Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Abstract

Abstract:The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form. 1 An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro-and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography. Keywords: PAPER DICTIONARIES, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES, DICTIONARY USE, ENCODING, DECODING, RETENTION, RESEARCH METHODS, REPLICATION, MENUS, HIGHLIGHTING, NOISE, ACCESS, ENTRY LENGTHOpsomming: Waarom een en twee nie gelyk is aan drie nie -woordeboekvorm herbeskou. Die primêre doel van die artikel is om die bruikbaarheid van papier-en elektroniese weergawes van OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) te vergelyk vir taalenkodering en -dekodering en die aanleer van taal. Daar word verduidelik waarom, in teenstelling met Dziemianko (2010) se bevindinge betreffende COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), maar in ooreenstemming met haar waarnemings (Dziemianko 2011) met betrekking tot LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), die e-weergawe van OALDCE7 geblyk het nie beter te wees vir taalresepsie en -produksie en die aanleer van taal as die woordeboek in boekvorm nie. 1 'n Poging word aangewend om die mikro-en makrostrukturele ontwerpkenmerke aan te stip wat e-COBUILD6 'n beter onderrighulpmiddel maak as e-OALDCE7 en e-LDOCE5. Aanbevelings betreffende verdere navorsing oor die belangrikheid van die medium (papier vs. elektronies) in die proses van woordeboekgebruik sluit die studie af. Die sekondêre doel wat die artikel probeer bereik, is om die status van replisering as 'n wetenskaplike navorsingsmetode aan te bied en die gebruik daarvan in die leksikografie te regverdig. WOORDEBOEKE, WOORDE-BOEKGEBRUIK, ENKODERING, DEKODERING, RETENSIE, NAVORSINGSMETODES, REPLI-SERING, KIESLYSTE, BELIGTING, GERAAS, TOEGANG, LENGTE VAN INSKRYWING 196 Anna Dziemianko Sleutelwoorde: PAPIERWOORDEBOEKE, ELEKTRONIESE Introduction The usefulness of paper and electronic dictionariesElectronic counterparts of printed monolingual English learners' dictionaries, available on CD-ROMs, online, or -increasingly often -on portable electronic devices, are taken for granted these days. Some of them appear to be quite close to their predecessors in book form (Rogers 1996, Nesi 1999. However, it is strongly stressed that e-dictionaries should not be just electronic remakes of existing printed dictionaries, but should rather be compiled from scrat...

Dictionary form in decoding, encoding and retention: Further insights

“…11 However, MEDO stimulated significantly better retention of meaning and collocations. Thus, for reception and production, the conclusions from the current study coincide with those from the two replications in which the paper and e-versions of LDOCE5 and OALDCE7 were comparably useful in these two tasks (Dziemianko, 2011(Dziemianko, , 2012b. For retention, in turn, the results resemble those obtained by Dziemianko (2010), where e-COBUILD6 proved to be much more useful in retention than COBUILD6 in book form.…”

“…In Study 3 (Dziemianko, 2012b), 42 participants worked with OALDCE7 in book form, 44 with the CD-ROM version of the same dictionary installed on PCs. Broadly speaking, the results confirm those obtained in the second study; dictionary medium proved to be inconsequential for language reception (paper 93.2%, electronic 96.1%), production (paper 95.2%, electronic 93.1%) and learning (passive recall: paper 34%, electronic 28.7%; active recall: paper 36.2%, electronic 23.8%; p > 0.05).…”

Language learner perspectives on the functionality and use of electronic language dictionaries

“…In many instances, the traditional dictionary has been combined with such resources as conjugation and translation tools thus converging into a new kind of entity, one that may contain much more information but at the same time, conversely, be more difficult to navigate or read because of poorly-conceived links or advertising (see Dziemianko, 2012b). Dziemianko (2012a) provides a useful overview concerning the "typical" features of the modern electronic dictionary.…”

“…The evolution in recent years from the hardcopy dictionary to the electronic version has led to many changes and refinements (Dziemianko, 2012a; Granger & Paquot, 2012; Humblé, 2001; Loucky, 2010). In many instances, the traditional dictionary has been combined with such resources as conjugation and translation tools thus converging into a new kind of entity, one that may contain much more information but at the same time, conversely, be more difficult to navigate or read because of poorly-conceived links or advertising (see Dziemianko, 2012b).…”

Dictionary Users in the Digital Revolution

“…These studies are somewhat difficult to operationalize, as it is not altogether clear how exactly the effect of medium should be rendered in an experimental setup. The problem is brought into focus in a series of studies comparing paper and digital dictionaries conducted by Dziemianko (2010Dziemianko ( , 2011Dziemianko ( , 2012. Even though a similar research design was used and comparable groups of users were recruited as participants, findings vary quite markedly from one study to another.…”