Page 47 - Winter2014

2
REVIEW bY
William A. Yost
Speech and Hearing Science Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287
book Review
A Dictionary of Hearing
Author: Maryanne Maltby
Publisher: Thieme Medical Publishing ISBN: 978-1604068283
Pages: 272
Binding: Hardcover
Publication Date: February 26, 2013 Price: $49.99
As the title of the publication indicates, this a dictionary; a book of approximately 4000 entries covering many terms used in the diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. The dictionary is intended for students, practitioners, and scholars in the fields of hearing, especially those involved with the clinical/audiological aspects of hearing. The dictionary provides the term, any acronyms, the part of speech (e.g., noun), current status of the term’s use, usual pronunciation, plural/singular forms of the term, the term’s etymology and brief onomastic information, known synonyms, and meaning/ definition. In addition, the book includes a list of additional common acronyms used in hearing research and clinical practice. The definitions do not contain any equations or figures, and units of measurement are usually expressed in SI (Système Internation- al d’Unités) units. The author is a British audiologist, teacher of the deaf, and author of several books and other dictionaries in the field of audiology.
While it would always be possible to find terms not covered in a dictionary like this one, A Dictionary of Hearing misses very few. Those that I thought of (e.g., dead regions/zones or informational and energetic masking) were very current and mainly represented the more experimental, as opposed to clinical, aspects of hearing. The author’s inclusion of the origin of many of the terms, especially regarding researchers and clinicians responsible for the term, added an enjoyable and informative aspect to what would normally be rather dry reading. While one might question the inclusion of many terms that are no longer used, I found the meaning of most of these terms
to be informative in regards to their origins and the fact that the term was obsolete or had been replaced by a different term. The use of cross-referencing was rather limited and somewhat idiosyncratic, requiring more “leafing back and forth” than I wanted to do. And, the same terms are sometimes defined somewhat differently in different parts of the book.
The dictionary’s strength is also its weakness. The definitions are as the author indi- cates, “stated in clear and simple language.” Indeed, almost anyone would be able to
| 45