Reflections on Lexicographical User Research

Abstract

Abstract:The last decades have seen a growing interest in theoretical and practical problems related to lexicographical user research. Starting with a discussion of the concept of lexicographically relevant user needs, this contribution analyses, utilising the lexicographical function theory, various types of needs to be taken into account when doing this kind of research. It then discusses the positive and negative aspects of the various methods applied, i.e. questionnaires, interviews, observation, protocols, experiments, tests, and log files. With reference to both lexicographical and sociological literature, it raises a number of problems common to most of the lexicographical user research conducted until now and recommends the application of scientific methods in future research. Finally, it proposes a number of alternative methods in order to obtain more knowledge about the real user needs. Keywords: LEXICOGRAPHY, FUNCTION THEORY, DICTIONARY USAGE, USER NEEDS, USER TYPOLOGY, USER SITUATIONS, USER RESEARCH, RESEARCH METHODS, QUES-TIONNAIRES, INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTS, TESTS, LOG FILESOpsomming: Gedagtes oor leksikografiese gebruikersnavorsing. Die laaste dekades het 'n groeiende belangstelling in teoretiese en praktiese probleme betreffende leksikografiese gebruikersnavorsing gesien. Deur met 'n bespreking van die konsep van leksikografies tersaaklike gebruikersbehoeftes te begin, ontleed hierdie bydrae, met gebruikmaking van die leksikografiese funksieteorie, verskillende soorte behoeftes wat in aanmerking geneem moet word wanneer hierdie soort navorsing gedoen word. Dit bespreek dan die positiewe en negatiewe aspekte van die verskillende metodes wat benut word, d.w.s. vraelyste, onderhoude, waarneming, protokolle, eksperimente, toetse, en loglêers. Met verwysing na sowel leksikografiese as sosiologiese literatuur, bring dit 'n aantal probleme ter sprake tipies van die meeste leksikografiese gebruikersnavorsing wat tot nou toe gedoen is en beveel dit die toepassing van wetenskaplike metodes in toekomstige navorsing aan. Ten slotte stel dit 'n aantal alternatiewe metodes voor om meer kennis te verkry oor die werklike gebruikersbehoeftes.

The Design of Morphological/ Linguistic Data in L1 and L2 Monolingual, Explanatory Dictionaries: A Functional and/or Linguistic Approach?

“…Tarp 2009a: 284). That is exactly the kind of warning (and presentation of solutions) one finds, for example, in Babbie and Mouton's (2001) discussion of the way researchers must build the necessary precautionary measures into the design and application of any method to avoid possible problems in the use of the many methods discussed by Tarp (2009aTarp ( , 2014) (cf., for example, Babbie and Mouton 2001: 239-249 on the design/ construction of questionnaire). The point has to be emphasized that the possible problems researchers may experience with the application and interpretation of the results of any of these methods is well-known and that (good) manuals on social research build the necessary precautionary measures into the design and application of various methods, and in the interpretation of the results of the research done with these methods.…”

“…In Section 2 it was mentioned that two other strategies to address the problems posed by claiming FT to be a lexicographic theory are (1) to define theory in such vague terms that any set of pronouncements could be classified as a theory, or (2) to define theory in such a reductionist way that only FT could be classified as a theory (thus excluding any other competing theories). Both of these strategies are used in Tarp (2009aTarp ( , 2014. An example of a very vague definition of theory is a reference to a theory as "a systematically organized set of statements about the subject treated" (Tarp 2014: 72).…”

“…(Cf. Tarp 2014: 62 for a brief discussion of a number of concepts, theories and methods from Linguistics which proponents of FT have reanalysed to suit the goals of FT.) Tarp (2009a) provides an in-depth and critical discussion of the methods commonly used in user research (in LL): questionnaires, interviews, observation, protocols, experiments and log files. The method he uses in this article is (1) to support up front the opinion of others that the use and the results of such methods of user research are in fact a waste of time and money (cf.…”

“…As questionnaires are the most common methods used in user research, and as this is the method criticized by Bergenholtz and Gouws (2013), it could serve as example of Tarp's (2009a) analysis. Tarp (2009a: 284) classifies questionnaires as consisting typically of -closed questions to which respondents have to give the answers to predetermined categories, and -open questions to which respondents may add answers to other categories than the predetermined ones Following Welker (2006), Tarp (2009a: 284) indicates that the questions asked in questionnaires can be divided into three types (with the example questions changed to reflect questions):…”

“…Although Tarp (2009a) rejects non-integrated linguistic theories as candidates for (sub-)theories of lexicography, Tarp (2014) is rather generous with regard to the candidate(s) for the choice of a general lexicographical theory. Tarp (2014) defines the field broadly, in correspondence with what he defines as the research object/subject field of lexicography: dictionaries and all other kinds of reference works.…”