth", the definition itself suggesting that safe is used approvingly in this sense. For example: This corresponds to the method mentioned in the Introduction, by which deviations and restrictions of any kind can be integrated into different parts of definitions.

LABELLING THAT SHOULD BE AVOIDED
Some confusing examples of diasystematic data can be found in our database. An example is the treatment of the undefined run-on entry shamelessly in OALD8, which is labelled "usually disapproving but sometimes approving". Here, the opposing labels belonging to the same group (i.e., expressing diaevaluative information) are used to mark one and the same lemma, and at least the first of the two illustrative examples (i.e., The whole film is shamelessly romantic and glamorous; He shamelessly admits his part in the crime) does not provide further details on the connotative use of this adverb, thus leaving the user to make his/her own interpretation regarding the use of this adverb. Since the target user of the MLDs is a non-native speaker of English, s/he should get more precise and less confusing information about what makes this particular word approving or disapproving in specific contexts. Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021

CONCLUSION
At first sight, labels used in MLDs seem to be so clear that no explanation of their value is needed for the user (a foreign learner) to interpret them correctly. A more careful study, however, shows that this is only wishful thinking and that, in certain cases, the user needs guidance as to the exact meaning of some labels. The print versions of the latest editions of MLDs lack precise front matter giving the user the possibility to get as much information as possible from the dictionary s/he consults; instead, they provide a graphic presentation of the entries with very basic information. The print versions, however, all include a list of labels, briefly explaining the meanings of labels, but the electronic versions of the same dictionaries, be they the CD-ROM versions or the online versions, only exceptionally provide explanations of the labels used. The user is therefore left to his/her own devices, not knowing, in many cases, how to interpret certain labels s/he encounters when consulting a dictionary. Nowadays, dictionary users prefer the electronic versions to print editions because of the numerous advantages these dictionaries provide; this preference obviously results in the necessity for explaining metalinguistic information of various types, labels being, most certainly, one of these. The absence of this explanation in electronic dictionaries is a serious shortcoming of electronic dictionaries, a shortcoming that first needs to be identified to be addressed later on. An additional tab providing explanations of different types of metalinguistic information or the information provided when the label is clicked on would be of great help to the user.
In pairs of labels that are close to each other as regards the restrictions or limitations they express, thus presenting problems of interpretation, special care needs to be taken to select only such labels as are easily interpretable by the intended users, i.e., foreign learners of English. Apart from that, two labels that express opposing values should by no means be combined to form a multiple label, since this confuses the user rather than gives him/her the piece of information s/he needs, especially when encoding. Different combinations of labels used to mark lemmata or their senses may also sometimes act as deterrents to clarity, as users are faced with the issue of comprehension of several different labels listed one after the other. This is in line with the findings reported by Namatende Sakwa (2011, p. 312). Another point that should be highlighted is that the position of the label should be carefully chosen, since it determines the scope of the label. Otherwise, the dictionary user may interpret the scope of the label incorrectly, which may lead to inappropriate use of a particular lexical items or one of its senses. Repeating one and the same label to mark the same lemma or the same sense should also be avoided if lexicographers want to give intended users the correct guidance as to the use of the lemma or one of its senses.
When studying labels in LDOCE5, it was noted that there is a discrepancy between the list of labels and the actual use of labels in the dictionary (cf. slang is used in LDOCE5, although it is not included in any list of labels, as has been mentioned in the section Multiple labels in LDOCE5). Such discrepancies are also observed by Namatende Sakwa (2011, p. 308), who gives examples of usage labels not listed in the front matter but used to mark the words in the dictionaries she studied. Needless to say, all the labels used in the A-Z sections should be included and explained in the list of labels provided. Otherwise, diasystematic information can be regarded as inadequate and incomplete.
In conclusion, the inclusion of diasystematic information largely depends on the type of dictionary and especially on its intended users. Therefore, lexicographers" decisions about whether to use a label and how to use it appropriately should be based on the user profile, a recommendation which is also proposed by Ptaszynski (2010, p. 437). This is especially true of MLDs, where one of the main functions is to promote the active use of a foreign language, where every single piece of information included in the dictionary counts. It should, however, Volume 15(1), February 2015(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501 ISSN: 1675-8021 be stressed that MLDs are complex reference tools that are not easy to use if one wants to extract all the information they contain. Dictionary using skills are, therefore, very important at all stages of learning a foreign language, since users should be well aware of what they can find in their dictionaries, and they should know how to interpret and access different items of information included. Consequently, in the course of learning a foreign language, they should be trained in dictionary use. The role of the teacher in this respect is crucial, since the ability of learners to exploit as large a proportion as possible of the total information available (the labels being no exception) in learner"s dictionaries depends almost solely on the teacher of those learners. School curricula still do not put sufficient emphasis on the various dictionary using skills, although constant practice in these skills in language classes seems essential. Teaching should be supported by materials designed to increase dictionary awareness and to develop reference skills, such as the various workbooks that accompany monolingual dictionaries.