Is everything a “dictionary”? Exploring users’ views of online language resources


Abstract


University students of modern languages and translation seem to believe that whatever online resource provides them with bi- or multilingual equivalents is a “dictionary”. The creators of such resources, on their part, often exploit this misguided perception, presenting as “dictionaries” what are in fact resources of very different kinds and serving different purposes. Given the ubiquity and ease of access of these resources, presenting students with a critical overview of what is available online in terms of dictionaries, termbanks, multilingual concordancers and machine translation systems is arguably a necessary, if somewhat neglected, element of modern languages and translation curricula. Students’ preferences, however, should not be ignored. The resources students favour are not always created on the basis of sound lexicographic principles, but they are likely to possess features that users increasingly find important or desirable, e.g. the possibility to access a large number of authentic examples, the combination of mono- and bilingual content, and user interfaces adaptable to different devices. Dictionary makers and publishers have not remained insensitive to users’ preferences, but the significant innovations they have introduced in their products have often passed unnoticed, and dictionary user behaviour seems not to have changed much. This paper elaborates on such considerations and relates them to the results of a survey conducted on a group of 250 dictionary users, the vast majority of whom were students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programmes in foreign languages and translation. Results indicate that users rely heavily on digital resources, often lumping them together under the label of “dictionary”, but they are generally not fully aware of the innovative features that have been introduced in works of a lexicographic nature.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v49p31

Keywords: dictionaries; online dictionaries; dictionary features; dictionary users; language resources

References


Anthony L. 2019, AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software], Waseda University, Tokyo. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (30.05.2021).

Barnhart C. L. 1962, Problems in editing commercial monolingual dictionaries, in Householder F.W. and Saporta S. (eds.), Problems in lexicography, Indiana University Press, Bloomington (IN), pp.161-181.

Bergenholtz H. and Tarp S. 2003, Two opposing theories: On H.E. Wiegand’s recent discovery of lexicographic functions, in “Hermes” 31, pp. 171-196.

Frankenberg-Garcia A. 2020, Combining user needs, lexicographic data and digital writing environments, in “Language Teaching” 53 [1], pp. 29-43.

Frankenberg-Garcia A., Lew R., Roberts J., Rees G. and Sharma N. 2019, Developing a writing assistant to help EAP writers with collocations in real time, in “ReCALL” 31 [1], pp. 23-39.

Gough J. 2019, Developing translation-oriented research competence: What can we learn from professional translators?, in “The Interpreter and Translator Trainer” 13 [3], pp. 342-359.

Gouws R.H. and Tarp S. 2016, Information overload and data overload in lexicography, in “International Journal of Lexicography” 30 [4], pp. 389-415.

Hartmann R.R.K. 2001, Teaching and Researching Lexicography, Longman, Harlow.

Kilgarriff A., Baisa V., Bušta J., Jakubíček M., Kovář V., Michelfeit J., Rychlý P. and Suchomel V. 2014, The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On, in “Lexicography” 1 [1], pp. 7-36.

Koplenig A. and Müller-Spitzer C. 2014, Questions of design, in Müller-Spitzer C. (Hrsg.), Using Online Dictionaries, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp. 189-204.

Kosem I., Lew R., Müller-Spitzer C., Ribeiro Silveira M. and Wolfer S. 2019, The Image of the Monolingual Dictionary Across Europe. Results of the European Survey of Dictionary use and Culture, in “International Journal of Lexicography” 32 [1], pp. 92-114.

Levy M. and Steel C. 2015, Language learner perspectives on the functionality and use of electronic language dictionaries, in “ReCALL” 27 [2], pp. 177-196.

Lew R. 2010, New ways of indicating meaning in electronic dictionaries: hope or hype, in Zhang Y. (ed.), “Learner’s lexicography and second language teaching”, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai, pp. 387-404.

Lew R. and de Schryver G.-M. 2014, Dictionary Users in the Digital Revolution, in “International Journal of Lexicography” 27 [4], pp. 341-359.

Liu X., Zheng D. and Chen Y. 2018, Latent Classes of Smartphone Dictionary Users Among Chinese EFL Learners: A Mixed-Method Inquiry into Motivation for Mobile Assisted Language Learning, in “International Journal of Lexicography” 32 [4], pp. 68-91.

Mavrommatidou S., Gavriilidou Z. and Markos A. 2019, Development and Validation of the Strategy Inventory for Electronic Dictionary Use (S.I.E.D.U.), in “International Journal of Lexicography” 32 [4], pp. 393-410.

Müller-Spitzer C. 2014 Introduction, in Müller-Spitzer C. (Hrsg.), Using Online Dictionaries, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp. 1-10.

Müller-Spitzer C. and Koplenig A. 2014 Online dictionaries: expectations and demands, in Müller-Spitzer C. (Hrsg.), Using Online Dictionaries, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp. 143-188.

Nesi H. 2015, The demands of users and the publishing world: printed or online, free or paid for?, in Durkin P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 579-589.

Rundell M. 2009, The road to automated lexicography: first banish the drudgery.... Then the drudges?, paper presented at eLexicography in the 21st century. New challenges, new applications, Louvain-la-Neuve 22-24 October 2009, Centre for English Corpus Linguistics.

Rundell M. 2015, From Print to Digital: Implications for Dictionary Policy and Lexicographic Conventions, in “Lexikos” 25, pp. 301-322.

Sinclair J., Jones S. and Daley R. 2004, English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report, edited by R. Krishnamurthy, Continuum, London/NewYork.

Sycz-Opoń J. 2019, Information-seeking behaviour of translation students at the University of Silesia during legal translation – an empirical investigation, in “The Interpreter and Translator Trainer” 13 [2], pp. 152-176.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.