Compiling a dictionary is a formidable undertaking. Noah Webster published the first American dictionary in 1806 and immediately set about revising it to his formidable An American Dictionary of the English Language published 22 years later in 1828. The next revision appeared in 1840. These timelines provide some estimate of the effort involved in such an undertaking.

The INS Dictionary of Neuropsychology has taken 12 years to compile from the gleam in the eye of then president Muriel Lezak to the final push by current editor David Loring for completion in 1999. Having witnessed most of this process from its inception, I can attest to the multiple efforts put forth by numerous individuals to achieve the current product. It is almost remarkable that the project was completed at all since, as opposed to Webster, who successfully marketed his dictionaries for sale, the individuals contributing to the INS dictionary have done so primarily with little or no remuneration or personal gain. That being said, the dictionary is now a reality.

As the 1999 INS president Julia Hannay pointed out in her forward, construction of the INS dictionary is necessarily complicated by the fact that INS is a multidisciplinary organization. INS is also international in nature. Thus, the idiosyncratic jargon peculiar to one discipline or country will not always translate to another, and this shows up in the current text. For example, the INS dictionary defines “dyslexia” as a primary reading disability (acknowledging its European variants) while “alexia” is defined as an acquired reading disability. While this agrees with other medical definitions (e.g., Dorland's, 1994), the same cannot be said for related topics such as “aphasia” and “dysphasia.” The INS dictionary defines “aphasia” as “an acquired disorder of symbolic language processing” (p. 15); there is no mention of “dysphasia.” Dorland's Medical Dictionary (1994), on the other hand, distinguishes “aphasia,” “the defect or loss of the power of expression …” (p 105) from “dysphasia,” an “impairment of speech consisting in lack of coordination and failure to arrange words in their proper order.” Similarly, The INS dictionary defines “agraphia” but not “dysgraphia” which Dorland's (1994) defines as “difficulty in writing” (p. 515). While it is not clear that these distinctions are always meaningful, the fairly common use of both types of words in clinical terminology would suggest that some further clarification would be in order for the INS text.

A somewhat more basic increment that might be useful in such an opus would be formal definitions of the field itself. How often are we asked, in forensic or other settings, “What is neuropsychology?” While most of us undoubtedly have definitions we standardly employ, it is somewhat surprising that the word “neuropsychology” itself is not defined in this dictionary. Neither is “Clinical Psychology” or “Neurology.” On the other hand, “speech pathologist” is defined. As the dictionary is a multidisciplinary vehicle, consistency in some of these more generic definitions would be valuable.

Finally, while definitions are available for many wonderful terms, such as “aprosexia—a disturbance of attention and concentration associated with psychomotor inefficiency” (p. 21), there will be others which various of us will find missing, such as “pseudotumor cerebri” or “kwashiorkor.” Of course, the need for such definitions rests with the individual peculiarities of the user, though, as Webster showed with his revised dictionaries, more is better.

Webster's passion in creating his dictionaries was to make the American language standard and he achieved his aim by making his dictionary the standard reference. It is to be hoped that the INS Dictionary of Neuropsychology will become a similar standard for our interdisciplinary field, fostering accurate communication between disciplines and between countries. As with any dictionary, this text is a work in progress and will need to be revised and added to on a regular basis. It is the fondest hope that the INS will continue to foster this project and that succeeding revisions will appear with rapidity. Nevertheless, the INS Dictionary already succeeds remarkably in its aim of being a valuable resource to “students, practitioners, and researchers” (Editor's Preface) and it is highly recommended for the bookshelves of all working in the area of neuropsychology. It is also noted that the dictionary is inexpensive ($24.95 in paperback) and thus easily available to all interested parties. A common language will foster consensual notions and nourish progress in the development of our field. Bravo for this fine effort.