A Critique of the Controlled Defining Vocabulary in <i>Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English</i>

Abstract

This article critically analyses the Longman Defining Vocabulary (LDV) in relation toits size, range and frequency, senses, parts of speech, affixes, and multiword expressions. The recent versions of the LDV contain a relatively fixed number of items. Over 85% of those items were found to be highly frequent, and for the defining purpose, genus terms, grammatical terms, etc. have also been included. The number of affixes in the LDV has been greatly reduced, and some common derivatives have been listed separately. On the other hand, the actual size of the LDV is much larger than was reported, for LDOCE did not distinguish between the LDV items with different senses or forms. It was found that the claim of using the 'most common meanings' of the LDV items is not always held true. The parts of speech of the LDV items have not been systematically indicated. Many multiword expressions, which have been used in the definitions in LDOCE, are not part of the LDV. This study sheds some light on the improvement in the practice of using a controlled defining vocabulary in an English learner's dictionary. Keywords: CONTROLLED DEFINING VOCABULARY, LONGMAN DEFINING VOCA-BULARY, SIZE, RANGE, FREQUENCY, SENSE INDICATION, POS INDICATION, INCLUSION OF AFFIXES, INCLUSION OF MULTIWORD EXPRESSIONS Opsomming: 'n Beoordeling van die beperkte definisiewoordeskat in dieLongman Dictionary of Contemporary English. In hierdie artikel word 'n kritiese ontleding gedoen van die Longman Definisiewoordeskat (LDW) met betrekking tot die grootte, omvang en frekwensie, betekenisse, woordsoorte, affikse en meerwoordige uitdrukkings daarvan. Die onlangse weergawes van die LDW bevat 'n relatief vaste aantal items. Daar is bevind dat meer as 85% van hierdie items 'n hoë frekwensie het, en dat genusterme, grammatiese terme, ens., ook ingesluit is vir die doeleindes van definiëring. Die aantal affikse in die LDW is grootliks verminder, en sommige algemene afleidings is apart gelys. Aan die ander kant was die werklike grootte van die LDW baie groter as wat aangedui is, aangesien LDOCE nie onderskei het tussen die LDW-items met verskillende betekenisse of vorms nie. Daar is bevind dat die bewering dat die 'algemeenste betekenisse' van die LDW-items gebruik is, nie altyd gegeld het nie. Die woordsoorte van die LDW-items is nie sistematies aangedui nie. Baie meerwoordige uitdrukkings wat in die definisies van LDOCE gebruik is, vorm nie deel van die LDW nie. Hierdie studie werp lig op die verbetering in die gebruik van 'n beperkte definisiewoordeskat in 'n Engelse aanleerderswoordeboek. Sleutelwoorde IntroductionIn the English learner's dictionary market, the five major competitors except for COBUILD have all acknowledged the role of a controlled defining vocabulary (CDV) in the decoding task, and compiled definitions on the basis of around 2,000 to 3,500 CDV items. The practice of using a CDV in definitions originates from the New Method English Dictionary (NMED), a learner's dictionary which had 'an entirely original feature -definitions based on ...

Dynamic Synoptic Scheme as a Tool for Searching Phraseological Synonyms

“…Some researchers warn of such problems as polysemy of lexemes, which are newly acquired meanings used in defining vocabulary of their combinations or collocations. Additionally, defining vocabulary should also include some abstract concepts such as property, phenomenon, quality which are not among the most usable words (Xu, 2012). For the experiment's sake and for reasons of simplicity, we constrained ourselves at this stage to the most common ones.…”

“…At first glance, ten descriptors provide quite a scarce variety of very broad characteristics, unhelpful in searching specific meanings, whereas as many as 2,000 would be extremely detailed and difficult to keep in mind at a time. Having about two thousand descriptors, which is coincidentally similar to the conventional number for defining vocabularies (Xu, 2012), we calculated that a scheme with ten initial descriptors would contain sections with 200 subcategories, although 200 descriptors are still quite difficult to process. We could keep adjusting the categories and subcategories this way to get them more balanced.…”

Reflections on the Making of the Grand dictionnaire chinois–français contemporain

“…In general, the vocabulary used in this dictionary does not exceed that in Le Petit Larousse (2013) or Dictionnaire du français contemporain (1980), except a small number of scientific and technical terms (cf. Cowie 1999;Xu 2012). Consider the entry 【傲然】.…”